Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 1-15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16-31 2007 Deletion review archives June 16-30 2007 >

15 June 2007

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

We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it.— Jimbo Wales. On that day, the day that Jimbo randomly declared it all right to edit, discuss and improve... well, wait a second. If you study what he said closely, he doesn't even say that's what's going to happen. All he says is we may discuss it again. And well the article wasn't undeleted, but...... the talk page should be restored so we can discuss it again. SakotGrimshine 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was restored, and got deleted again, so the talk is not required to discuss the article, if you disagree with the original deletion, start a DRV for the article not the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by language was speedy-kept "per this being a WP:POINT nomination" when discussion had barely begun. In fact, several people had also mentioned WP:POINT, although no one ever said exactly what point they thought I was disrupting Wikipedia to make. As it happens, I wasn't. The Babel categories (Category:Wikipedians by language and its subcategories, however long-standing they may be, are unencyclopedic. They do not help the project in any way. The few people who did manage to say something before the discussion was closed claimed these categories are used to help in translation, but in fact they aren't. Category:Available translators in Wikipedia does that. Not everyone who is competent in a given language is able to translate it, and certainly not everyone who is capable of translating a given language is willing to do so. Once the red herring of translation assistance has been removed from these categories, there's nothing left for them to do except contribute to the MySpacification of Wikipedia. Therefore I request that the speedy-keep be overturned, and the UCFD discussion allowed to run its course. —Angr 21:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse There is a great shake-up in UCfD's right now. Let this one have a breather before starting in on it. Also re-opening this would promote wheel-warring. -N 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I closed this once, it was closed a second time by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Seems to have little chance of being deleted; I suggested that a discussion on the village pump would be appropriate for these before the CfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it has little chance of being deleted if the discussion keeps getting cut off before it has a chance to get underway. And the village pump is not the place to discuss the removal of unencyclopedic content; XfD is. —Angr 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Great candidate for speedy keep. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and recommend this deletion review be speedy-closed as a patent violation of WP:POINT. Babel categories, beyond being a tool that may help localize possible translators (in which it is not a unique tool) also help in determining one's possible interest in articles that are of specific interest in a culture. Myself, I am a French-speaking Canadian, but through my understanding of French, I will have a keener interest in articles about French, Quebec or any other kind of frnacophone culture. Seeing Babel categories as just a potential source of translators is gravely underestimating the usefulness of these categories.--Ramdrake 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, the Babel categories are not a potential source of translators anyway, because not everyone included in these categories is ready, willing, or able to translate the language whose category they're in. Your interest in articles pertaining to French does not mean you have to be included in a category of Wikipedians who have some knowledge of French. And the next time someone accuses me of violating WP:POINT without bothering to explain why they think that, I shall scream. I have explained in detail both in the original CFD and again here why these categories are unencyclopedic, and no one has given one single coherent reason to think they aren't, let alone a single reason why the issue shouldn't even be discussed. Instead, they just keep squawking "WP:POINT! WP:POINT! WP:POINT!" without stopping to consider the fact that a category of Wikipedians who speak French is no more helpful to encyclopedia-building than a category of Wikipedians who like bananas, and that a category of Wikipedians who speak a politically charged language like, say, Kurdish, may be as harmful to encyclopedia-building as any other category of Wikipedians based on their political beliefs. —Angr 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Angr, many people are multilingual and it is inaccurate to state that their linguistic knowledge is an indication of their political beliefs. It is also inappropriate to state that expressing knowledge of a certain language involves any sort of political expression. For instance, nothing precludes a militant Turkish nationalist from being able to speak Kurdish. Also, Kurdish (like many others) is a politically charged language only in specific contexts; in many others it is just a language. The same is true of English. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that not all speakers of any given language share the same political beliefs. But the perception that it may be the case makes these categories politically dangerous and potentially "inflammatory and divisive". Nor did I mean to imply Kurdish was unique or even unusual in this regard; I picked it as a particularly salient example, but virtually any other language could have served the purpose. The point is, these categories are just as susceptible to vote-stacking as the more explicitly political categories (even though the risk of people one expected to be on one's side voting against one's position is also just as high as with the political categories). —Angr 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you mean to say that you regard Babel language categories as potential statements of political affiliations? If that's the case I'm afraid you're dead wrong. That's merely prejudice, and it is this attitude, and not the reverse which is potentially harmful to Wikipedia. How can stating the languages one speaks be a divisive element on Wikipedia? The fact is, most speakers of any given language usually represent a whole spectrum of political beliefs, not a narrow range as you seem to be erroneously implying.--Ramdrake 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm saying the Babel language categories have the potential to be misused that way (making them potentially harmful), and that they have no actual benefit to the encyclopedia. The fact that, say (again, this is just an example) Irish republicans may not have tremendous success finding sympathizers in Category:User ga-N doesn't mean they won't try. If that category were actually good for something related to encyclopedia-building, we would keep it anyway. But it isn't. These categories do no good, and could do harm, so we should delete them. —Angr 01:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was a valid keep per WP:SNOW, though I am unconvinced of the accuracy of the WP:POINT allegations. Perhaps only the closing decision should be modified. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I cringe to call for an endorse of a speedy close of anything, as I've been burned on this one. However, let me explain:
  • 1. The categories are most certainly useful. Nothing my-space-y about them: in fact, I've been able to use them in the past.
  • 2. This really is a case where WP:SNOW applies, as even if it's not a WP:POINTy opening, there's little doubt as to the outcome. I fully support speedy closures where the result is already foreknown. The Evil Spartan 00:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Instantly keep-able. I can't stand the Babel system, and still I find this an unsupportable argument.--Mike Selinker 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse keep. Re the commentary by the editor requesting the overturn: on the contrary, the cat is eminently useful. I use it all the time in order to locate Wikipedians who have a specialization in a particular language or script, when such expertise is needed on a page I am working to improve. Such groundless assertions that this category is useless, coupled with attempts to remove it entirely from Wikipedia, are entirely unhelpful to our project and must cease. Badagnani 06:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you have actually successfully found people who know something about the language in question in the category? If so, then congratulations! I used to try to use these categories to find people knowledgeable about various languages, but it never worked. Knowledge of one's native language is entirely subconscious, so it can't be accessed in a way where others can use it. (Try asking native English speakers when to say he and when to say him. I bet 90% of them can't tell you, even though they always get it right themselves.) And even if finding native and fluent speakers were beneficial to the encyclopedia, what use are the xx-1 and xx-2 categories? How does it help the project to know that someone has only a beginner's knowledge or intermediate knowledge of a language?? —Angr 07:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Angr, you seem to be mixing up knowing the language and being an expert on the grammar for a given language. Most people who speak a language learn its grammar, apply it and then tend to forget the rules on a conscious level (unless they work with them every day, such as a language teacher). That doesn't mean the category is useless. It means you are likely to need to ask several people in a given category before you can find one who can answer your question. Sounds like you may be expecting too much of a category.--Ramdrake 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not mixing the two up, but I think the people who claim these categories benefit the encyclopedia are. Precisely because being a speaker of a language does NOT entail consciously knowing anything about the language (and vice versa--I know a lot about Irish, but I don't speak it well at all), these categories cannot be used to locate people who know something about the languages. What I expect of a category of Wikipedians is that it be useful for building the encyclopedia, and these aren't. —Angr 13:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Just passing through Badagnani's contributions and saw this discussion. I fulfilled a language request for this editor - so perhaps the categories are useful for something. Cheers, Paxse 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The arguments presented for deleting are too weak. The userspace does not have to be encyclopedic, and this categorisation is a popular way for users to identify themsleves. Templates for users should be more about what users want to say about themselves or identify, than what is really useful. GB 09:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This keep rationale is almost entirely incorrect about user categories, which must be encyclopedic and are not in user space. They are not a form of free expression and are regularly deleted if they don't serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, but I think it's been amply proven in this discussion that Babel categories indeed do have a definite use, even though it might not be as straightforward as some editors would like it to be.--Ramdrake 14:16, 19 June 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.
Sokker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Sokker Manager, a web-based soccer simulation, has grown to over 47,000 users worldwide since it was first deleted in March 2006. Similar browser games like Hattrick, Battrick, Managerzone, Championship Manager Online, and Football Dot Manager all have active Wikipeida pages, yet Sokker keeps having its page deleted based on a debate that occurred well over a year ago. Reasons for deletion then were that it was an advertisement for the game, but various Sokker users want to make it into a guide/interesting article like the other similar game pages; however, the page is not allowed to stay it cannot be completed to reach the desired article point. Sokker has a page in other Wikipedia languages including Spanish, Dutch, and Italian (and maybe a few more). Why not English? Can we have another debate or will somebody please restore this page so it can be fine-tuned and finished. After all, with 47,000+ users spanning across six different continents, it is rather notable. WildManKY 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you say "users want to make it into a guide" that instantly rings alarm bells, per what wikipedia is not. Are there multiple non-trivial sources written by independant third parties in reliable sources for this. If so can you point us to two or three? (Note inclusion on other wikipedia is irrelevant, each one has differing inclusion standards, nor does similar articles here per WP:INN --pgk 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I say make it into a guide, I mean make it into an article very similar to the other ones. Talks of a parent company and developers, user interaction, game history and features, etc. It also belongs in various article categories that Wikipedia has. These are all attributes that the other English articles have, nothing less. If that's not good enough for an article, then what's with double standard?WildManKY 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read WP:INN? We still need those reliable sources --pgk 21:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please show me the reliable sources that Championship Manager Online and Football Dot Manager both hold on to for dear life, and then tell me that you're not holding Sokker to a double standard. We can provide game reviews and external help web sites that the game uses, which is also what the other articles have. People obviously want to establish this page and to maintain it with factual information. I would understand if we actually owned Sokker and stood to gain monetarily from people knowing about it, but we don't. This is not proactive advertising and deserves a article page simply based on the amount of people that play the game. Games like these help to bridge international gaps in communities and people should have the right to know about them. WildManKY 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Admiral insignia.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

One of many United States Navy officer rank insignia uploaded in 2005. Deleted by User:Majorly as having no source. I noticed this when Majorly began to orphan the commons image showing through. I believe we should WP:AGF these are indeed public domain images (works of the U.S. Navy) until shown otherwise. -N 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close debate - I believe you want to handle this at the commons, not here. The Evil Spartan 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I care not how commons closes the deletion discussion. I believe the local version should be restored, so the tag {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}} can be added, since apparently it was missing. This image was tagless when the generic {{military-insignia}} was deprecated. Either that, or list any of the other dozen or so images from the same set by the same uploader for deletion. I tried to retag them all when military insignia was deprecated but it looks like I missed this one -N 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean that "[You] believe we should assume these are indeed public domain images...", right? AGF has nothing to do with this, because no one is assuming that the uploaders of these images were acting in bad faith. That said, I am kind of frustrated that someone interested in the images has not yet found out the copyright status of these images; they have been around for at least two years, you'd think if they were public domain we would have found out by now. --Iamunknown 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it was a single person, User:Mbr7975. -N 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are others who uploaded many images (not of these insignia though), notably (due to a lengthy arbitration case, disputes with a prominent then-admin) User:Husnock. The underlying problem is that we simply do not know with assurety that these images are indeed in the public domain. I have read assertions by some editors knowledge in copyright law that they must be in the public domain due to the Geneva convention's requirements that all countries may reproduce military insignia, but (IMO) asserting that (1) because the Geneva conventions requirements (2) military insignia is in the public domain is a logical fallacy; all it says is that the Geneva convention permits other countries to reproduce military insignia, it says nothing of derivative works, commercial reuse, etc. That said, I am not sure how this will be resolved (and so I guess I can understand why editors, even those interested in these images, have yet not resolved them), because I am not aware of any case law or legal opinions of intellectual property lawyers that deal with these types of works. At this point I simply feel I am spilling ink, and that DRV is the inappropriate venue to resolve these issues. The image as deleted or undeleted will not change that fact; it will only change the fact that we will be able to use it. --Iamunknown 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not talking about non US images. That debate is not for DRV, I agree. This uploader uploaded US Navy images and marked them as PD. There is no proof the images by this uploader are not {{PD-USGov-Military-Badge}}. The rest of the images in this set by this uploader have been maintained. This particular image just failed to get a proper new tag when {{military-insignia}} was deprecated. -N 20:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The long version: Sorry about misinterpreting your points. A lingering doubt I have is that the image (I am examining the Answers.com mirror) appears to be more than a simple graphical representation and is instead a photograph. If this image was indeed a photograph instead of an illustration, we need to know whose work it is (or if it is a work of the United States government / State Department / Military) in order to verify its copyright status. (But we only need to do that if we feel that there was original authorship in creating the photograph - if it is indeed a photograph. That is debatable; it is my opinion that we should not extend the slavish-reproduction rule of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. to anything other than its original scope - paintings, but I understand that others disagree.) Indeed, no evidence has been provided to show that the images are not PD by virtue of being property of the United States military (or by virtue of being slavish reproductions of such works), but neither has any evidence shown that they are PD by the same virtue.
          • The short version: I left a note on the uploader's — User talk:Mbr7975 — talk page and requested comment here. He or she was active as of last month, so maybe we will soon hear comment!
          • My opinion: maintain status quo (deleted) until we learn of the source or the uploader's comment. --Iamunknown 20:25, 15 June 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.
Ball piston engine (Wolfhart engine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This engine fits 100% in the “proposed engine designs” [[1]] and has merit. Some criticized things can be changed.

By the way: The same German article survived just a deletion attempt. [2]

The Wolfhart Engine is even honored in the portal of Wikipedia: [3]

--Wolfhart Willimczik - Physicist & Inventor 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventor (talk • contribs)

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

The whole discussion was incomplete with outstanding issues unadressed and yet this has been closed and the categories removed. Also this now leaves one borough with people categorised incorrectly as being from Ealing when they may be from somewhere very different which just happens to be in the Borough of that name. Finally this now puts Ealing out of sync with the rest of the London categories, which no consideration has to be given to. The original deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:People from Ealing by district and please note the sub cats also deleted with this. Regan123 17:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree the categories should be restored. The retrospective application of contemporary units to people who were born hundreds of years before their creation is highly problematic. The individual settlement categories were categorised into groups by current units (i.e. People from Ealing by district) and by the historic divisions to avoid anachronistic use. The individual settlements people are from are 100% verifiable through documentary evidence; I do know of any source which documents people retrospectively by current districts. MRSC • Talk 18:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as reasonable, and adequately discussed, since many of the considerations were also previously discussed at analogous deletions. As I understand it, all smaller regions were merged into boroughs as possible, so I ask for further elucidatation of "out of sync." The problems involving change of name over time are common to many cities. If one knows England well enough to look for people in one of the previous smaller towns, wouldn't one know they are now in Ealing? There are only 42 people at present in the combined category.DGG 18:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. --Kbdank71 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge/deletion - For a debate at WP:CFD, this debate had a reasonable amount of discussion. Moreover, the proposal was also discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London with a fair amount of support (although Regan123 and MRSC dissented). The deletion/merge really seemed appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Looking at Regan123's comments further, I can comment that it may be appropriate to propose upmerging other "People from borough by district" categories into "People from borough" categories. This also does seem to have some support at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London, and it would eliminate the "out of sync" problem cited by Regan123. (Regan123 even requested at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London that further merge proposals should wait pending the outcome of the debate here.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would object to any upmerging. This is an England wide system not just for London and has been used to try and avoid historic/new county edit wars as well as confusion. My contention here is that the structure should be restored and a full discussion across the whole of England and/or the whole UK is structured to gain a consensus for the way forward. Regan123 23:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A community decision needs to be made as this affects all the UK, not just Ealing or London. There is resentment at the use of local government districts and this is an emotive issue with some (more pronounced outside London). Following this idea nationwide would produce arguments similar to the one going on at the moment over the naming of Category:Oldham. It would not be so bad if we were only dealing with people born after 1965/1974, but we are not. Although to my mind the greater concern is that we are introducing innacuracies, and this concern has not been properly addressed other than to say it is a rationalisation exercise. A rationalisation exercise which introduces errors should be halted and reversed. If there is genuine desire to expand this, we need to take the decision at a much higher level with much wider input. MRSC • Talk 05:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid CFD. >Radiant< 11:31, 18 June 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.
Research Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A notable footage library that owns the rights to many shows from the '50s, '60s and '70s. BlueLotas 16:40, 15 June 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.
Catherine_Saxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hi, I am looking to restore my page to wikipedia. I have been working very hard to create my first wikipedia page. Seeing as I have never done this before, I have made a couple of mistakes on the copyright information about my uploaded photos and text in my article. I have all the copyrights to everything I have put up on my article; yet, due to improper citing I have been accused of plagiarsm. I would really like to fix this misunderstanding, but my page keeps getting deleted before I get a chance to and now I see it is protected so I can not even start it again correctly. I have worked very hard to try to get my page up, and it is very frustrating that the reason all of my work has been deleted is due to my lack of experience, and not plagiarism. I have just received permission from wikipedia to use the content of my article on the website. However, I am still facing notability problems and I am not sure as to why. I am not writing an autobiogrpahical entry. I am currently a student at the University of Michigan who is majoring in Comminication Studies. The woman who I am writing this page about is indeed very notable. When looking at the notability guidelines, I see that she without question meets the requirements. In the Public Relations field she has great name recognition and is regarded as an important figure by the peers in the field. Even though she has neither invented any new technology or created a new drug like other people written about in wikipedia, in the field that she is in (the world of publicity and celebrity) she is extremely important. She is published by outside reliable sources, such as NY Magazine, listed as one of the "Who's Who of American Women," and works with extremely important people (such as Presidents, Heads of States, and celebrities). I am not using wikipedia to create importance for anyone nor am I writing an article about myself or doing any other unethical thing that is frowned upon by wikipedia. I am simply trying to write about a fascinating woman who I think is extremely important in the field of Public Relations. I do not know how to impress this upon the editors, but she is a notable woman who deserves an article written about her on wikipedia. Obviously as a first-time user I have made a lot of mistakes, but now that I have been working for a couple of days I have learned more and would really like the chance to finish my article. Jororo 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC) — Jororo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • So maybe you can fix the blatant copyright infringement. That would just leave conflict of interest, lack of apparent notability, the lack of independence of the sole source you used (the company website), and the fact that it appeared to be promoting rather than documenting the subject. Maybe it would help if you honed your Wikipedia skills by writing about some other subjects. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Gsearch shows that her corporation is not-notable: [5]. In fact, my mother has almost as many ghits as she does (and no, I'm not giving you her name to test it out). With all due respect, ma'am (sir?), I do not believe that she passes the notability guidelines. Who's who's lists are famous for being chalk full of non-important people. If you have any links to a site which speaks of her notability, please provide them, but as is, it's clearly non-notable. The Evil Spartan 18:54, 15 June 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.
IM+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

new article with reliable and verifiable sources and new information, not previously mentioned. If approved the article should appear under IM+ title. Pleave view additional discussion on User Talk: JonHarder Leanalove 09:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"01:16, 15 June 2007 Picaroon9288 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Wikipedians who support the American Civil Liberties Union" (divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose)". Surely the category could have been renamed (to members of the ACLU)? Notice he didn't call it "inflammatory" because it's not. Since it's not inflammatory, speedy deletion was inappropriate, and it should be sent to WP:UCFD. -N 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The MfD on this page was closed as 'blank the content' despite a clear consensus to keep... nine people, including several admins, said that the page should be kept and/or that the MfD itself was improper while five said that the page should be deleted or blanked. No, 'we don't count', but it is just ridiculous to pretend there is a 'consensus' for something when people are 2 to 1 against it. The blanked content can be seen here. Essentially, the user has complaints about Wikipedia and some users have decided that they should not be allowed to post them on their user page. Since the page was blanked rather than deleted it doesn't really belong on DRV, but people are edit warring to keep it blanked so this is as good a place as any for deciding whether Wikipedia has adopted a policy of suppressing criticism. I hope this is 'overturned' (not that it was ever really endorsed in the first place) because we have always claimed that Wikipedia is open to criticism and doesn't suppress people just for saying things we might not agree with. IMO we shouldn't be bullying and blocking users simply for criticizing some aspect of the project. It's shameful and embarrassing. We used to allow this sort of thing. CBD 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the reasoning. If the content is incivil, and it's against ArbCom, how does keeping the history around help anyone? I'm beginning to seriously question the common-sense of closing editors. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close Since nothing was deleted, deletion review is hardly the forum for this. Take it to mediation or rfc instead, or better yet, leave the user a note on his talk page. He can decide if/when he returns to Wikipedia. -N 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's here because the users blanking the page are using the MfD as 'justification' and insisting that the MfD close result stands unless overturned by a DRV. We could edit war over it... but I'd rather just declare the MfD close/blanking invalid. --CBD 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The MfD close is supposed to be a reflection of community consensus and should be hard to overturn. I'm saying DRV is not the place to take non-deletions unless the page retention was against community consensus. Neither of those results is true here (instead the result was to edit the page, which is a result DRV does not review). Try WP:RFC, WP:MEDIATION, or wait for User:Tobias Conradi to edit his page to whatever he pleases instead. -N 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We review MfD decisions at DRV. An MfD closed against consensus is usually pretty easy to review. I think you are saying that because this MfD was also closed with a result that was non-standard it's not a valid MfD to be reviewed at DRV... it is more of a 'keep' result combined with a group of editors trying to enforce their view in a content dispute and should be handled through dispute resolution. Yes? It's a bit overly bureaucratic for my tastes, but that still amounts to no 'official mandate' for this repeated blanking of the user's page against their wishes. For the record, you suggest waiting for the user to edit his page... he did, and then it was blanked again. --CBD 12:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For debates which end in a merge and someone brings it here, they normally get told to go away as merge is an editorial decision, the xFD decision was to keep. That said we have had various MFDs (Esperanza etc.) which have gone away from the simple cases and are being used to demonstrate some form of community consensus, I wouldn't be happy with this one doing that since it hasn't necessarily had the breadth of community input something like Esperanza did. In this case I'd be tempted just to ask arbcom to clarify if the page as was, was ok within the terms of their decision (Something I don't understand why none of the delete/remove proponents did, if they are that sure it falls outside of the decision it'll be a no-brainer and save any doubt) --pgk 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Request for clarification was posted at RFARB in the middle of the debate, but ignored. I'll see if I can gather some more attention. --Iamunknown 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close this is squarely under the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee and is a content dispute in any case. -N 16:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second the motion to close, nothing to see here; this is also an edit war (and no, I don't consider user pages "content dispute" for obvious reasons). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my decision, while the consensus was to keep (the history), I blanked the page because it seemed to violate the ArbCom ruling against Tobias Conradi, and it was suggested by several editors. This should be brought to their attention, not here. --Coredesat 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to second guess the arbitration committee. Any editor, Tobias Conradi or anyone else, can petition the Committee for clarification if he thinks their ruling has been misinterpreted. --Tony Sidaway 01:24, 16 June 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.
Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:StarTrekEnterprise Cast.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

see also the IFD Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion not supported by evidence; bias of closing admin Jenolen speak it! 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin User:Angr is a long-time advocate of the elimination of fair use on Wikipedia, and a curious choice to be making fair use-related decisions. His reasons for deletion: Well, there are of course the points that Abu badali and Howcheng made; in addition, it violates non-free content criteria 1 (the cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors), 2 (our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it), 8 (it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"), and possibly 5 as well (although 5 is worded so vaguely it's difficult to tell). It also conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (this image did none of that), and with Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, which says "There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission." This photograph was not historically important or a significant modern artwork; the topic of the article where it was used is not hard to discuss without including the photograph; and excluding this photograph does not limit scholarship and criticism relating to the topic of the article.

Almost all of these points are indisputable wrong.

  • The cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors makes little sense; the article could also be illustrated with free images of turnips, or ponies, or rainbows; the article (the main article about the TV series Star Trek: Enterprise, in which this image was claimed as fair use) was, at the time of this images deletion, being illustrated by one and exactly one image of the main cast (certainly a minimal use). This image of the cast of the show, many of them in unique make-up and costumes, certainly can not be replaced with free images. (Contrary to fanboy wishes, Jolene Blalock does not go around dressed as T'Pol all the time..) And as this is a contemporary copyrighted work, no free image can exist or be created.
  • our use of the image competes directly with startrek.com's use of it False. This is a promotional picture of the crew of the show, distributed to any number of media outlets. Startrek.com's use of it is by no means exclusive. The nominator (and admin) would have you believe there's a difference between cast promotional pictures that are used on show-related websites, and cast promotional pictures released to the media. There's not. (This is not unlike the "Ugly Betty" photo situation, where the nominator of this image incorrectly claimed a separate promtional photo could never be from a website; this was proven to be wrong; the photo was, in fact, distributed widely by ABC and used on many websites.)
  • it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot I am at a loss to explain the logic behind this. A picture (and remember, we're talking about one, reduced resolution picture) of the main cast of a TV show certainly seems likely to significantly increase understanding of that show.
  • The closing admin believes that this image conflicts with Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that nonfree content be used only "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. One, reduced resolution cast photo doesn't fit the "narrow limits" for copyrighted contemporary works? How much more narrow can those limits get?
  • Kat Walsh's statement on licensing policies, while a fine piece of administrative writing, is not, as of this moment, Wikipedia policy. Nor Wikipedia guideline. The appropriate policy is WP:NONFREE, not WP:KATWALSH.

I also find it curious that this image was recently reduced in size by the closing admin, who, at that time, apparently had no problem with image being used in the article; why reduce in resolution an image you believe to be being used outside of policy?

In short, this administrator's bias against the fair use, within policy, of copyrighted material makes the entire process suspect. Rather than rehashing the whole "fair use on Wikipedia" debate, I would hope this would be a true deletion review, reviewing the deletion of this image.

Jenolen speak it! 10:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Unless the image was really released in promotional advertising, such as on a movie poster, a posed picture of the cast does indeed fail the WP:NFCC. If you insist on a non-free picture of the crew (understandable because they'd all be in uniform and on the set) it would be much more in line with the NFCC if you were to get an appropriate low-res screen cap. -N 11:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was, though. It was a high-res press photo that had been reduced in resolution to the minimum necessary. It showed them all better than a screenshot of the show could and there isn't really any difference under our criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So...is the picture decorative? It shows them better, you say. But could a screen shot do the same job? As I understand it we need to use the least infringing media possible, so a posed photo would be higher up on the chain than a screen shot. It appears at first blush this is gratuitious use of fair use media. As an aside, is there anybody who doesn't know what Star Trek characters look like? -N 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why on earth would a screen shot be "less infringing" than a posed photo? And of course there are plenty of people who don't know that those characters look like. Haukur 16:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please see WP:NFCC#2 of which this image fails in 2 ways. 1) respect for commercial opportunity: presumably the image may be used on posters/other collectibles. If they aren't selling them now they may do so in the future. 2) minimal use:A screen shot is a minute percentage of the total work of a 40 minute (without commercials) long program. Usage of this entire image is 100% of the work, and thus less minimal of a use. Therefore this image is replaceable with a less infringing sample of work. -N 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps there's something to that, if the photo is not actually from a press kit. Haukur 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, "commercial opportunity" is not only about selling collectibles. Having the most informative statrek site is a commercial opportunity. The copyright holder spends money in producing images and text to improve it's site (startrek.com) and if we build a different site by copying the part of their contents that we see fit, we're not respecting their commercial opportunities. --Abu badali (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clear consensus to delete on IFD and in accordance with policy. Spartaz Humbug! 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per nom. Ifd discussion was not a consensus, and alleged policy-based reasons all fail. DES (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer Jenolen's points: (1) The cast could also be illustrated with a gallery of free images of the actors makes perfect sense. There is no reason the actors have to be in make-up and costume; they're the same actors without that. (2) Startrek.com's use of it is by no means exclusive. Startrek.com was listed as the source (i.e. copyright holder) of the image. If that is not the case, the image had bogus source information, which is yet another reason to delete it. (3) A picture (and remember, we're talking about one, reduced resolution picture) of the main cast of a TV show certainly seems likely to significantly increase understanding of that show. How? How can one, reduced resolution picture of a show's cast significantly increase understanding about an entire series? If a reader knows nothing at all about the show, what will he learn from looking at this picture? Bupkes, that's what. (4) Kat Walsh's statement is regarding Foundation policy, which trumps English Wikipedia's local policy. —Angr 01:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per nom. This is a promotional photo and, as such, may be used in this context. Further, discussion was not a consensus and closing admin shows strong bias. This does not engender any confidence in the fairness of our procedures. Badagnani 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "promotional photo"? What makes you believe we're welcome to distribute this image? --Abu badali (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Badagnani means is exactly what he says; this is a promotional photo. We know who the copyright holder is (it was properly identified), we know where the photo comes from (it was properly sourced); how hard is this for you to understand? This is a fair use of a copyrighted material -- where we KNOW who the copyright holder is, and where the photo came from. That's what Badagnani means... I think! And we're not distributing it, we're fairly using a reduced resolution version of it, properly, in an article about the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise, properly... Or at least, we were. :) Jenolen speak it! 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If that's what he meant, then his argument is broken, as this is not a promotional image. You're right that it was properly sourced, but that doesn't make it automatically promotional. The source was startrek.com, and the site makes it clear that its images are not to be used by others (so... not promotional).
      "And we're not distributing it"... What? You don't consider publishing on the web "distribution"? --Abu badali (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, of course. What I meant is that this is a promotional photo, and, as such, may be used on Wikipedia in the context described. Badagnani 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A promotional photo is a photo known to have come from a press kit or similar source for the purpose for reuse by the media. This photo came from startrek.com, and the site explains their images are not to be reused by the media (nor anyone). --Abu badali (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is EXACTLY why your whole argument is wrong. I'll try one last time: There is no "their images" of Startrek.com, or if there is, this isn't one of them. This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com. The "terms of use" you keep quoting DO NOT APPLY to this COPYRIGHTED material where WE KNOW WHO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER IS. The exact same photo can be found on other websites, not sourced to Startrek.com. The copyright holder of this image is CBS/Paramount, NOT Startrek.com, and to hold this image to the wrong standards suggests very clearly that you are deliberately ignoring reality in order to pursue this image's deletion. Please come back to reality! The photo is USED by Startrek.com, but it is not COPYRIGHTED by Startrek.com and certainly not subject to Startrek.com's terms of use. But even if was, we'd STILL be okay, because we are FAIRLY USING - in accordance with both U.S. law and the much more restrictive WP:NFCC - a reduced resolution version of it. Nothing in Startrek.com's terms of use should be read to supersede U.S. copyright law. But, as stated, this is a moot point, because Startrek.com is NOT the copyright holder. Jenolen speak it! 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'll also try one last time: If Startrek.com is not the copyright holder of the image, then the source information on the image was bogus, which is by itself good enough reason to delete, even if all the other reasons I mentioned on my talk page (violation of criteria 1, 8, and maybe 5) didn't hold (and they do!). —Angr 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, do you seriously believe Paramount would allow someone else to hold the name startrek.com when US courts and ICANN have been handing usurped names back to corporations left and right? Startrek.com is the official Star Trek website of Paramount. -N 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


<--- indent

About "This image is NOT copyrighted to Startrek.com", let use clarify this bit:



And about "...we are FAIRLY USING...", no we're not. We can't say we're not competing with the material's original market role without knowing the original market role intended for this material. And the info "copyrighted to CBS" doesn't give us any information about the original market role. --Abu badali (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your casual mention of 1,8, and maybe 5 shows how wrong this deletion was from the start. 1 - "No free equivalent" - you appear to be the only one who believes there's a "free equivalent" available to a photo of the cast of a TV show, in costume, on a set from the show, and with two of the actors wearing significantly appearance-altering makeup. All Star Trek images are going to be copyrighted by CBS/Paramount; I still disagree with your premise a "free equivalent" exists. There are free images of the actors individually, sure, but no image that is in any way a "free equivalent" to this one. 8 - Significance - Well, the TV show was about people. This was the only image of them on the page about the TV show. Are you seriously arguing an image of the characters in a TV show is not "significant" to the encyclopedia entry about that show? That argument is ridiculous on its face. And 5 - Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic - Well, as stated, it was the only image of the characters of a TV show on the encyclopedia entry page for that show. Encyclopedic? Check. Resolution reduced so as to meet "general Wikipedia content requirements"? Check -- by you, I should add. Why did you reduce the resolution of this image if you felt it was being improperly used? What changed in your thinking about it? But since your arguments about WP:NFCC 1,8, and 5 aren't sound, it's apparently only the sourcing issue you have a real beef with. And you'd rather delete than fix. Fine; can I assume you'd support re-uploading this image with proper sourcing? Jenolen speak it! 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who says they have to be in costume, or on the set, or wearing their appearance-altering makeup? Of course it's virtually impossible to get a free equivalent of that, but none of that is necessary to illustrate the cast of the show. Free images of the actors are a more than adequate substitute. Criterion 8 does not say that the image must be significant to the topic, it says the image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and frankly, a photograph of the cast of a TV show doesn't increase anyone's understanding of the show. I personally have never watched Star Trek: Enterprise and know nothing about it. How much did looking at that photograph increase my understanding of it? Not one bit. I looked at that photo and I still didn't know what the premise of the show was, or what the main plot lines were, or who the good guys and the bad guys were. The image was not informative at all; it was purely decorative. As for the resolution reduction, I did because the original was too large; doing so is not an endorsement of Wikipedia's use of the image. I very frequently upload lower-resolution versions of fair use images, but that doesn't mean I actually believe they meet all ten criteria. In spite of that, I don't tag all of them for deletion on sight; it would be too time-consuming and too stressful. This may be difficult for you to believe, since this is the only capacity you've ever encountered me in, but I do have other things I like to do in my Wikipedia time than fight against fair-use images and delete them. —Angr 21:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're not in costume, they're actors. If they're in costume they're the characters for the show. Thus we should be using the latter for our article, to have the best, most encyclopedic article possible. Your arguments don't make any sense. Badagnani 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if they're in costume, they're actors in costume. The characters do not exist in the real world, so photographs of the characters can never be taken in the real world. And no image at all, free or otherwise, is needed for the article to be the best and most encyclopedic possible. —Angr 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're simply wrong. If the actors are in costume and posed, as they are in this photograph, they are portraying the characters described in our article. Thus no substitute, showing the various individual actors in street clothes, is possible. Your comments just don't make any sense. Badagnani 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus no substitute, showing the various individual actors in street clothes, is possible." Why not? This was intended as a photograph of the cast (i.e. a group of actors), not a photograph of costumes. A free image of an actor, not in costume, is always an acceptable illustration for an article about a movie or TV show, as I have done at Rosalie Goes Shopping, which needs no further image than the free one it currently has. —Angr 23:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a photo of the whole cast, posed together in street clothes? Even if one existed, it would be most unsatisfactory and unencyclopedic for the purposes of this article, for the aforementioned reasons. The actors in costume are "in character" and the photo under discussion is the appropriate one for the article. The hypothetical photo you are proposing is inappropriate and thus your argument continues not to make any logical sense. Badagnani 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Replying to Jenolen's points...
...when you say "certainly a minimal use", you're misunderstanding the meaning of minimal use. Minimal use does't mean we should use few copyrighted works. It means that we should use as feel as possible of a given copyrigthed work. In this case, the copyrighted work is a photograph (and not the tv-series, as it's commmonly misunderstood), and we were using a lower resolution version of the whole image. That would be ok to be used in an article about the photograph itself (the copyrighted work) or about that photoshooting, or about tv-series photoshootings, or about statrek.com. But not about the tv-series, as this image is not part of the the tv-series. A screenshot, for instance, would be a minimal part of the tv-series, and would fit the meaning of "minimal use".
About the "ugly betty photo", it's only on your account what you say the "nominator" (me) claimed and what was "proved wrong". I don't see that happening at all in the conversation you linked.
And as someone else pointed out, as this image's source information was startrek.com, we can only take startrek.com's terms of use, and they are clear in that their images are everything but promotional. I'm not allowed even to use their images as my desktop's wallpaper, let alone to upload it to Wikimedia's servers.
Our use of the image clearly competes with statrek.com' use. Once you read a cool startrek article with the best "available" photos on Wikipedia, you has fewer reasons to go to startrek.com.
"One, reduced resolution cast photo doesn't fit the "narrow limits" for copyrighted contemporary works? " - Yes, it does! But keep in mind that the copyrighted contemporary work in question is the cast photo itself, and unless you're writing an article about it, your use is not fair. It's like using an album cover with a rose to illustrate an article about roses (just that the "rose" itself is copyrighted this time).
And please, whatever long is your reply, don't insist this is a promotional picture unless you have verifiable information to backup that.
As a side note, please, remeber to drop a note to the original ifd nominator when listing an image at deletion review. Thanks! --Abu badali (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review, I thought, was meant to be a review of the deletion? And since you didn't delete it... why do you care?
You talk, here and other places, about the original market role for the original copyrighted work. Abu, you know the original market role for this particular copyrighted work is to promote the show, "Star Trek: Enterprise"? You are under this WHOLLY MISTAKEN assumption that this image was some kind of work done FOR Startrek.com, when you have, so far, shown absolutely no proof whatsoever that this image is anything other than what the original uploader claims it is (and I've tried to explain to you) - a media kit-style promotional photo, made available through a variety of means, and used in multiple places on the Internet including Startrek.com. You can see similar examples here and (especially) here.
On another page, you state that knowing the source is crucial to determining whether a fair use claim is valid, because it's important to know who the copyright holder of the image is. Well, in this case, there is no debate about who the copyright holder is - we know that CBS/Paramount is the copyrighted holder of this image; how is the "source" information, whether it's Startrek.com, another TV reviewing website, or my aunt Matilda relevent in cases such as this? We're going to be fairly using a copyrighted work - and we know who the copyright holder is. What more information could you possibly want? We've reduced the resolution of the image. We've credited the sources from which it came. We're using one and exactly one image of the characters on the page about a TV show which is about these characters, not about the actors. I mean, really... how many hoops do you want us to jump through, other than that big one over there that says "No fair use images of copyrighted material", because, my friend, that hoop ain't policy, no matter how much the deleting admin in this case wishes it were. Jenolen speak it! 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only about who the copyright holder is, but also about how did he uses this work (so that we know our use doesn't replaces his use).
The copyright holder choose to use this image to increase the value of their website (startrek.com). By having exclusive content, the site has an advantage over its competition (for pagehits) with unofficial sites. When we copy their images to our sites, we're unfairly undermining their advantage.
The uploaded didn't lied. He/She just mistakenly believe the images from startrek.com to be promotional material.
The fact that this image is used in other places on the web doesn't make a difference here. The first website you linked, for instance, says "All photos are copyright their respective owners and are used under license or with permission". We don't have an acceptable license nor permission. And the second link is just a fansite, that are not famous for respecting copyright.
Read the quotations on a comment above and you will understand why your aunt Matilda can't have these images on her site. --Abu badali (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear - who do you believe to be the copyright holder of this image? Jenolen speak it! 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CBS Interactive Inc., its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, or its licensors. --Abu badali (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see why you would be confused. CBS Interactive Inc. is NOT NOW nor EVER HAS BEEN the copyright holder for Star Trek, in any form. You are so completely wrong on this, you could not be more wrong if you were perhaps trying to enter some kind of "Most Wrong" contest. One simple example: CBS's "Two and a Half Men." The show is prominently featured on CBS.com, but CBS IS NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. Gasp! It's actually Warner Bros. Television, a separate company altogether! Using your logic, the appearance of "Two and a Half Men" content on CBS.com makes it copyrighted content of CBS Interactive Inc. But it's not. In these cases, CBS Interactive is a REUSER of the same sort of content released to media outlets worldwide. Your entire objection to this image has been thoroughly discredited on a number of fronts... Why do you persist in repeating untruths and misinformation? Please... for your own sake, stop! Jenolen speak it! 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, or its licensors" don't you understand? --Abu badali (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if used to illustrate the cast of Star Trek Enterprise, it's clearly not fair use. Alternatively, it could be used to illustrate the crew of the Starship Enterprise, in which case you have a much stronger fair use rationale. Cheers, WilyD 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was the only image of actual people on the entry for the TV show "Star Trek: Enterprise" - and the show wasn't about the ship... The fair use claim rationale was entirely valid. Jenolen speak it! 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is clearly within the WP:FAIRUSE guidelines, so I don't see the relevance of any arguments about whether or not Paramount have authorised redistribution of the image. It doesn't matter. We wouldn't accept their authorisation anyway, as it wouldn't be under a free license. JulesH 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining why this clearly meets the fairuse criteria as the preceeding argument suggests anything but clearity. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jules, it's true that the image still wouldn't be freely licensed if Paramount had authorized redistribution of the image. However, the fact that they didn't means that this image was never intended as a promotional image in the first place, and that our use of it directly competed with their use of it (in violation of fair use criterion 2. —Angr 06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this image was never intended as a promotional image in the first place - Yes, it was a just happened upon snapshot. Where everyone happened to be looking at the camera. And posing. In costume. On the bridge. You know, nothing promotional about this image at all... Your failure to grasp the simple promotional nature of this image should not be inflicted upon the rest of the Wikipedia community. And while you have repeatedly stated that you learned nothing about the show from looking at this image, I think it's unfair to say that others therefore will never find informational value in the same image. Perhaps you're not looking at it hard enough? Or with a critical enough eye? Regardless, it is extremely unfair to impose your limitations upon the rest of the community. Jenolen speak it! 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jenolen, the world of photography is not divided into only two categories, promotional photos and snapshots. Read Wikipedia:Publicity photos (mislabeled as an "essay"; in fact, it's an extended definition): "Since such photos are distributed for reuse by the media, there may be an implicit license for their use in discussing the subject that is being promoted." The "since" clause of that sentence presupposes that promotional photos are distributed for reuse by the media. Such photos do not come with great big warnings attached to them saying "The ... distribution, redistribution, ... or publication by you, directly or indirectly, of the Content ... is strictly prohibited". Promotional photos are supposed to be distributed; since this image is not supposed to be distributed, it's not a promotional photo. From Wikipedia:Publicity photos again: "Publicity photos come from a very narrow range of sources, and are made available for distribution by promotional agencies, whereas many images that may appear promotional in nature are intended for commercial use by the image's copyright holder." This image clearly falls into that second category: it was not made available for distribution; rather, although it may appear promotional in nature, in fact it was intended for commercial use by its copyright holder. Since we were using for the exact same purpose as the copyright holder was (to show the cast of this show), our use competes with theirs, making it a violation of criterion 2. —Angr 19:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs about suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The nominator for this article (created in 2004) basically said it should be deleted because it is a list, saying it is a "list of..." article and therefore should be deleted. Almost every list is going to start with "list of." The nominator said to refer to this AfD for more reasons, which he/she also nominated for deletion, but that nomination told us nothing more. Most of the delete votes gave the reason "per nom" (or "just a list" or "too many lists on Wikipedia"). The others gave the reason that it should be deleted because it would be too hard to maintain, one saying too many songs from non-notable red-linked bands would appear. This was never a problem and if it became one I'm sure it would not be too hard to remove non-notable songs that users add. Another user gave an example "Don't Fear the Reaper" that is very easily interpreted to be about suicide, although it is never mentioned explicitly in the lyrics. The article had a whole section for this, List of songs about suicide#Misinterpreted, where it was introduced as "[s]ongs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out." One user voted keep saying "songs about suicide have generated a lot of notice and litigation in the US" and giving some examples. Another user made a comment that these would serve better in a separate article (not a list) and convinced that user to strike out the keep vote. But that article they described was deleted here. They were told about Suicide song's AfD but no reply was made. Tim Q. Wells 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort. If the list constituted original research then we can find more references to support the claims. This certainly should not justify the article's deletion. The rest of the reasons on the AfD I listed were not good ones. Tim Q. Wells 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if you want to undelete the article, you have to establish the reliable sources now, during the review. Original research isn't the only reason this should be kept deleted, by the way. Sr13 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable close, verifiability here is dubious at best. Moreschi Talk 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep I thought it was an interesting article. --Jmbranum 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep I be an Inclusionist. You folks need to wake up and see that Wikipedia's unique strength is its ability to be a Compendium of Everything (what I call "a CoE"). Instead of all this acrimony created by the Deletionists, we should work toward having User Prefs that include a setting called something like "Level of Detail". Setting 1 shows the user absolutely all material no matter how trivial, and provides search hits to the same; Setting (say) 12 shows the user (and gives search hits to) only traditionally Encyclopedic material. This is so obviously the way to go. -- JDG 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There's no evidence that the AFD or its closure violated process. The original reason for deletion may have been flimsy, but after putting it under the spotlight of AFD, general consensus was that the list was unreferenced and unverifiable, and that it fell under WP:NOT. The keep arguments seemed to fall along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. Either way, there's no indication that process fell apart to the degree that the deletion should be overturned. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

14 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of celebrities who were obese in childhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as it's not "listcruft" (what a wacked-out term that is!) and it doesn't violate Biographies of living persons either. It wasn't original research, and it should be undeleted because there ARE sources that assert the fact the people listed were obese in childhood. This article should be undeleted, relisted and sent to a wider forum for discussion - it's not remotely controversial, let alone a violation of any policy. Gleggsord 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Book cover, with notable photo, used in article covering author's being fired for publication of said photo and subsequent writing of book (the title of the book, Queen of Sky is a redirect to the author's bio). Since book covers are considered quasi-automatic fair use when discussing the book, and the cover photo itself is also mentioned in the article I fail to see how this fails fair use. -N 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question If the book "article" redirects to the author article, and the article substantially discusses the book, is there precedent that we don't consider that sufficient fair use? Does the position of the photo matter, i.e. if it were in a section about the book instead of at the top? If a book article with an image were merged with the author article does the cover become automatically unfair? Or was this simply a case failing to have a well-argued rationale? --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... the article is mostly about the events that lead up to the writing of the book. Talking about the book itself would be duplicative of this material (the book is basically her story or in other words the story of the writing of the book, if you get my drift). I'm not sure if the article could be re-written to give more weight to the book itself. I'm not sure about the rationale, I suppose I should have looked at that better *before* the deletion. -N 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, fair use book cover can't be used on article about author. Unless she's dead, somebody could, some day, get a photo of her, and that could be used on her article. Corvus cornix 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said, the author's biography is basically the story of the book. You cannot separate the two. The picture is not being used to show what she looks like, it a) shows the book she wrote and b) shows the photo Delta fired her for. -N 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article the image supports is basically about how the subject got fired from her workplace, Delta airlines, for blogging and for photos placed on her blog; E.S. is famous for that; that is why there is an article about her. After being fired, she wrote the book (this image is the book cover) based on her blog. The image shows her on an airplane, one of the photos that got her fired, the title of her blog, and the book that resulted from the blog. The title of the book is also the title of her blog. In short, the image is a many-purpose illustration for the article, and it seems to me to be an ideal illustration. I can't say I understand the nuances of wikipedia image policy, but to me the deletion of this image seems quite strange. Far better to keep the image, but perhaps add a caption that tells what is going on with the image. Bdushaw 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse image deletion. The subject's primary notability is not from the book. It is from the larger issues about employer rights over employee blog content. — Athaenara ✉ 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Image was not being used for critical commentary of the book. The same picture, without the book cover, would probably pass FU, and is available on the same blog. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That hurts my brain, especially in regard to WP:NFCC#2. Someone (possibly her) gets revenue from blog hits. Taking the original image and putting it on Wikipedia can be seen to damage the commercial opportunities in that respect. Using the book cover, on the other hand, does less damage to commercial opportunities, since, the book cover is "out there" because it may incite someone to buy the book. -N 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. The book's title (as seen in this footnote) is Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog. It does not appear to be redirected in any way to her article. According to the article, Queen of Sky (which does redirect) is her nom de plume. The entire content of her article discussing the book appears to me to be in the last sentence which reads (without footnotes), "Simonetti has written articles for the news media including The New York Times and CNET, adapted her blog to a published book, and now works in real estate." Mentioning the book in the article is not enough to establish fair use. The image had no rationale for it's usage in the article, although it was uploaded in April 2007. Since Simonetti works in real estate, it should not be overly difficult to obtain a free image or to request that she release one under terms that would allow it's use without fair use justification. ~ BigrTex 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the time to state the reasons for the deletion. I think I see what the issue is now; ya learn something new everyday on wikipedia! Bdushaw 00:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Zelda Classic – "Zelda Classic is a free fan-made computer game program based on the NES console game The Legend of Zelda." And the requester has no other edits. Enough said. – Guy (Help!) 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zelda Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New links to address deletion issues were provided in the page recreation, but page was "speedy deleted" as spam, possibly due to the time frame from the original deletion and the recreation. DarkNation AG 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted because no fair-use rationale was given. Since it's an album cover that does have a proper fair-use rationale, and since I'm not able to find a suitable quality image to use, I'll gladly provide said rationale. fuzzy510 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted so that you can write said rationale. I suggest you be quick about it, and remember that we need a source for the image as well, which appears to be missing on first glance. -- nae'blis 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, now that rationale has been provided. Fair use seems to be adequately stated; this is an album cover, and a fairly well-known one at that. It would be absurd to claim that reproducing the album cover in an article about the album would hurt the label's ability to sell the album. Heather 15:28, 16 June 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.

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2

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.
Xiaxue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Whilst the original article contained some POV statements, there was enough encyclopedic content to form the basis for an NPOV article such as the one for Dawn_Yang, a former online rival and fellow Singaporean blogger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

Since both are notable for their blogging activities and the Dawn Yang article is more encyclopedic in nature, a more encyclopedic entry can be written about Xiaxue that is not based mostly on POV. However, please note that the reason that lead to deletion, "it is unencyclopedic" is also listed on the "arguments to avoid" page. Therefore, the article's deletion is questionable. - January2007

Another admin, Vague Rant, undeleted the article per my request on IRC. Having won several prestigious blogging awards and been frequently mentioned in the Singaporean press, Xiaxue's clearly notable. A post on her blog, dated 11 June, indicates that she is unhappy with the deletion. I e-mailed her to notify her that the article has been undeleted; she replied requesting I help her rewrite the article. All I need is someone with Newslink who will e-mail me lots of Straits Times/New Paper articles on her, and I can start rewriting the article based on information found in the newspaper articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Dragon Ball special abilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AFD proposal was only in place for four days before a decision was made — Preceding unsigned comment added by January2007 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse. Second AfD. Article was listed for just a few hours short of the full 5 days, and somehow I doubt 3 extra voters would have appeared in that time to swing the numbers. This endorsement is, of course, without prejudice should someone find any reliable third party coverage of the topic. -N 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn IFF the list's material is to be merged elsewhere. If I'm misunderstanding Marhawkman's comments above, (which I did, on first read) then endorse as there will be no GFDL violation. -- nae'blis 13:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, if the article's only source is the manga and anime, but no third-party reliable sources have covered the subject, we shouldn't have a full article as that would be original research. Fan Wikias tend to allow that type of thing, such an article would probably be a better bet there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It's silly to suggest that the closure was improper because it didn't wait exactly 5 days. Arkyan • (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the consensus demonstrated by the AfD. Process is the servant of consnsus not vice versa. Eluchil404 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it was closed after 4 days instead of 5. But only one person had posted a keep rationale by then, & it wasn't a very strong one--it amounted to keep because this stuff is so little known that this is the only source, & I've done a lot of work on it. No reason to think anything more would have appeared--a trivial violation not affecting the result. But the closer should learn not to close early, because waiting another day would have avoided all this fuss. DGG 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I really think a reasonable article on this should be possible, but I wholeheartedly dismiss the undeletion reasoning presented by the nominator: the AFD being closed a day early matters not a whit. We aren't a beaurocracy, and we don't override consensus because of a matter of hours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't post an undeletion reasoning. I should have, but I was in a hurry. It's going to be a long one....

Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research The article fulfills the criteria of both of those.

How? Reliable sources DO NOT need to be third party. Sourcing the anime and manga is permissable by Wikipedia policy.

Original research is defined as: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

None of those applies to the deleted article as a whole.

Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

That got thrown around as the primary reason for deletion both times, and yet has nothing to do with the article.

Why? There are ten things listed in there and this isn't one of them.

Wikipedia:Fancruft That got thrown around a lot in both AFD, but is at best slander.

Why? Well it basically states that the article violates one of the above mentioned policies.--Marhawkman 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse WP:NOT#IINFO applies, and to have this kind of an article, you not only need primary sources, but reliable secondary sources as well. See WP:RS. (→zelzany - is one angry user) 20:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why you think WP:NOT#IINFO applies? I read it. I don't see any reason at all. Also WP:RS does NOT say anything about a requirement of secondary sources.--Marhawkman 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps WP:N is the best link. People often throw around policy links for the general principles they stand for rather than their exact wording. As a general rule details about fictional worlds only verifiable from the fiction itself and not covered in reliable third party sources are deleted. This may or may not be clearly written down in any specific policy or guideline page (they are editable by anyone too) but is firmly established practice. Eluchil404 21:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The subject HAS fulfilled that requirement. However the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from those sources. As far as I know there is no rule that requires this.--Marhawkman 22:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The relevant topic isn't Dragon Ball in general but rather this specific article. If the information the article is composed of cannot be derived from reliable sources it will be deleted per WP:N or WP:OR. Eluchil404 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um, Notability requires secondary sources. However Reliable sources are not necessarily secondary. the article is composed of information that would be considered derived from a Primary source.--Marhawkman 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Generally, looking at a primary source and interpreting it oneself is original research, which is prohibited. If secondary sources are not available to which such interpretations can be attributed, we should not have the article. That's why sources independent of the article's subject are required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's a fine line between research and original research. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. " Note Where it says "unpublished". That's the distinction between research and original research. This was just a collation of things published and organized for easy reference.--Marhawkman 01:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru
  • Endorse. Just because the debate didn't last five days doesn't mean it should be overturned. One 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per User:N. --Iamunknown 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

13 June 2007

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

I know this is silly... I prodded this article. Request undeletion to merge any applicable info to Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi -N 23:21, 13 June 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.
‎Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg (edit | [[Talk:‎Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to use this .ogg file within the Harvest article's main text. There is a reference to this song within the text. I would like to use it in a similar way in which "Image:MariahCareyBoyzIIMenOneSweetDay.ogg" is used within the Mariah Carey article. I will need to revise the fair use justification as it will no longer be within the Harvest article's discography Jamie L. 19:33, 13 June 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.
Smoky Hill High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM Steely 340 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion is being held at User talk:SkyIsFalling Steely 340 19:24, 13 June 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.
County Road 702 (Palm Beach County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are ongoing discussions at WT:N/HWY to establish a notability guideline for roads. This article was deleted without any regard to the discussion, and the fact that being unsourced and possibly non-notable is not part of CSD. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 16:31, 13 June 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.
Accusations of French genocide against Algerians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

this article was just recently deleted without any AFD vote by Philip Baird Shearer, he used the excuse that Algerian Genocide was deleted with an AFD vote and that he thinks this is similar however the old deleted article had a POV name (not a recognized genocide) whereas Accusations of French genocide against Algerians examined the accusations and included opposing viewpoints, it was well sourced and this is wholly inappropriate for an admin (who was previously involved in edit disputes in this article and about the issue of the Algerian 'genocide'[6]) to delete it with no AFD vote Bleh999 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list on AfD. Process ought not be circumvented like this. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there's no way this can be anything other than a list of accusations in the media - the effect is to circumvent any NPOV discussion relating both sides of French attitudes to Algeria. We don't need an afd to tell us this violates our neutrality policy. If the nominator can come up with a merge, or suggest a rename to something like French attitudes to Algeria, then it might be worth discussing.--Docg 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could say the Iraqi government gassing some Kurds is a list of accusations in the media and therefore it should be expunged from this encyclopedia, that's just one example to show your reasoning is flawed. The title is not necessarily indicative of the content of the article and it doesn't appear you ever read it or know much about the subject at all. The issue of French atrocities in Algeria is not a hoax and has been discussed in France and elsewhere.Bleh999 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a very good example. There was a court case over the Iraqi gasing of Kurds and it was found to be a genocide (See Genocide#Netherlands) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Dutch court ruling about supplying chemicals doesn't prove international recognition by any means, I don't want to argue about unrelated subjects, but the definition of which incidents constitute a genocide as you know is not set in stone, you didn't have any right to delete the article and entire content because you personally disagreed with the title, what happened to reaching consensus? Had you reached consensus on the talk page, a page move would have sufficed.Bleh999 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have an article on the alleged facts, not on the alleged label. An article on massacres can record that some have called these 'genocide' - but simply listing every media source that's used the words and leaving the reader to draw the conclusions led to them is not NPOV. Focus on the incidents and not on the name calling.--Docg 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think French atrocities in Algeria would be a better title, but I didn't create the article, as per your own admission you haven't read the article and you don't know anything about the subject. Very few countries recognized the Herero genocide or the Armenian genocide 30 years ago, does that mean it was unencyclopedic to discuss them back then? It's censorship to delete things you don't agree with, and it seems like thats your only excuse, you even resort to bashing the media, what does that have to with deleting the article without an AFD? Bleh999 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Please read WP:NPOV. We do facts not opinions. So 'things I don't agree with' and 'things I do agree with' don't belong here. This is POV crap - take it away.--Docg 22:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the NPOV policy yourself because I wasn't involved in editing disputes in that article and therefore I can't be accused of POV in that regard, on the other hand you never edited this article yet you seem to have a point of view with very little knowledge of the subject in question, so why don't you read what lucasbfr said since he did edit the article, and he is not being accused of being POV or having a pro Algerian bias. The name of the article alone is not a criteria for deleting the entire content of the article. You seem to have a neutrality problem if you use disparaging remarks like calling articles 'crap', and you bash the media? that is counterproductive and not what you would expect from people editing an encyclopedia. It's funny that you are so against an AFD for this, I wonder why must be just 'things you don't agree with' like you said, lets just do away with the AFD all together and give power to you to delete articles as you see fit with no oversight. Bleh999 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[7] I see you have been implicated in improper article deletions, not a personal attack, but just commenting on its relevancy to your opinions regarding other admins power to delete with no AfDBleh999 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we have a vote on moving the article to a different name, you don't just delete an article and it's entire content because you disagree with the title, that is a bogus reason, also see comments by Lucasbfr above, he says it doesn't have the problems of the previous article Bleh999 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict)I assume you are meaning that a 6 500 characters long sourced article a re-creation of a a 1 500 char unsourced one? IMO, the article was speediable in its first version, in 2006 (which was at the original title before someone moved it to lessen the POV), but not in its current state. -- lucasbfr talk 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put a speedy delete template on the article on 27 November 2006 and it was deleted on 28 November 2006
  • 15:26, 28 November 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (csd g4) (Restore)
It was undeleted:
  • 11:20, 25 April 2007 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (66 revisions restored: the redirect was a repost, not this one)
I was not informed that it had been resotred in April and I only found out it was deleted today so I redeletd it becuase the original reason for its creation and existance has not changed.
  • 11:30, 13 June 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Accusations of French genocide against Algerians" (content was: 'npov A page with similar content was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide) (Restore)
-- Philip Baird Shearer
What's your point exactly? In November 2006 it was a re direct (if I'm reading correctly...), according to lucasbfr the article was expanded significantly in recent months, it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion when you recently deleted it, doesn't matter if it did in November 2006 Bleh999 17:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I contacted User:Kungfuadam last April and asked him to review his November 2006 deletion. As he wrote in his edit summary "the redirect was a repost, not this one". The repost tag was put back just after the deletion and I discussed with the person that put the tag on his talk page and he agreed that speedy was not a good idea. -- lucasbfr talk 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I put the page up for a speedy delete in November 2006 it was not a redirect. (See 27 November 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bleh999 I did not ask for the article to be deleted because of a page name move. I asked for it to be deleted because its creation circumvented an AFD. I put the page up for speedy delete in the usual way and it was deleted because it was a circumvention of an AFD. My recent deletion was because I still think that it is a attempt to get around the original AFD. Was there a debate to restore the article in April after its speedy delete in November? If so I was not informed of that debate in which I would have argued against its restoration because it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD. By saying "wholly inappropriate for an admin to delete it with no AFD vote" is I think a move away from a presumption of good faith and if I did not think you were acting in good faith a disingenuous argument. In disputes like this there is no right and wrong. If I had been informed that the article was restored in April I would have argued against its recreation then. I do not think that the article has changed enough since its deleteion, but perhapse Kungfuadam' can explain how (s)he came to restor it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed it on someone's else's talk page, after I requested him to review the deletion (the first step before a WP:DRV when the deletion is speedy) there. By the way, I don't see the redirection in the edit you linked, I see the whole article. Am I seeing the wrong thing? If you want the article to be deleted, you should really consider an AfD. -- lucasbfr talk 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this title is not an NPOV title and it is an attempt to circumvent a previous AFD That is your quote from above, so part of your reasoning for deletion (as stated by you) is the neutrality of the title, normally such issues can be settled by renaming the article rather than deletion of all content. As for the circumventing the previous AFD, I don't know about that, I wasn't involved in editing the article back then, but when I looked at it yesterday it wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. According to lucasbfr the article is significantly longer and much changed than the earlier creation, even deleted articles are not banned forever from wikipedia if it is created again with different content and a more neutral viewpoint, it should be judged on its current merits not those of a previous article.Bleh999 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is different POV crap from the POV crap deleted by the AfD, so if everybody wants to duke it out yet again then good luck to them. I vote delete, because it's still POV crap, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV 'crap' because you don't like it, sounds very POV in itself. If it's really so POV why not undelete and list for AFD?Bleh999 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am not a process wonk. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Process is important. The way I read it, JzG, you're trying to say that it ought not be relisted simply because you don't like it. Allow me to remind you that your biases aren't important here, we're trying to evolve a consensus, not work on someone's whims. If this article is to be deleted, it should be through a valid AfD. --The Raven's Apprentice 05:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The Raven's Apprentice, I agree process is important that is why when an article has been up for an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide 29 April 2006) and been deleted the author should not wait a month and then recreate it under a different name. In this case the original author created a new page with similar content to the original during the AFD (see Algerian Genocide Claims from 10:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)) that was deleted along with the original (see Algerian Genocide from 11:19, 25 April 2006 . -- BTW user:Bleh999 the last editor of Algerian Genocide before it was deleted was user:Ligulem-- This page was a recreation of the second page that was created during the original AFD and the next edit after "Algerian Genocide Claims" was deleted was at "08:30, 22 October 2006. David Falcon (Redirecting to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians)" which I think is more evidence that this article is an attempt to circumvent an AFD. The current page we are debating was created with the name Genocide Against Algerian Identiy, on 02:06, 20 May 2006 by David Falcon , (about a month after the original was deleted) it was moved "18:16, 14 June 2006 . . Deodar (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identiy to Genocide Against Algerian Identity" and moved again "02:19, 27 September 2006 . and again: Dmcdevit (moved Genocide Against Algerian Identity to Accusations of French genocide against Algerians: neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable.." See above that it was deleted in November 2006 with a speedy deleted and remain deleted for half a year until undeleted in April this year. So the process has been followed, this article is an attempt to work around an AFD and I think it makes a mockery of the AFD system if it is allowed to remain. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be repeating yourself an awful lot, I think we can understand that the original article (Algerian Genocide) was deleted with an AfD, and I acknowledged that in my first post here. You are comparing an article with a different name and content deleted over a year ago to a different article with a much expanded and unique content, lucasbfr spent a lot of time writing that article and I notice he left a message on your talk page commenting on how you must have known this is a much changed article [8]. Funny how we have articles that get deleted and recreated and go through multiple AfD votes (based on the merits of their current content) but you seem to believe you have the right to delete (without an AfD) any article with a similar subject just because there was an AfD on a different article over a year ago. I'm not sure who is making a mockery of the process here. Bleh999 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you do realize no one can see your links except wikipedia administrators? We can't see deleted content, so I fail to see why you keep posting them. Bleh999 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know that you could not see them. ("If you could see her as I do") --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to one of your suggestions, I don't think we can delete the revisions that directly fall under G4 (that would break the GFDL). But if someone thinks that's best, we can delete all revisions prior to September 2006. Honestly, I think we got screwed in May 2006 but, 1 year later, we should probably sit on it and try to comment on the content and not the way it arrived here. -- lucasbfr talk 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per DocG, who's points no one seems to have properly refuted. This is POV pushing under this title. Using DR policy to circumvent NPOV policy is Not On. Eusebeus 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two issues with that kind of reasoning, first of all this page is about process, not about content. Therefore we should discuss whether or not the page was deletable under G4 (A page with similar content was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion), not whether or not the content of the page is NPOV or not (we have AfD for that kind of debate, and honestly I wouldn't mind at all having this article deleted, or even (let's dream) rewritten after an AfD). This is not the place to play WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, the title is not the original title, but a title chosen by User:Dmcdevit in September 2006 (prior to rewrital) with a reason "Neutral title at least, not sure if this is salvageable". If you don't like the title, why not propose the article to be renamed? I am French, I disagree with some of the content of the article, but as a very dead guy said "I don't agree with your ideas, but I'll fight for your right to express them". Wikipedia is of course not a repository of original thoughts, and I don't think this article is WP:OR. There will be good and bad articles in this encyclopedia, there are some crappy stuff I wouldn't mind to see deleted, but let's not play with our own processes and speedy delete it when no one is looking. -- lucasbfr talk 16:55, 19 June 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.

The templates proposed for undeletion are:

(Listed in above format as {{Newdelrev}} permits the inclusion of only one page)

The concerned WikiProject was not notified of the TfD nomination, and thus the people who have an interest in seing the templates remain never got a chance to comment.

The TfD was closed with the sole argument of "over specialization" of the templates. However, these are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. Both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. The second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of Pokémon images facilitates maintenance of those images. While the closing Admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokémon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus (indeed unanimity) that these should be deleted among those who participated in the discussion and no requirement that Wikiproject be informed when templates they might be interested in are nominated for deletion. The generic templates are quite sufficient and there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates. Right outcome, right assessment of the discussion. WjBscribe 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I'm afraid you're countering straw man arguments here, WJB. I'm not questioning the admin's interpretation of the debate. However, WP:DRV says that a deletion may be questioned if new info is available a the time of the review. I'm interpreting "new information" to mean "new arguments", and the grounds I state for undeletion were definitely not mentioned in the TfD. Neither do I seek undeletion simply because the WikiProject was not informed, that is simply the reason why these arguments were not stated in the TfD in the first place, nothing more. To refute my actual arguments (Categorization) you have only said, "there is absolutely no need for every TV series etc. to have its own subcategories of screenshot templates". I assume you meant "screenshots", but I have already stated why these subcategories are desirable (overpopulation of the parent category). --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion and relist templates also served an important purpose in helping the images meet the WP:NFCC, by identifying the copyright owner of the images. note I have a small COI with this nom, I had to convince the closing admin to re-tag the images as generic {{fairuse}} rather than just leave hundreds (possibly thousands, I didn't count them) of images tagless. -N 10:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overrule and Relist. The arguments made in the TfD were at the least misinformed. The templates, while at first glance looking so, are not redundant with current templates for nonfree media, as the deleted templates also identify the copyright holder within their texts w/o adding extra - AFAIK, many of the other templates dealing with such don't. Further, as Raven pointed out, the main reason for these to be applied was to alleviate the problem of maintaining gargantuan categories. They are not "overspecialized" any more than {{Template:D&D Books}} is overspecialized. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overrule and Relist per above. Bleh999 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, there are no new arguments here in the nomination, only claims of ownership by the WikiProject. The process ran the proper length of time, if you can't be bothered to keep track of the templates you claim to own, then it's nobody's problem but your own. There is nothing more to be seen here. The TfD discussion was unanimous, and absolutely correctly so. Corvus cornix 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, DRV is not "XfD round 2" and the closure was 100% within guidelines, no procedural problems. The complaint that the Wikiproject was not notified is not grounds for overturning a valid deletion, either. Arkyan • (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that it would then possibly not have been deleted. It's only fair to let both sides of an argument present their cases. It's another thing to let just one side say "Delete!" while the other side sits, twiddling their thumbs ignorantly. If Wikipedia is built on consensus, then everyone has the right to participate in a discussion. Overturn deletion and relist. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "What if" is also not a reason to overturn a perfectly valid reason. Are you implying that everyone who participated in the discussion is on a "side" that opposes the Pokemon wikiproject? If anything I would take their opinion as uninvolved editors to be more neutral and unbiased than a project with a vested interest in the topic. Again, there is nothing here that has violated deletion policy or procedures and thus no grounds to overturn it on. Arkyan • (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what he's implying, Ark. He's implying that the point of view from the WikiProject wasn't even heard from because nobody there knew what the frag was going on. He's not implying that only one side was heard, he's implying that one side wasn't heard. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The WikiProject does not need to be notified of this. The comments over at the TFD were perfectly valid deletes, and the templates were deleted. If you want the WikiProject's side to be heard, they should've hunted for that TFD themselves. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. This is not about the Pokémon project not being informed: there was no requirement for them to be. As above, this is about the fact that new arguments have come to light, and thus the decision for deletion was not made taking everything into account. As the page itself says: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion". In this case, it has, so the templates should be relisted. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you (and the others) may be misinterpreting the point about "new information". New arguments != new information, and that is why DRV != XfD2. For example, let's say an article about Some Guy was deleted as it lacked sources to establish notability. Now let's say I have found a number of news articles that can establish this notability, so I bring it to DRV as new information that was not available during the AfD. That is what is meant by "new information". What we have here is not new information that was not available during the TfD, but rather, new arguments that were not made during the TfD. So again, new arguments are not the same thing as new information, and are not grounds for overturning a decision. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The deletion process ran the proper length and had overwhelming consensus to delete. Lack of notification of a WikiProject is not a reason to overturn a TfD and restore the templates. --Farix (Talk) 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it evident from reading this discussion that there currently isn't an overall overwhelming consensus to delete? A sample of seven or eight people who somehow stumbled upon that TfD discussion over the course of a week is obviously not representative of a collaborative encyclopedia. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; the generic {{non-free character}} suffices for at least the several hundred images that I retagged this morning and earlier this evening. Other templates will also suffice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that they give no information about who actually owns the copyright. The fact that it's Pokémon USA must be added manually, which is not the case for the deleted templates. And you still haven't commented on the category size. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Saying "too bad, you didn't get your arguments in fast enough, now consensus can't change" is silly. And substantial new arguments are certainly grounds for relisting. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those endorsing, I have a few things to say. For the "the WikiProject does not need to be notified": Perhaps there is no convention for doing so, but it should, ought to and usually is done by application of sheer common sense as opposed to WP policy. For "this is not TfD round 2": The original TfD was not nearly valid, whatever policy may state. A warning template is added to subjects being considered for deletion for precisely this purpose, to notify editors who may be interested in the discussion. In ths case, the subjects are templates which are used only on image pages, which is why no one ever knew about this discussion except those that were hanging around the TfD page. And "no one" includes the WikiProject which created these templates in the first place, and which might therefore have very good reasons for keeping them.When only one side is ever given the opportunity to speak when another, sizeable, side exists, the debate obviously becomes farce. Whether Wikipedia policy states it or not, this is a case for ignoring all rules and renewing the debate. And its not as if we have no new information at all. These templates are maintained for subcategorizing image categories like category:screenshots of television and category:screenshots of films, which encourage the creation of subcategories if the existing category is very large. These categories currently have 33,000+ and 15,500+ images respectively, which would be considered "large" by any standard. That is information which was not mentioned in the TfD, i.e. it's "new information" for wikilawyers. That is the argument that was originally presented, and none of the "Endorse" crowd has said anything to counter it. The only argument for endorsing seems to be along the lines of, "The TfD was valid, you aren't allowed to say anything now, so run off and play with your toys." not anything constructive to the ongoing debate. Thank you. The Raven's Apprentice 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: no valid arguments for overturning have been presented. In fact, the bulk of the argument seems to be addressed towards some categories which do not need a template to be used! This overspecialized and frequently misguided Wikiproject seems to be constantly amazed that its whims and WP:OWNership claims are not automatically accepted by the rest of Wikipedia, and seems oblivious to opinions about bad precedent. Project membership does not trump consensus! Similar templates have been discussed before (e.g. at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 29#Template:PokeImageNR), with similar results. And the claims here that the TfD was not valid because some random wikiproject which may or may not have had an interest in the matter was not notified are beyond preposterous! Say it with me again: "project membership does not trump consensus". And frankly, the more specialized the project, the less likely (in my experience) that it will be able to muster unbiased arguments, and the less appropriate for it to create hordes of overspecialized templates and categories. I could see having templates and categories for cartoons in general, but having separate templates and categories for each and every cartoon series in existence is a horrific idea! I strongly suggest that this project work together with other related projects to come up with a few (one or two) general-purpose templates which can take arguments to specialize them, similar to {{WPBiography}}. Xtifr tälk 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hear, hear. WikiProject ownership of articles/templates/whatever is a very serious problem. Corvus cornix 02:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Categories that do not need templates"? What I have been saying is about depopulating general categories, not populating specific ones. {{Film screenshot}} adds ad page to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of films and {{Tv screenshot}} adds it to the overpopulated Category:Screenshots of television. Neither does the Project claim ownership of the templates, but seeing as templates are not used by Wikipedia readers but rather by a section of editors, seeing as it is only the Project which uses or needs to use this template and it is the Project that will be incovenienced by their deletion, I think the Project would earn a right to outrage. And as for "each and every" cartoon having its own image category, I'd like to remind you that Pokémon is not any other cartoon, it is a fad that has lasted for a decade and still going strong. Notability aside, what matters is the numbers: Category:Pokémon lead images has around 500 images. I'm estimating around 1500 images for all the categories put together. 1500 images, in short, which use the template.
        And as N (who, for the Endorse crowd, is not a member of the WikiProject) pointed out, the templates contain the information that the copyright is owned by Pokémon USA, which must be put on the image page to make it comply under WP:NFCC. Without these templates, this information must be manually added to an estimated 1500+ pages. I suppose it could be done, but I doubt any of those currently yelling "Endorse" would like to do it themselves. And even as we speak, several images that were tagged with the deleted templates have been tagged as lacking a tag by the deleting Admin's bot, and are under direct threat from OrphanBot. If the discussion closes on "Endorse", they shall be deleted exactly a day after it. And as it was only the Template which added them to the categories, their respective categories have been blanked now and it's impossible to identify them and prevent this unless one goes through all the 1000+ Pokémon-related articles on the Wiki. Again, that is work that none of the Endorsers would be keen on doing.EDIT: That problem won't be solved even if the decision is "Overturn". The WikiProject is expected to do all the dirty work, as usual, and if we complain we're "claiming ownership". --The Raven's Apprentice 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I thought at first that people honestly did think that there were strong arguments not considered, but recent events on WT:PCP have demonstrated that it's really more of a "we weren't told so it's wrong!" thing. -Amarkov moo! 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I suggest for the Pokemon folks to prevent this in the future, have someone just watch TFD for you. All I am seeing here is that a project wasn't notified, so that should cancel the vote. I don't buy that at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse I have seen 3 arguments in this DRV to undelete the templates. I have listed them and why they don't make these templates necessary.
    • Wikiproject not notified - People from Wikiproject Pokemon should pay more attention to Xfds.
    • Categorization - Make a new template to subst into images with the necessary categories and text saying "Copyrighted by *copyright owner*".
    • Compliance with fair use policy - See Categorization. Funpika 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject not notified" was never an argument for overturning, it was solely an argument for permitting this DRV in the first place. Looks like FunPika has addressed all issues, except one: overcluttering of the parent category. Unless we make at least one template, which can use variables to serve the functions of all those deleted, the parent category'll just clutter up a bit more. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Non-free television screenshot}} can easily have a parameter for changing the category. –Pomte 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as delete, no process went wrong here, nothing to review. Funpika's three points are also relevant. --Iamunknown 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Posting the TfD at the talk there would have undoubtedly brought in a bias towards it. There's no reason to make specific templates for a show when generic ones do the job just as well. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - ironically enough, I am the person that nominated these articles. I apologize, as I was in a hurry that day, I did not notify that original creators. The point of the TFD ought to be to have a discussion about the merits of a template, not a simply "you better get your vote in now or it will be deleted forever without your valuable input". I apologize, but I believe it would be best to have a full discussion from all elements present on these templates. The Evil Spartan 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Per User:the Evil Spartan. FunPika 13:00, 17 June 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.
Pascal DeMaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A google search of this man's name yields his accomplishments and relevance as a film maker and director of music videos. The article lacked citations, however I would be more than willing to add them if the article was un-deleted, and clean up the silliness of some parts of it, e.g. "Titles: King of the San Fernando Valley". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.86.97 (talk • contribs)

Google search results have very little meaning, can you provide some non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources ? --pgk 06:07, 13 June 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.
Corrado Giannantoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Relevant to aother articles and an important figure in providing mathematical foundations of emergy concept Sholto Maud 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

12 June 2007

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

This article was deleted in the past, largely because it had few sources outside its own websites. However, the revised article has two external sources. The reason given at the time was notability, but I feel that the subject has been proven notable. Some of the votes for deletion included "Yawn. Another Linux distro" and other reasons that in my opinion were insubstantial. Thomasmallen 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse notability still not established. From what I can see the two outside websites metioned are [9] and [10], neither of which can be considered a reliable source, the first is a sourceforge like project the second is a wiki. --pgk 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Relatively short debate in the AFD but the claims to notability were addressed and there seems to be no procedural errors here. DRV shouldn't be a place to rerun AFD discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but permit re-creation if there ever does get some real outside third party references from software reviews and the likeDGG
  • Endorse deletion. The only "keep" arguments at the AfD amounted to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and failed to cite anything even resembling a reliable source. Delete arguments cited policies and guidelines. There is no question which argument should have prevailed, and closer made absolutely no mistakes. I've used nothing but Linux for nearly a decade now, but I see nothing to establish the notability of this distribution. It isn't even in the top 100 at distrowatch. In fact, it doesn't seem to be listed there at all! That's pretty non-notable! Note that the fact that distrowatch has a top 100 list helps explain the "Yawn. Another Linux distro" comment. As does the fact that they reportedly receive "an average of 2 - 3 requests per week to include a new distribution". I didn't bother to count all their distros, but they have over forty starting with the letter 'A' alone! Anyway, if you can't meet their standards for inclusion (basically, has existed for at least 90 days), you're certainly far short of meeting Wikipedia's. Xtifr tälk 02:16, 18 June 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.
Lolcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The situation has changed since the AfD-debate about six weeks ago. The main arguments were that the programming language was not notable and lacked a clear definition. Now, a Google-search yields about 750,000 results (compare with for example Malbolge which is an accepted article, yet receives only 20,000 results), and a defined Lolcode version 1.0 has been established. Because of this, I think a new debate is appropriate. HymylyT@C 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There do seem to be some reliable sources now at [11]. But when genuinely new information or sources emerge, it's usually okay to just recreate the article. I'm sure most admins would userfy this for you so you can work on it. --W.marsh 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate closed one week ago, not six weeks ago. --- RockMFR 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone at least explain what the arguments for deletion were? Someone's deleted the discussion page for it. As far as I can tell, its a community project that has been mentioned on Linux.com and several other notable websites, returns nearly 750,000 Google results, and has a large and active community. It deserves at least a stub- there are plenty of less worthy articles out there. Patch86 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are plenty of less worthy articles out there" = WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS = non sequitur.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If you think there are reliable sources for this, please list them here. Counting google hits doesn't really help. The google news search pointed to above has one article from a blog, one that only contains a link to a website (with nothing written about it in the actual article), and one article about the meme, with a short mention of the programming language. With just those, it's not possible to write a decent, sourced article. A mention of this at the article about the meme would probably be appropriate, but it's not independently notable. - Bobet 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you conclude that it's "not possible to write a decent, sourced article" based on notability? If those articles are enough to establish its _existence_, why can't the "decent, sourced article" come from other sources, such as the official LOLCode site? I wouldn't expect any other language's page to get all its details from news articles.-- Arachnid
  • Keep deleted. I would have wanted to keep the article but I think that Wikipedia doesn't revolve around me. The deletion discussion was validly closed. JIP | Talk 14:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, heres a question: what criteria are we willing to wait for it to meet before it becomes a viable article? The deletion discussion seems to have 2 recurring arguments: firstly, that it is too new to warrant inclusion. Secondly, that it has not been mentioned by a verifiable source. The first is clearly something that is extremely POV- what is too new? Is it ok to rewrite in a week? A month? A year? A decade? At which point does an topic become "article worthy"? The second point is covered by the recent article on Linux.com- a more reputable source of open-source news you'd be hard pushed to find. Lets decide on the criteria we want it to meet, and then we can see if it ever meets it. Patch86 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Please consider coming up with a new article in your userspace and addressing the concerns on reliable sourcing. Once you have something to go on you can either move it into main space or bring it back here is there are any outstanding doubts about it. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I have voted to keep Lolcode a protected redirect above. GracenotesT § 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - As I pointed out in the AfD, a majority of the article was simply copy & pasted from the website, thus a copyvio. Further, there is no notability. Google hits are not a reliable source, and there are no articles published about this. It's a small project that a few people find entertaining. That's it. We can't cite the LOLcode site any more than we could MySpace or another self-published site. If someone can find multiple reliable sources, as required, I'd reconsider. -- Kesh 02:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • HHO gas – As a compromise solution, redirected to Oxyhydrogen, with history undeleted. The redirects will be protected. In the event that new reliable sources become available, anyone may request unprotection by the usual means. A merged section, mentioning pseudo-scientific promotion within oxyhydrogen, may be reasonable, and would be permitted by the history undeletion. – Xoloz 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD mentioned above has now run its course. It was closed as "delete", and I fail to see how this can possibly reflect community consensus. Related discussion:

If I counted correctly, 13-15 people in the AfD recommended to delete, 18-20 to keep (plus minus a few leaning/conditional/merge on each side). Yes, as Kurykh contends, AfD is not a vote. But even considering the rough history of these articles, and allowing for individual judgement of the arguments about the reliability of the sources — this AfD does not reflect a consensus for deletion, not even a rough one, and the policy is clear enough that this defaults to a "keep".

WP:AN: Kurykh's rationale for deletion and for disregarding opinions at the AfD—many of which explicitly state that the articles do not violate WP:RS—is that the articles violate WP:RS. I find this unilateral decision not acceptable and in violation of proper deletion procedure. Femto 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion of both HHO gas and related Brown's gas, and a speedy close of this DRV. Please note the AfD involved HHO gas and Brown's gas. Not sure if nominator intended to discuss both articles. Just to be sure, this is the neverending story of editors having a total disregard for normal procedure and as such refusing to abide by policy: i.e. AfD and DRV. For details on why this is repeatedly deleted and there is no reason to recreate yet again see:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (2nd nomination)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination)
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnecular bond
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Ducted Electrolysis
One would think that after this many deletions, for what essentially is the same article, having yet another DRV looks more like WP:POINT and should be speedy closed. As to WP:RS, nominator is free to supply any reputable scientific source stating this is either about real science or it is a hoax. Since after all those AfD's it is still impossible to provide such a source the rationale to delete stands, and coincidentally is every time the same: violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Nomen Nescio: Yes, you may assume the review extends to any pages that are deleted citing this AfD.
The previous AfDs are irrelevant to the current issue at hand. That you list them, intermingling Brown's gas with HHO gas yet again, only shows your need to distract from the fact that you have no point about the actual subject of this review.
It was not the purpose of the AfD to supply sources for the article, but to determine whether the existing sources are adequate enough. Individual opinions notwithstanding, I maintain, the consensus of this deletion debate, and the outcome of this AfD per Wikipedia's deletion policy, is that there is no justification for deletion. Femto 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete both as redirects to Oxyhydrogen - and mention both historical Brown's gas and the HHO pseudoscience or hoax stuff there. We both need to cover that these are real phenomena and not give credibility to the kooks that the sources do not support. This was proposed in AFDs as a middle ground and rejected in favor of extremes, which don't serve the encyclopedia well. If I can google either term and get hundreds of hits, we should list these somehow, even if they are listings of a minor industrial use and a pseudoscience / hoax phenomena. Georgewilliamherbert 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This is tenable, but I would like to see what the Oxyhydrogen article would be changed to in advance, including what sourcing there is for any statements made there. --EMS | Talk 21:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for God's sake. How often do we have to go round this loop? Endorse, come back when there is something in a reputable pee-reviewed paper. This is just like Aetherometry; while it would be great to be the Internet's leading debunker of scams, it almost always violates our policies. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you disbelieve that there are a small number of Brown's gas welders out there? Tsk tsk. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I was really hoping that the last AfD would produce some productive results - ie. some kind of compromise that would make for a satisfactory conclusion to this back-and-forth. Unfortunately at this time the sourcing to create a valid article (about the hoax) still doesn't quite exist. I did like the suggestion to redirect them to Oxyhydrogen and feel that it was a better middle-ground solution, particularly in the face of the lack of consensus generated. I don't feel there was sufficient consensus in the AfD to really close it as a delete but I'm not going to cry about that - I would like to see them redirected somewhere. Alas. Arkyan • (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both - clear violation of Deletion policy
    1. I count 19 keep votes vs 15 delete votes. Do you count differently? It's pretty outlandish to claim that this constitutes a rough consensus for deletion, don't you think? AfD is not a headcount, but a deletion in spite of consensus to keep should only be done in special cases (copyright violations, meatpuppets, etc.)
    2. Even if the situation were reversed, and there was a slight majority for deletion, Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, and this would still not constitute a rough consensus for deletion. In the case of no consensus, as I'm sure you're aware, the default action is to keep:
      • "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." — Deletion policy
      • "The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept." — {{Afd no consensus}}
      • "When in doubt, don't delete." — Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
    3. Several of the delete votes were solely for HHO gas, not Brown's gas. The articles are quite different (and should never have been lumped into a single AfD).
    4. Radiant's mention of "thirteen" debates (where did he get that number?) and the repeated "recreation of deleted content" criticism is irrelevant. It is well-defined in policy that a re-created article is acceptable if it takes into account the problems with the deleted version. In addition, the previous deletion review explicitly stated that the articles could be recreated. The latest versions of the articles were very different from the previously deleted versions, written entirely from scratch with verifiable, reliable sources.
    5. If Kurykh personally believes that the articles did not have reliable sources or were not notable, he should have voted delete like the rest of us and left the closure for a neutral admin. Those claiming that the articles don't have reliable sources probably haven't actually read them, and are just making assumptions based on past deletions. See Talk:Brown's gas#References and Talk:HHO gas#References for a few. The articles certainly need work and more sources, but that's not a criteria for deletion.
    Do you really think that 19 editors (including seven administrators) are all incompetent to interpret our policies, and can legitimately be overruled by one admin's personal opinion?
    The people who promote these gases claim that they are similar to oxyhydrogen, but contain other anomalous compounds and properties, which is why these unique claims are separated from the oxyhydrogen article. If you want to discuss merging or renaming, go right ahead, but the articles are kept by default, and that discussion takes place on the articles' talk pages, not on AfD. This unilateral deletion and attempts to prevent deletion review are completely unacceptable. — Omegatron 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would love to know why you are so adamant about these topics needing coverage, to the point that you are willing to grasp at any straw to assert notability. As I see it, you did a wonderful job of pushing a falacious theory of notability. IMO Kurykh did a fine job of seeing that theory for what it was, as so disregarded the keep votes based on it and quite properly deleted the article. Even now, you are arguing that by votes there was no consensus even as you quote that "These processes are not decided through a head count"! IMO, it is time for you to stop this strange campaign to give these scams coverage and notice that they do not deserve. --EMS | Talk 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are again insinuating that Omegatron is somehow trying to promote these things. Can't you see? It can't possibly hurt us to have articles debuking these well-documented fraudulent claims. At least Brown's gas is notable, so much so that some people think it is the correct name for oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bias itself is obvious but I will apologize to Omegatron for not assuming good faith before in terms of my speculation on its source. I agree that notable hoaxes deserve articles. As for "debunking" them I refer you to WP:NPOV, which hopefully does not get in the way of that. Beyond that, oxyhydrogen is obviously notable, and if Brown's gas is really that common of a term then there should be no problem establishing its notability based on reliable sources in my mind. So far, that has no been done. OTOH, what I have seen would justify a section at oxyhydrogen and a redirect from Brown's gas to that article. --EMS | Talk 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained my rationale a bazillion times. Go read it on the AfD or the articles' talk pages. Please stick to discussion of the actual deletion process. — Omegatron 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my decision. May I refer everyone to my post here and ask that Omegatron reread all of our policies and get accustomed to Wikipedia norms before making any further erroneous comments. —Kurykh 03:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As the last DRV said, we ought to have this information in Wikipedia somewhere. The way, the truth, and the light 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Although Omegatron and you try and articulate that numerous AfD's should be ignored you also fail to undertand the principal argument in this case: the articles were deleted for violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. So, what exactly does that mean?
  1. The articles said X gas exists.
  2. The articles said X gas has special properties.
  3. The articles said X gas is a hoax.
None of these statements can be sourced to scientific articles. Not even an adequate and non-promotional journalistic valid news report exists. What we are left with are three statements for which no sources can be found. This is considered to be a -wait a minute, it is amazing! oops, it can't be, yes,- a violation of WP:RS and WP:NOR. Exactly the reason they were deleted.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep this garbage deleted. extraordinary new scientific claims must be peer reviewed before we accept them, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. -N 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Closing admin seems to have ignored the discussion and instead closed based on his personal take on the article. That oversteps admin discretion for what should have been a no consensus close. --JJay 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More argumentum ad populum arguments. —Kurykh 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no consensus for closing as delete. The sources were widely discussed during the debate, yet a majority wanted the article kept. It is not your role to state that the sources are inadequate. Instead, you ignored the discussion and made an innapropriate block threat. When I pointed to the 2006 article from the International journal of hydrogen energy[12], the response I received was: "I'd love to know how this stuff gets past a peer review, but for the less prominant journals the publication of alternate views may be a way of filling page space".[13] That is an inadequate response. The sources + media attention were considered during this debate and there was no consensus to delete. --JJay 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • JJay -
          1. I am the one who complained about the peer review, not Kurykh.
          2. Lacking any trail of articles that refer to the one you cited, it fails WP:SCIENCE anyway, and so confers no notability on the topic.
          3. AfD is not decided by counting votes anyway. Kurykh had to decide if the keep opinions were based on an acceptable case for notability, and decided (correctly IMO) that they were not. That is not an abuse of his discression as an admin.
          Please see WP:N. Notability is not confered by primary sources alone, but that is all that you and the others are able to offer on this sorry topic. --EMS | Talk 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Many people say keep" is, as I have said ad nauseam, an argumentum ad populum argument. Sorry for the plethora of Latin here, but you are only rehashing an already refuted argument. —Kurykh 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever language you use, your disdain for the people who participated in the debate doesn't need translation. --JJay 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the previous thirteen debates on the issue. How often must this discussion be repeated? I certainly agree to a redirect anywhere that would resolve the issue. >Radiant< 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorseI simply can't see a valid encyclopedic article coming out of the ashes of this lot. We are better off without it - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for "The Truth"TM Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a deletion review. It's for discussion about the deletion process itself, not about the article. The arguments for deletion were already made in the AfD, and rejected by a majority. — Omegatron 13:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the talk page is undeleted, and has been tagged for speedy deletion at least twice now. I added a warning there. - Nabla 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion These are promotional hoaxes trying to profit at the expense of Wikipedia's credibility. --Tbeatty 18:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote and there was nothing worth keeping in the articles as they stood. Articles on hoaxes and fringe theories are hard to write well. These weren't it. --John 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion on the grounds that there has been no violation of deletion policy and the closing admin did not err in reading consensus. The purpose of an AfD, as people have said, is not a vote, but a discussion. The earlier 12 debates and the lack of policy grounds used by Keep voters would undoubtedly have been key in the decision - it wasn't even just a lack of formal citation, on reading the debate, but a series of "it should have an article" arguments. Orderinchaos 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Brown's gas article has plenty of citations and sources, and "it should have an article" is absolutely a reason to keep it in an AFD debate. You cannot simply say "those AFD opinions don't matter"; they are valid, and claiming they didn't count towards consensus is illegitimate. Georgewilliamherbert 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It should have an article" = WP:ILIKEIT, as so is not a valid argument for keeping an article. This is part of the policies that are being followed here. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --EMS | Talk 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you are going to cite policy, cite actual policy. WP:ILIKEIT is an essay. WP:SCIENCE is not policy or guideline. Neither should ever be cited as policy--JJay 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, "It should have an article" = "This topic comes up repeatedly in questions. There are real products in the real world named this and in at least moderate use. There is an associated pseudoscientific hoax that people are asking about a lot, and the verifyable debunking of which is notable and a useful topic". There are plenty of WP core goal, policy, and guideline compliant reasons for keeping the article. There are verifyable sources as to the patents, low-volume usage in industry of Brown's gas welding equipment, and to the HHO hoax/pseudoscience stuff. Since these exist, there is no valid reason to delete the articles. Don't cover up the sources and arguments on the keep side to make false claims of tidy deletability. ILIKEIT's companion is IDONTLIKEIT, and that's equally bogus. Georgewilliamherbert 22:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, an encyclopedia utilizes third party sources to cite statements made in articles/academic publications/news (in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:RS. All academic publications, in good faith, must be considered as such unless there is peer review that says the contrary. Absence of peer review cannot, by default, establish breach of the WP:RS policy, especially if an article has already been published in a known academic journal. If third party sources exist that can be cited according to WP:CITE, then there is justification for statements to be made in an article that utilize proper citation. I move that this debate become focused on establishing what sources are consistent with WP:RS rather than "should such articles exist"; The existence of a single source that meets WP:RS is grounds for the existence of an article that utilizes said source for proper citation. Essentially this debate should become about policy, and the application of WP:RS. Noah Seidman 23:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised this user has a commercial interest (see bottom of page) in propagating this fantasy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion review is about Wikipedia policy of which I have no commercial interest. A deletion review debate, according to Wikipedia policy, pertains to the conclusion of a AfD debate, not the content of the article in question, therefore conflict of interest in this particular debate is irrelevant. Mention of "fantasy" brings the content of the article in question into this debate, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's policy regarding the purpose of a deletion review; Nomen NescioGnothi seauton has officially breached the policy of the deletion review process. Noah Seidman 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have not contributed to the article in question, showing good faith that I believe a third party article can be created, I would like to refer the closing administrator to the following talk page; dealing with an conflict of interest on the part of Nomen NescioGnothi seauton: Talk:Medical literature Noah Seidman 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you refrain from turning this into a personal matter? My edits on whatever article is irrelevant to the fact that you have a COI with these articles. Since there is no reason to derail this DRV I sincerely ask you to remove the inappropriate comment.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This example of conflict of interest goes direct toward your credibility in this deletion review; the example you cited regarding me is directly comparable to your profile page; the statement clearly says "my medical site". Noah Seidman 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting: WP:RS says nothing about a single reliable source establishing that an article in encyclopedic. Also, when I look at WP:N and WP:V, the request in for "reliable sources". Note that this is plural, not singular. --EMS | Talk 02:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N exactly how many sources is required to be encyclopedic? Two [2] would be plural. Noah Seidman 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does a source require a reliable source to be determined unreliable, or can un-reliability be determined by the general consensus/opinions of a debate?
If general consensus is used to determine an article should be deleted, and general consensus does not require a majority [>50%], can a general consensus be used to substantiate recreation of an article?
Given the specific ratio of votes, in the relevant deletion review debate, does this establish a baseline for what general consensus is, or is general consensus determined on an AfD by AfD basis? Noah Seidman 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a bunch of wikilawyering, and I see no need to respond further to it. --EMS | Talk 15:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - DRV is not AfD. Please discuss the deletion process and not the merits of the article itself. But if you're going to make claims that the article inherently violates WP:RS and WP:NOR, to the point that this overrules a clear consensus against deletion, you need to back up those claims. Reliable sources were included for the claims made by proponents. Criticisms and debunking were included for a neutral point of view. The criticisms and debunking were not invented by Wikipedians; they were attributed to the prominent notable critics who made them, and reliable sources were cited for their criticisms. Please actually read the deleted articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions based on past deletion nominations or Nomen's baseless claims. — Omegatron 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, feel free to provide any reputable scientific source stating miracle gas exists or that it is a hoax. Claiming Randi is a valid source for criticism is ludicrous. Do we use him to point out Intelligent Design is bogus? Or that those claiming HIV is not related to AIDS are misinforming us? Clearly it is a scientific claim therefore we need scientists to refute it otherwise we are violating WP:NOR.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore them; then either temporarily fully protect them or temporarily block their spammers, so that their spammers cannot edit them back to the spam while any admins that know about the science involved eliminate the spam and sort the matter into these topics:-
    • With Brown's gas, oxygen and hydrogen having no unusual properties but staying mixed all the way from the electrolyser to the torch. If this is real-world technology, keep this matter in a section of its own.
    • Unreal claims for properties of oxyhydrogen mixtures (in both pages) made by particular alleged processes. Summarise, eliminate spam, make it clear that this matter is hoax. If this hoax is widely heard of among welders etc, then it is noteworthy as a hoax and the public needs to be warned that it is hoax.
    • Water-fuelled car: perhaps insert a section distinguishing the nonexistent water-fuelled car from a car run on hydrogen which was made earlier by electrolyzing water; but neither of these is really a use of oxyhydrogen.
    • The section Brown's gas#Atomic welding may to refer to "monatomic hydrogen" (which gets 9290 ghits) or "atomic hydrogen": see Atomic hydrogen welding.
    If this gets the total matter reasonably short, merge into Oxyhydrogen. Let HHO gas and Brown's gas redirect to appropriate sections of Oxyhydrogen. Anthony Appleyard 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    'Atomic hydrogen' and 'monatomic hydrogen' are the same thing, actually. The way, the truth, and the light 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion and run separate AfDs for the two different articles. I always say that bundled nominations of several articles into one is blatant arms twisting and a room for abuse or misunderstanding both by voters and the closing admin. As one of admins put it: 383 revisions restored: AFD was for HHO, not Brown's Gas. Conflating the two and deleting this one was in error. HHO is the hoax, Brown's Gas has long and notable scientific/industrial history). `'юзырь:mikka 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion and re-nominate each with a cogent argument for deletion. The AfD process was deficient from the start. I'm really sick of these throw it against the wall and see if it sticks nominations, and this a good example of why we need to really rethink the deletion process as it is currently practiced. The deletion process is supposed to produce a rough consensus for deletion. But when the nomination is not specific, as in this case, the discussion goes all over the place, as in this case, and no clear consensus can be discerned from the process, as in this case. We really need to insist that the nominations are specific as to why an article should be deleted, and then focus on that. The idea that deletion can be a moving target, and that the article and the discussion can change during the process, and still produce a result that reflects consensus is ridiculous. Dhaluza 20:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see this as a "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" situation - this article and its associated ones (see above) have been deleted every time they've been debated. EliminatorJR Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, the information in page Brown's gas has 2 components:-
    1. Unseparated oxygen-hydrogen mixture going from the electrolyser to the torch. Sounds unsafe but likely.
    2. Strange claims for that mixture's properties, similarly to HHO gas.
    I suppose that it could be that with the gases mixed all through instead of them having to take time mixing in the torch, that may make the flame a bit hotter; but not all the fancy HHO-gas-type claims. Anthony Appleyard 20:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a most difficult one. It would be fine to have a decent and informative article about Hydrogen quackery, but I'm not sure whether this is only difficult or impossible. The now-deleted article versions were noticably better than the older ones, but not to the extent to fully convince me. But the worst point is, that we don't have reliable sources to debunk this nonsense and with the fundamentalist handling of WP:V and WP:NOR these policies have turned against their creators. WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door, now it is used by them to eliminate any counter argument from their articles. Have a look at the mess at Water fuel cell. Without a new policy Wikipedia:This encyclopedia obeys the laws of physics I'm unclear how to counter this crap. Summary: I'm clueless how to proceed. Compare als my last AfD statement [14]. --Pjacobi
  • How long has the WP:NOR rule been in effect? (Page Wikipedia:No original research was created at 15:15 on 21 December 2003.) It is hard to see how the dispute re these two pages, and queries about the page Water fuel cell, can be finally solved without allowing some simple provable proof or disproof based on simple known laws of physics and chemistry (rather than advanced complicated new scientific theories). In "WP:NOR was invented to show the physics cranks the door", who were the "physics cranks"? Were they people who thought they knew the laws of physics but did not and were talking rubbish? Or were they people making valid scientific reasoning and were the people complaining about them non-scientists who could not understand the scientific reasoning? And, if (for example), there are three items of information X and Y and Z, and an editor has external references for X and Y but not for Z, and in Wikipedia he says correctly that Z can be proved from X and Y, how obvious must the line of reasoning be before the WP:NOR rule does not apply or can be bent? (See "De minimis non curat lex"). If the WP:NOR rule should be revised, then it must be revised. I and likely many other Wikipedia editors have been handcuffed various times by the WP:NOR rule not letting the editor mention how one or two basic scientific points affect the topic of the page being edited. Anthony Appleyard 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone please explain how this violates WP:RS and WP:NOR? Still these accusations are coming in, even though a majority of competent users voted that the article was acceptable as written. For instance:
    • Ruggero Santilli claims that this gas burns at a very high temperature because it sublimates tungsten.[Santilli's journal article] Don Lancaster points out that this is actually not sublimation, but oxidation, since it's carried out in air.[Lancaster's magazine article]
      • How is this original research? We're not inventing our own explanation for the effect; we're attributing and citing a notable critic.
      • How are these sources not reliable? Both are verifiable sources for the claims made by either party. Both have gone through third-party editorial review and are not self-published.
      • How is this not neutral? It presents a somewhat dubious claim made by the proponent, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of what's actually happening in this situation.
    • News programs claim that this company has produced a water-fuelled car.[Cite news sources themselves] Notable pseudoscience debunker James Randi points out that this is an old hoax, and explains why it doesn't make sense.[James Randi's newsletter] Dr. Ali T-Raissi (Hydrogen Research Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center), and Sieglinde Kinne (Energy Efficiency Engineer for the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center) also explain how this couldn't work, due to the efficiencies of the chemical processes involved.[Cite this to the newspaper articles that reported on these scientists' explanations]
      • How is this original research? We're not debunking the water-fuelled car based on our own theories; we're attributing and citing a notable critic and two reputable scientists.
      • How are these sources not reliable? The news sources for both the claims and rebuttals are verifiable, not self-published, and have gone through third-party editorial review. The source for Randi's claim is self-published, but is a reliable source with which one can verify that he actually criticized them in the way that we say he said.
      • How is this not neutral? It presents a completely bogus claim made by the reporters, and then debunks it with a clear explanation of how this isn't possible according to normal physics, and a criticism from a notable debunker that this is a common hoax used to get money from gullible investors.
    Please explain what's wrong with an article written in this fashion. I can't fathom how this violates any policies. Please actually read the articles and talk pages before jumping to conclusions about its merits. — Omegatron 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Given that the article got removed on notability grounds, this is just a bunch of irrelevant wikilawyering.
      Omegatron has consistently shown himself to have an exteme bias in favor of this stuff. This is just one more example of the lengths he is willing to go to to have an articke on it in Wikipedia. IMO, he cares not at all about policy, even as he cites it. --EMS | Talk 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was deleted by Kurykh, with a reference to reliable sources and recreation, not notability. You're the one claiming that it's not notable, but several people in the AfD have shown you that it is.
    • Several people continue to claim on this page that the article is original research or has no reliable sources, so I am asking them to demonstrate why. This is not even close to "WikiLawyering".
    • Yes, I want an article on this stuff, while you would prefer to delete most of our articles on pseudoscientific topics. I think everyone is already quite aware of this. You don't need to point out the obvious. When people disagree like this, we hold an AfD, a majority votes to keep the article, and the article is kept. — Omegatron 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has already been mentioned to you that Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion explicitly states that "[t]hese processes are not decided through a head count". The issue is whether the keep opinions were properly disregarded, and repeating the head count says nothing about that. What you are trying to do is proof by assertion and that is another example of wikilawyering and your trying every trick in the book to have an article on this topic. --EMS | Talk 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (in response to Pjacobi just above) - It is my suggestion that we adjourn back to WP:SCIENCE and see about getting it functional. The goal of the proposed policy IMO is to establish that an topic which has not been adequately enough vetted in either the scientific or popular press enough so that there is (or can be) a case against it is not eligible to be part of Wikipedia. The lack of attention and critical analysis that this has gotten in the literature really are the issue for the AfD. --EMS | Talk 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn based on Femto's concerns about the AfD process. I think the basic points in favor of overturning have all been made above and I will not repeat them here. --A. B. (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Omegatron and Femto. ATren 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn particularly in the case of Brown's gas which was not debated in the Afd but which was deleted anyway. If the opinions were recounted there were more in support of Brown's gas than there were for HHO gas. Deleting the content will not help the recommended merge of information into the other articles mentioned. Also many editors seem to be confused about whether the article is supporting a hoax or is indicating the article is about the hoax controversy. GB 08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of HHO gas or at the very least redirect to oxyhydrogen and keep the salt. Otherwise, we are just going to be back here in a few months. And though it pains me, Overturn Brown's Gas and send back to AfD so it can have its own debate, as it appears to have a fraction more validity. EliminatorJR Talk 08:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why you think this should be deleted when the AfD showed no consensus for deletion?
    This is DRV, not AfD. Please comment on the deletion process, not your personal opinion of the validity of the article. — Omegatron 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I believe the majority of Keep votes did not show that HHO was sufficiently and reliably sourced. The discussion on Brown's Gas was not as in-depth which is why I suggest it should re-run at AfD. EliminatorJR Talk 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, the article was deleted for lack of sources. Guess what, there are no sources, therefore the process was totally valid and no violation can be detected. Of course, you are free to provide a scientific source detailing the technology or the hoax. We both know you can't. Not even a neutral non-promotional news item exists.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is factually incorrect. There were numerous sources attesting to there being such things as "Brown's Gas", and HHO proponents, etc. They exist. They also fail any reasonable reliability guide for scientific statements. If the articles were fawningly repeating the hoax info, then they'd be deletable. They were not, particularly the Brown's gas article. It was sourced. There exist small numbers of Brown's gas electrolyzer welding units in the world, which are not noticably better than other source or mix-on-site oxyhydrogen welders. But they're real, and the reality is reliably sourced. Deleting "for lack of sources" is misrepresenting the record and grounds to reinstate the articles, period. Georgewilliamherbert 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, "it exists" is not a reason to have an article, either. EliminatorJR Talk 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the primary reason given to delete was that it didn't, was a fake/fraud etc, then "it exists" is a reasonably solid counterargument. It's even hard to argue that it's not notable given all the annoyed attention that it gets. Georgewilliamherbert 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's fairly obvious that HHO gas does not exist, the hoax/scam certainly does (it wouldn't attract such attention otherwise). To be honest, the primary reason for delete was not only this, but also that there were so many POV-pushing editors continually editing the article to make it appear that this was reputable, that it would be better for Wikipedia if there wasn't an article at all. After all, it's only a hoax. I think Brown's Gas is somewhat different as it does appear to have some real-world presence. EliminatorJR Talk 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be perfectly happy to sprotect and watch any articles coming out of this to ensure that HHO hoaxers don't re-insert unverifyable info. Brown's gas does have enough verifyable real use to qualify for some coverage somewhere. It's reasonable to say "we've had a hoaxer problem with these articles", but unreasonable to delete all reference as a fix for that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Hence my !vote to overturn Brown's Gas. I still think it'd be better that if HHO has to have an article, it should be at HHO gas hoax or similar, though. EliminatorJR Talk 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree to that. First of all "HHO gas hoax" is a POV title. More importantly, I don't see the case for notability. HHO and Brown's gas are not unknown, but neither are they widely known or otherwise notable. If they are to be covered at all (and I really do not advise that), then let in be in the oxyhydrogen article, where their claims can be put into a proper context. To the extent that "Brown's gas" has become a synonym for oxyhydrogen instead of referencing Brown's claims for a different gas, this IMO justifies a (protected) redirect to oxyhydrogen instead of an independent article. --EMS | Talk 03:01, 20 June 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_Crecente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No clear consensus and questionable nomination for AfD.

The article on "Brian Crecente" was deleted without clear consensus. Additionally the nominator of the AfD isn't a user. How was an AfD created without having to be a user? Per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion:

"Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process (emphasis added), as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD."

I feel that the decision should instead be "no consensus" on this article. Outside of the "voting" itself there are questionable motives behind the AfD.

Since the "delete" decision the AfD nominator has stated "I am the nominator and I too was a bit surprised on its speedy deletion. I was expecting more of a debate/consensus to keep it. Although I did nominate it, I would have thought we could have done a major revision or atleast try to make it notable in the first place, as by make, I mean finding real information on the man. If anything I would like it to be fair than biased, so lets see if we can get that debate back up then?"

The AfD discussion shows (4) Delete, (2) Keep & (1) Weak Keep. This includes the non-user that nominated the AfD.

Drew30319 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente (2nd nomination). Neither AfD was a "speedy", but ran longer than the required five days. Endorse redirection, no new arguments other than that the original nominator was an IP address, but that doesn't address the merits of the subject matter. Corvus cornix
    • The deletion review page states: "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." My issue is about the decision to delete while it appeared that there was no consensus. This is the first time I've done a deletion review so I don't claim to know what I'm doing, but that's my understanding based on what I've read. Feel free to give me some guidance. Drew30319 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - discussion was heading towards changing people's minds. While it's not a vote - unfortunately, the closing nominator gave no reason to explain why he chose to delete instead of keep, especially in light of the fact that the keep proponents gave good arguments, while none of the deletion arguments provided much basis for deleting:
  • Resume-esque 69.158.170.135
  • Argument fails to account for notability. If it's resume-esque, it should be fixed, not deleted so as to never exist again.
  • Delete, maybe speedy G4. I'm suspicious because an anon IP had posted the AfD, but the article doesn't show much notability here. G4 because of the first nomination - though it's probably a bit far out for that kind of a speedy. --Dennis The Tiger
  • No specific reason stated, except G4 - yet it wasn't speedy material. WP:JNN - just not notable.
  • Delete: Non-notable person. PRs and some articles do not assert notability Seicer
  • Delete per Tony and hmwith
In all, the keep arguments were stronger than the deletion arguments, unquestionably. The Evil Spartan 18:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Closer was not out of line with the close but it may be more helpful to look for more consensus on these types of nominations. Attempts by the DRV nom to dismiss the AfD on procedural grounds because of "non-editors" is a little distasteful, though. IP editors are every bit as useful to the project as anyone else, and these kinds of arguments are a little bite-y. Arkyan • (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to assume good faith in editor's part. He has relatively few edits, and I think what he means is anonymous editors - he just didn't know the right word. The Evil Spartan 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm the "editor" being referred to (I guess that "DRV nom" means the person that entered this for deletion review, right?) then yes, I absolutely mean anonymous editors. The issue (to me) is that it appears that one person using a handful of IP addresses was making changes to the article in question and then proposed the AfD. I still don't understand how a non-user could propose an AfD because according to WP:AfD that isn't possible. I believe that the anonymous editor is probably better versed in all things Wiki than I am (at least to pull of the AfD without registering!). However, that to me is a side-issue. The real issue that I have is that there did not appear to be consensus to delete. Drew30319 01:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer (note, I've fixed the AFD link at the top of this review). I thought it was close but given the presence of only one reliable source, with contributors unable to provide a second, it was on the whole a delete. Neil ╦ 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(note: Google is insufficient for many of the major media sites and require searching within the website itself.) Drew30319 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that the AfD process was started by an anonymous IP address should not be relevant in this case. IP address accounts do not have the ability to create the AfD page such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian_Crecente (2nd nomination). However, User:Uncle G apparently saw that the IP user had attempted to start the deletion process and chose to complete the process by creating the AfD page with the IP user's comments as the first deletion reason. This can be seen in the AfD page's history. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two delete AfDs and currently a redirect to an appropriate article. I endorse that. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, wild allegations of wrongful process are not grounds for overturning anything. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because it was a reasonable outcome. That the nom was anonymous does not bother me. That it was a spa does. However, I interpret Uncle G's completion of the nom as endorsement of it, and obviously, any anon or spa could have called the attention of any editor to a dubious article, and if the ed. thought it was dubious, the ed. could nominate it just the same as if the ed. had come upon the article without the suggestion. I've looked at articles at the request of other people who wanted my opinion--a great many of us have. However, the potential for abuse here is very real & has to be kept in mind. We have a system where the process works in a way that makes it is much easier to delete articles than to keep them . DGG 19:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete & Relist The AFD debate had few participants and several voting to keep showed evidence of carefully considering the relevent policies. I'd be inclined to relist this with caution that the sourcing of the article and verifiability must be addressed if this is to survive the rerun AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and give time for people to rewrite it. The article was significantly edited while the AfD was running, and the later comments tend towards "keep". Anthony Appleyard 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm too lazy to make up an(other) NYT account right now, but the other two new sources provided here seem to be passing mentions, not actual coverage of the person, and I suspect from the comments that the NYT sources are similar. But the article did have at least one arguable passable source—not enough to establish notability, but considerable better than none. If more non-trivial sources show up (or even just a whole bunch more trivial ones sufficient to count as "broad coverage") I'd definitely be wiling to reconsider. Xtifr tälk 02:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

11 June 2007

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

Legitimate game played at a number of UK universities. Morevisit 23:36, 11 June 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.
DEViANCE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)
  • DEViANCE had next to the cracking section also a demo division, which produced 12 Intros, mostly cracktros.

You can see the list at Poulet.net [15] They released a few however at small and medium demoparties and archieved more than once top 10 results with their contributions. Notable are the following results: 5th place at Evoke 2005 (64KB Intro Competition), 7th at BreakPoint 2006 (64KB Intro Competition) and 7th at Euskal 2006 (Wild Demo Competition).

  • Warez/Cracking Division (main part of the group).

I just want to name some of the groups releases. Some were mentioned in the article, some were not. The group released following major titles FIRST (worldwide) and beat the international competion in the cracking and releasing "game": Quake 4 , Sim Sity 3000, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, Black & White 2, Command & Conquer: Generals Unreal Tournament 2004, Command & Conquer: Generals, Call of Duty 1 and 2, Max Payne 2, Final Fantasy VIII PC, HOMM4, Myst III and V, Grand Theft Auto 3, F.E.A.R.

and that are only examples. The list goes on and on. I am not a big gamer myself and even I am familar with those titles. Major titles are mostly released by leadinging warez group first. Why? Because in order to be the first, you have to have good suppliers that can get a copy of the game prior or as early as possible on the release date, have to get it to a cracker who has to remove the copy protection, pack it up (rar/ace/arj files split up and then zipped, update and add the group NFO file and file_id.diz, add a cracktro (if available) and get it out to the next server on the internet to have then the couriers of the group take over and spread it to the most dominant servers (especially servers of competing groups) to claim the title.

Because of this complexity and sophistication is it rare that a small and unknown group is able to beat the leading groups in this race. Being first for numerous major titles is impossible without being a leader in the space and thus notable in regards to the subject "warez groups".

  • Also noteworthy, the 39 repository files at defacto2.net had 6,576 downloads [16], which indicates a very substantial interest of people into the activities and releases of the group.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:36, 11 June 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.
Dae_Gak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Executive Summary: This article was proposed for deletion in retaliation for editing that I did - articles should not be deleted in retaliation for editing changes - especially when the changes were necessary to adhere to wikipedia policies! I edited a page about a living person, Zen Master Dae Gak, in four ways: (1) I removed controversial material (from both the main article and the discussion page) that I felt was clearly in violation of wikipedia policies with respect to biographies of living persons, (2) I removed a "sourcing" flag that I felt was not applicable to the page, (3) I added a notice to the discussion page that all content must be consistent with wikipedia policies concerning biographies of living persons, and (4) I changed the article so that the subject was consistently referred to by the name under which the article was listed ("Dae Gak"). The fourth change was not only for consistency, but also to show the usual respect for a person with a "religious name" associated with their religious vocation. Wikipedia articles on the current Pope, for example, do not refer to him as "Herr Ratzinger" (nor should they). A message was then sent by user Killerbeez to Administrator Will Beback, asking for Will Beback's advice on how to respond to my editing. Will Beback responded by suggesting that the article be deleted! For two years, the page on Zen Master Dae Gak had been a "free-for-all" where people had posted controversial material on the subject in clear violation of wikipedia policies. As soon as I made it clear that I understood these policies and that I would be monitoring the page to see to it that they were adhered to - their fun was over and so they preferred to delete the page as one last swipe at the page's subject. Reviewing this deletion must take into account the history of the way the page had been used for a prolonged period of time as a means of spreading derogatory controversial material about a living person, and that proposing the article for deletion was a blatant retaliation that occurred as soon as it became obvious that editors of this page would have to start adhering to wikipedia policies. Durruti36 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specifically on the subject of "notability", mutliple factual innacuracies in this regard were stated both when the article was first proposed for deletion, and during the discussion by people who "voted" for deletion. In particular, it was stated when the article was first proposed for deletion that there were "no third party sources available" - a point that was clearly shown to be false during the discussion. It was also stated in the initial listing that "the subject has [only] written a dissertaion and one book" - another factual innacuracy that was corrected in the discussion. Finally, I contested the the deletion specifically on the basis of the subject's receipt of a "significant recognized award or honor" - the discussion on this showed a lack of understanding concerning the significance of "Dharma Transmission" on the part of those who proposed the deletion and "voted" for it. Durruti36 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion - the alleged motives of the nominator are irrelevant - consensus in the debate was clear.--Docg 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I see nothing in your arguments that suggests that the consensus was wrong from a Wikipedia standpoint. Yes, you suggest the deletion was wrong, but only from your own standpoint. The AFD was closed appropriately as far as I can see (with the probable discounting of two single-purpose accounts). Metros 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I tried to rescue the article, and tried to defend it, but I accept the consensus that there were not adequate sources.DGG 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to see that no one is responding to my two very specific points: (1) the three specific reasons given by the Administrator who proposed the deletion were all proven wrong in the discussion, and (2) the proposal for deletion was undeniably in retaliation for simple editing changes that brought the article in line with wikipedia guidelines. Durruti36 02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated by Dog glasgow, the motives of the nominator are irrelevant (so that concern has been addressed). And as for your first concern, that was addressed in the AFD where other people in the debate felt that your disprovals of the nominator's points didn't really disprove his points or they felt that there were more reasons than simply the nominator's listing of reasons to delete it. Metros 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is nice to see that you are tacitly admitting that the motive was clearly retaliation in response to a conflict over editing. That you and Doc Glasgow believe this to be irrelevant does not make it so. The "other people" in the debate were people with their own axes to grind - or their fans who cast "me too" votes. Durruti36 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uhh I see nothing in my comment that suggests I was calling this retaliation. Looking at Will Beback's comments to Killerbeez at User_talk:Killerbeez#Dae_Gak it shows that Will Beback nominated this based on notability, not in retaliation to anything at all. Will Beback's alleged motivations have no place in this DRV discussion. Metros 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made no mention of Will Beback's motivations - however you just did. Ooops - now I just did. However, I have absolutely no way of knowing anything about his motivations. I do know that he was wrong on all three points that he stated in the original proposal for deletion, and that this was quickly shown in the course of the discusssion. I also know that Will Beback's involvement arose directly out of a discussion with Killerbeez over an editing conflict with moi. But those are merely facts, which clearly have no place here. Durruti36 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is so much fixation on the fact that one of the votes to keep apparently came from a "single-purpose-account", let's take a look at some of the votes for deletion. One came from a person who openly admitted to being a member of a "rival" religious organization, another came from a person who openly claims to know the subject personally and who obviously has a personal grudge, at least two of the votes were simple "me-too" votes from people who were agreeing with Logrider's completely incorrect characterization of the issue of "Dharma Transmission" - which he confused with "level of ordination". The contribution from the "single-purpose account" made specific factual contributions to the issues being discussed. Durruti36 02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Lack of independent sources was never rebutted. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual Correction Independent sources were provided in the discussion. Here are three: Master Dae Gak is in the book "Zen Master Who?" by James Ishmael Ford, he was an invited speaker at a symposim at Emory University commemorating the 800th anniversary of Dogen's birth, and an example was provided of a scholarly source that referenced the book Dae Gak co-authored on the Kent State killings. Do actual facts matter in this discussion, or not? Durruti36 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No alternatives to deletion were ever considered. Doesn't that bother any of you people? The article was proposed for deletion by someone who is supposed to be an experienced Administrator - and was deleted by another Administrator, but none of the steps that are clearly supposed to be considered prior to deletion, or in the case of a controversial deletion, were ever even mentioned. Durruti36 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, speedy close this discussion, this is not "rerun AfD". All of your objections were met at the AfD, it's obvious that you have a personal axe to grind with this article and are a supporter/student of the Zen master. Your conflict of interest does not let you see that you have no satisfied Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. You have not stated why the AfD was closed improperly, thus there is nothing to be done here. If you want to rewrite the article in your own namespace, and provide sufficient reliable sources proving the Zen master's notability, then please do so, and once that rewrite is done, then come back here for others to see if you have met the reliable sources requirement. But don't just leave the rewrite in your own space without working on it, or it will be liable to deletion as well. Corvus cornix 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that you cannot provide even a single specific statement that I have made to substantiate your ad hominem attack. I have already pointed out, but will do so here again, that the two main people who initially pushed this deletion, Killerbeez, and Knverma, both openly admitted their personal involvements with the subject in question. The Admin who facilitated their personal grudge, Will Beback, showed his lack of knowledge of both the specific person in question (all three of the statements he made in the original proposal for deletion were false) - and also his general lack of knowledge on the subjects of Buddhism and Zen in particular. He also consistently misrepresented wikipedia policies, and completely failed to follow them himself by rushing to list the page for deletion in response to a conflict over editing - without ever considering any of the standard measures that are supposed to be looked at prior to deletion. Durruti36 17:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ad hominem attack? I am merely stating what you are doing. Whether there was a personal grudge or not, does not change the merits of the AfD discussion. You need to explain why those who do not have a grudge agreed that the Zen master is not notable (or at least that his notability has not been establsihed). Everybody is not out to get you. Corvus cornix 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so fast. You said "you have a personal axe to grind" and "your conflict of interest does not let you see that you have no [sic] satisfied Wikipedia's requirement...." This is merely a characterization of what I have said - but you are not able to provide anything that I have actually said to justify this mischaracterization. You seem to be having trouble understanding this, so I'll be even more explicit. It one thing to merely assert that a person's judgment is clouded by a personal conflict - it is another thing to SHOW that this is the case based on things the person in question has actually said. The first is an "ad homimen" attack in the clearest sense, because it merely attacks the person - if you could do the second (which you cannot do in this case) then you would be making a substantive response to something that I have actually said. I hope that helps. Durruti36 17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not doing your cause any good by this disruptive behavior. If you think what I wrote is an ad hominem attack, when I was really trying to help you to get your article rewritten to meet your needs, then what do you call your repeated attacks on the movitavtions of the people who discussed it and nominated it at the AfD? Corvus cornix 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knverma stated that he is a member of the Kwan Um School of Zen, which Zen Master Dae Gak left over disagreements with their policies. In fact, one of the issues that I tried to deal with by editing the page were false allegations posted in the article specifically about the circumstances under which Zen Master Dae Gak left the Kwan Um School. Killerbeez, whose editing dispute with me was the cause of the deletion proposal, claims to know Master Dae Gak personally. There are no "attacks" involved in what I am saying - just facts that come from the two people themselves. Of course, if you would like to - you could cite a specific "attack" that I have made on someone. Are you able to do that? Durruti36 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This arguing back and forth is not furthering your cause of getting this article undeleted. I see no point in continuing it further until you agree to follow the rules of DRV. Corvus cornix 18:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my last post on this topic, as it is obvious that you are not interested in hearing from anyone who disagrees with you. Did you read the WP:DRV page? The part which says, This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.? Corvus cornix 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG. Consensus of the AfD was to Delete. Eluchil404 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus??? Most of the "votes" to delete were substance free "me too" votes that provided no justification for their votes whatsoever. All of the substantive comments came from two people who have been shown to be personally involved with the individual in question - except, of course, for the comments from Will Beback, whose participation was inappropriate from the start. He was asked for advice concerning a dispute over editing - it was completely inappropriate to insert himself into an editing dispute by rushing to delete the page without considering any of the alternatives that are supposed to be looked at prior to deletion (in addition to the fact that all of the factual statements made in his deletion proposal were quickly shown to be false - which he could have easily determined himself had he made any effort). Two of the "votes" to delete were from people who simply said that they agreed with Logrider, who demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the issues involved when he confused Dharma Transmission with "level of ordination". Durruti36 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who are relatively unkown "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." I thought some of you might be interested in what is actually said in the Biographies of living persons page that contains wikipedia's official policies. Durruti36 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of sources, etc:
  • Master Dae Gak is included in James Ishmael Ford's "Zen Master Who? : A Guide to People and Stories of Zen".
  • His book "Going Beyond Buddha" has been translated by major publishers into German and Czech.
  • The book he co-authored on the Kent State killing has been cited as a scholarly source (see here, for an example.)
  • He was an invited speaker at a conference at Emory University commemorating the 800th anniversary of Dogen's birth (see the article in the Emory Department of Religion newsletter.) He has also been an invited speaker at other importan events, including a conference on the Unification of North and South Korea, a recent conference at the Galveston Medical Center, and the international Christian-Buddhist dialog held at the Abbey of Gethsemane in 1996.
  • Master Dae Gak's head temple, Furnace Mountain, has hosted well known Buddhist leaders from around the world, including Maha Gosananda, who attended the Temple's opening ceremony in 1992; and Kaz Tanahashi, who recently led a retreat/workshop at Furnace Mountain as a fundraiser for the Temple.
  • Furnace Mountain is also featured in the CD "Compassion" which was a joint project that included the Dalai Lama, the Abbey of Gethsemane, and Millenium Music.
  • Furnace Mountain is also featured in the guidebook "Kentucky: Off the Beaten Path".
  • Master Dae Gak has also been the subject of newspaper articles in the Galveston Daily News, the Indianapolis Star and the Lexington Herald.
  • Durruti36 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still working on more sources and also on improving the above sources. I was in the process of trying to do this when the page was suddenly proposed for deletion as a direct result of a dispute over editing. Durruti36 16:56, 14 June 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.
Image:Simpsons writing team.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Simpsons writing team.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image had a fair use rationale and the source was given. I can't see why it should be deleted a since the sysop who did it won't reply, I turn to this process. Maitch 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image was tagged as failing point 1 for the fair use criteria 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose'. The so called replaceable fair use criteria. It was tagged for this for the requisite time and it appears no one responded and hence the deletion. --pgk 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not possible to get a free picture of writing staff of The Simpsons and it can't be done in the future. --Maitch 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it? remembering it just has to be one that would "serve the same encyclopedic purpose", though I personally wouldn't be convinced of a great encyclopedic purpose of such a group shot in the first place... --pgk 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get into their offices and round everybody in order to take a picture. It is just not possible. The image serves a purpose in List of writers of The Simpsons. --Maitch 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria isn't that you personally have to be able to create a free image. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? --pgk 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simpson's writing team? If they're all still alive, endorse. If there isn't a need to show what they look like, endorse. If these people don't already have articles of their own, endorse. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 12 June 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.
Andrew Speaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

At the very least consider unprotecting the page,there was never a normal AFD, and page did not qualify for speedy deletion.Page does not violate WP:BLP and meets Wikipedia:Notability because he was the first man qurantined by the United States since 1963, and has a rare form of extensively drug resistent tuberculosis.Not just about him being in the news. Rodrigue 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse current redirect. Your statement seems to indicate the events are notable, the page redirects to an article discussing those events. I can't see how being unlucky enough to catch tuberculosis makes the person in and of themselves notable, nor how a worthwhile biographical article about the person can be written off the back of that. --pgk 17:33, 11 June 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 Saunders (Vice-Chancellor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was nominated for speedy deletion by ExtraDry using the db-bio criterion. The subject of the article has been dean of two medical schools, and is currently vice-chancellor of a major Australian university. Both the original writer of the article and I believe that this alone constitutes an assertion of notability. Beyond that in the article there were listings of positions held in Australian research councils and a note that the subject of the article was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001. The criteria for awarding the centenary medal include "…those whose achievements in science, research or the arts made a notable impact at a national or international level." That means the Australian government seems to find him notable. David Newton 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy restored after reconsideration. --Tone 12:25, 11 June 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.
Bustech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedy deleted citing [G11], however as a minor contributor to the article (by uploading a image), according to a google search (minus wikipedia/forum links) this company is somewhat notable by being at least one of the major bus builders in Australia. I believe this article should've not been speedied (or at least contact the contributors of the article first!), but at worst should have at least been going through the WP:PROD, or even sent straight to AfD if one of the contributors felt that this subject was not notable --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the company meets some notability criteria, however, a great part of the article read like an advertisment. A rewriting would help. At the moment, the article is redirected to Surfside Buslines but I don't think it's a good idea sonce they are not the only user. --Tone 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support recreation under original title This is an example of a redirect that destroys the original article. They are clearly a notable manufacturer and to redirect to one of their many customers is absurd. The cure for spammy articles is rewriting, not deletion or redirection. 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NWA Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)}}

The article was speedy deleted citing WP:COI. At the time I was working to correct that and I requested this deletion review. Both the deleting and reviewing admin stated "no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues." I have no COI in the subject, and when I recreated the article as a short NPOV stub (pasted below) it was deleted and the page was protected.

The deleting editor also made an argument for notability in the prior review as a reason for deleting. This may be the case and I think the article should go through the regular AfD process, especially since NWA_Hawaii_United_States_Championship (an event conducted by NWA Hawaii) and Hawai'i Championship Wrestling (a competitor of similar stature) are currently WP articles. I left a talk page note for the deleting admin, User:JzG, 2 days ago requesting further information and have not received a rationale for deleting the stub and protecting the page.

The stub I added that is the subject of this review:

NWA Hawaii is an independent Pro Wrestling Promotion in the State of Hawaii sanctioned by the NWA.

(Header) Beginnings

The NWA's first Hawaii event, the original Mid Pacific Promotions, started in 1936. Collectively, the NWA affiliates in the State of Hawaii produced over 300 television episodes broadcast on local television during the 60s, 70s and early 80s.

(Footer is: Link to the site; professional wrestling stub) Antonrojo 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the notability of an article is open to debate and the article does not fall under a WP:SPEEDY category, it should go through the AfD process. That would give editors enough time to judge whether there are references supporting notability. Antonrojo 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would apply if it had been deleted. It wasn't. It was redirected. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD for discussion any claim to notability defeats the purpose of a speedy. if a speedy for nn is honestly contested, it clearly is not unquestionably non-notable. Quibbling about the wording is an abuse of process, and defending a speedy in these circumstances is a waste of time.The place for the discussion is not here but at AfD. DGG 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

10 June 2007

[edit]

9 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Supreme Court nominees categories (Categories' CfD)

These categories were deleted during a large CFD in February where several Presidential nominee categories were nominated (and kept). For these two cats in particular, the CFD resembled straight voting, with very little actual discussion of the merits of deletion of them in particular (as opposed to the Presidential cats, for which there was more discussion). As Osomec indicated in the final comment "Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result." In fact, a comparison to Superbowl losers was the only comment during the discussion that was actually about these two judicial categories. (The closer also made a comment: that there was already a list of judicial nominees, a point that is addressed below.) With so little discussion of these two categories, it was inappropriate to delete them.

The categories are both valid and encyclopedic. They complement Category:United States Supreme Court justices and its subcategories. The analogies to Super Bowl losers and to candidates for political office do not fit. Unlike Superbowl losers, many nominees to the Supreme Court are famous primarily or only for being nominees (think of why people recognize the names Harriet Miers and Robert Bork; in both cases, their status as failed/withdrawn nominees is noted in the article lead). Furthermore, with games as well as elections, there are always losers, but unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees have been relatively rare. The statistics show that most nominees have been approved throughout the Court's history, so something unusual happens when a nominee is not confirmed.

The closer pointed out that there is already a list that duplicates the categories. Setting aside the issue of how appropriate it is for this rationale to be raised for the first time in the closing, categories and lists are not in competition; they work best when used in synergy. Categories are helpful for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia in a way that lists are not (plus lists clutter See also sections whereas categories are less obstrusive). Categories furthermore help to classify articles, and as noted above being a failed or withdrawn nominee does help to define the notability of those individuals in a substantial way.

Simply on the numbers, there was insufficient consensus to delete. For these two cats, there were two keeps (unnamed and Sefrigle) and three deletes (Otto4711, mikedk9109, and nominator Xdamr). 60% with virtually no discussion should have been "no consensus". Based on these substantive and procedural issues, I ask that the deletion be overturned. Chaser - T 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (with editing and some writing credit to Postdlf)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist - nominating all of these together doesn't make sense and these two were an "oh and by the way" type of thing in the CFD. --BigDT 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-create or relist per the well-written and convincing nom. By the way, has anyone asked the closer if he would be okay with a relisting? Newyorkbrad 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Most people in the CFD discussion indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be deleted, and only one or two people explicitly indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be kept. The fact that people did not explain themselves fully is not necessarily a reason to restore the category. Moreover, this category was nominated after a series of similar nominations for "nominees" categories at WP:CFD, as the discussion clearly indicates. Therefore, the people reading the discussion now may not fully understand the context of the discussion. I conclude that the deletion was appropriate. However, it might be appropriate to relist the categories simply because the discussion covered multiple marginally-related categories. The relisting could also be conisdered a discussion to build consensus on recreating the category. Dr. Submillimeter 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-create or relist, per nom/myself. Postdlf 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist Clearly there is further discussion to be had on this after such a detailed nomination. The correct place to do that is CFD. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist there seems to be agreement thatt here was not an adequate discussion. DGG 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist The deletion was appropriate given the circumstances, but I think, judging from this nom, it should be probably be relisted to grasp a larger community consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Dr. Submillimeter, not per nom. --Kbdank71 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infoboxrequested (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

{{Infoboxneeded}}'s TFD discussion appeared to have a(n admittedly weak) consensus of delete and move to {{Infoboxrequested}}, which had been created during the debate AFAIK. As part of that closure, ^demon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted both Infoboxneeded and Infoboxrequested. Should Infoboxrequested have been deleted? If not, I'd like some discussion on the merits of restoring it, if only because it allows you to specify a particular template to be used on that article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The debate was closed with the words "The result of the debate was deletion," and I don't see anything about a rename in that sentence. So endorse deletion, because no reason the closer made an incorrect decision has been provided. Picaroon (Talk) 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK, the debate had nothing to do with Infoboxrequested. I saw no mention that it was going to be deleted along with Infoboxneeded. If the TfD had been amended to cover both of the templates, I could understand... but it wasn't. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation of {{infoboxrequested}}. If we have infoboxes, we should be able to request them. This TFD never made sense to me... might as well delete templates to request pictures, expert attention, etc. --W.marsh 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation per W.marsh. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse TFD - no evidence that the deletion fell outside the Admin's discretion and there was a good argument presented for the deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing Admin's Comments - The way I read and understood the TfD (and please correct me and accept my apologies if I'm wrong) was that the {{Infoboxneeded}} and newly created {{Infoboxrequested}} were to both be deleted. I don't really care one way or the other about it, and I'll respect whatever the outcome of this DRV. I'm sorry if I read the TfD wrong and the latter template was to remain in place. ^demon[omg plz] 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seemed like people kept arguing to delete based on the name "infoboxneeded", even after it was renamed. Only a few really seemed to argue for the deletion of both names. --W.marsh 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      As one of those in favor of deletion, I was certainly against the use of {{infoboxneeded}} and {{infoboxrequested}}. I didn't explicitly say "and the fact that it was moved to a new name doesn't change my opinion" because I thought it would be obvious, and I think ^demon made the right decision by deleting both. If you check the wording of the template before the move to its second location, and afterwards, you'll notice that the difference is really one of minor wording switches; they're saying the same thing, but the second one is doing it in a slightly less demanding way. A name change does not a new template make. Picaroon (Talk) 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the solution here would be to restore it and send it straight to TfD. That would remove some of the ambiguity of the infoboxneeded decision. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is overwhelmingly endorsed.

On Lucie-marie's complaints:

  • The debate, far from being "concluded too early" ran from 2 June until 8 June, six days. The minimum period is five days.
  • She says there was no consensus either way, but there were only four people who argued for keep: DGG argued for keep because there were two reliable sources, JulesH and Drew30319 argued that it passed the Notability criteria, and W.marsh argued that it passed inclusion standards and "It's not our job to inject our own biases and try to correct supposed biases in the press." Deletion arguments centered on its unsuitability due to What Wikipedia is not. This policy overrides the notability guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Murder of Rachel Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Afd

I think the debate was concluded to early and there was no concensus either way regarding the outcome of the debate.--Lucy-marie 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn It appeared to me that the discussion regarding this article had no clear consensus. Although you may (or may not) feel that the article is worthy of keeping I don't see where sufficient momentum had tipped the scale one way or the other. The more recent discussions seemed to lean more toward Keep than Delete. While I recognize that the discussion is not a "vote," it does appear that the discussion was split fairly evenly. I am requesting a review of the AfD outcome, not an opinion about the article itself. Drew30319 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 10[reply]
  • Endorse Does every murder deserve an article? Surely not. Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (I nominated it). Reasonable close, given that there is no evidence that this is of particular cultural or historical significance; WikiNews is where we put news stories, Wikipedia is where we put articles about significant cultural or historical events. This case fails to rise above the generic, sadly. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure absolutely proper AfD with no process problems. Lucy-marie needs to accept the outcome and move on. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and closure per Lar and per JzG. ElinorD (talk) 13:53, 10 June 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.
Loyola2L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I hope I did this correctly. Dear administrator. Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers. They are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is by far, not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on. Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. Their concern was that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 . Unfortunately, EditorEsquire, in the Loyola Law School talk page, presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restor the page and wait for the discussion in the Loyola Law School talk page to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval.} Updatethis12 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse but permit re-creation if a good article is written that demonstrates their notability. The article which was deleted consisted of a one sentence description, follow by 4 links to representative posts.This was a fully justified A7. DGG 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be OK to restore it, and let people work on it over time? --Updatethis12 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was not asked to take a second look at the article before it was listed here. If I had been, I would have offered to provide the deleted material to the user and explained that the article was not deleted based on lack of notability grounds, and no precedent has been created; rather, the article was deleted because it contained no assertion of notability, per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The nominator should also be aware that if the article is re-created with an assertion of importance, in order to avoid further deletion process but not speedy deletion, such as at WP:AFD, it would be good if it cites to reliable sources which verify its content and are enough to meet the notability guidelines for organizations.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I saw what must have been the original article in a Google cache. As DGG's comment (above) makes clear, it was fragmentary. There is not even an actual blog called 'Loyola 2L'. There is a set of people who sign themselves 'Loyola 2L' in comments on other people's blogs, in one case a blog at the Wall Street Journal. Though the quotation from Michael Sauder above is interesting, that quote is of way higher quality than any of the comments I saw signed by 'Loyola 2L.' Our discussion here at DRV is just to confirm that the speedy deletion was correct, which it clearly is. Nothing prevents someone from creating a new article in a User sub-page, obviously, and getting it reviewed. EdJohnston 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Google hits are a poor measure of anything for this kind of article. Are there multiple independant published reliable sources that could be used to verify the content and establish notability for an article? Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, which was proper, allow workup in userspace if the nominator can source and provide evidence of significance, but it sounds awfully as if the main reason for wanting an article is support for the group and a wish to bring it to greater prominence, rather than a desire to neutrally document something of provable cultural significance. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 10 June 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.
Onesidezero (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Note: the redirect Onesidezero Design should be deleted if this deletion is upheld. Nevermind.

This article was speedily deleted supposedly because of a lack of assertion of notability. However, I maintain that the specific claim "Onesidzero is also the co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis which he runs alongside fine artist/designer Gurps Kaur," constitutes at least an assertion of notability. Whether the assertion actually constitutes notability or not is debatable, but I don't think this is obvious enough to deserve a speedy. (Note, I did create the article, but only because it was requested at Articles For Creation. I felt at the time that the sources listed were sufficient evidence of notability, though I was open to discussion otherwise; I certainly didn't expect a speedy.) Powers T 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Inkthis article has distinctly dubious sourcing - the purported BBC page is one of their user editable things, isn't it? Seems to me as if there might be enough credible sources for a single article between the two of them, but the deleted one was... not one of your better ones. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well as I said, I didn't compose the article. =) With AfCs, I tend to err on the side of creation, figuring deletion processes will weed out any bad articles I don't catch myself. I just didn't think a speedy was justified here. Powers T 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AFD. A7 speedy deletion isn't for 'this has dubious sources', it's for when the article doesn't even show any sign of notability. If there's a chance of an argument in favour of the article, it should go to AfD and not be speedy deleted. On a side note, I think speedy deletions under A7 that come up for a DRV should almost always result in it being restored and put on AfD for full deletion discussion, as at least one person feels it asserted notability. --Barberio 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD per nom ... "co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis" constitutes an assertion of notability, albeit not the among the strongest I've seen. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list If it had said "famous annual graphic event" it would have been an obvious assertion of notability, but the exact wording shouldn't matter that much, as long as something possibly notable is given.DGG 19:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse for now not a great speedy, granted. I'd be tempted to overturn it, but not when even the nominator isn't sure if it belongs on wikiopedia. Go, do some thinking, and come back when you've made your mind up. And please don't create articles and leave it for others to 'weed out' the inappropriate ones. The deletion process isn't a tool to do your thinking for you.--Docg 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When working with AFC, I just create the articles. I weed out the obviously bad ones, but anything borderline I create so that the wider Wikipedia community can form a consensus on the acceptability of the article. I am not so arrogant as to presume that my judgment on a submitted article is always correct, thus I err on the side of creation. This is a collaborative project, after all. Powers T 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a project where we don't try to make work for others. Please do not create articles if you're not sure they belong on Wikipedia - we've enough work to do.--Docg 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to raise my threshold just so we can avoid a few AfDs. It's far better in my mind to keep useful articles submitted to AfC from being rejected than it is to keep borderline articles from being created. This article is a classic case in point. I know virtually nothing about the subject area discussed in this article; who am I to say, when reviewing it as an AfC submission, that this person is clearly not notable? I can express concern about notability, but declaring him obviously not-notable is a task for the community, not for me alone. Powers T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not insert into wikipedia articles you think may not be suitable. And please do not create articles on something you admit to knowing nothing about.--Docg 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the purpose of Articles for Creation. Powers T 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (And as for my being unsure, it's true I don't know how consensus would rule in an AfD, but I am reasonably sure that this was not a proper speedy.) Powers T 14:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article. If anyone thinks it has merit, I'll undelete it.--Docg 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse I can't see the article but if the nom is unsure then we would be better off being asked whether a proper article created in user space can be moved into main. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. If an article is worth this much time and study at DRV, it ought to be worth a normal AfD discussion, where the issues are better focussed. Neither the creator (Powers) nor the speedy deleter (Naconkantari) made an obvious error, in my opinion, so there is no process or person that needs to be set straight. Just send the article to AfD and see how it goes. I left a note for Naconkantari so he can join this discussion if he wishes to. In my legalistic heart I know that the speedy was correct, but I have read elsewhere that WP likes to get to the heart of the matter by shortcutting procedural steps when it can reasonably do so. A completely correct sequence of events would be: (a) This DRV upholds the deletion, (b) Powers adds a sentence to the article claiming notability, (c) the article is re-created. Do people prefer that sequence? EdJohnston 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per "There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article". I think overturning and listing at AFD would be a waste of the community's time in this particular instance. The article should meet Wikipedia standards *before* entering mainspace. Orderinchaos 13:16, 12 June 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.
Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Third AfD Nomination) Closed for "gross violations of WP:BLP", ignoring a large body of opinion presented that WP:BLP was not being violated, the article was well sourced, and the subject was a notable part of Internet history and usenet culture. This should have been closed as 'No consensus', but the closing admin has used his own opinion that WP:BLP nominations should be closed when there is no consensus. This is the third attempt to have this article deleted, and this will be the second time this AfD in particular has been inappropriately closed. Barberio 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse mainly because one should strive to come to some kind of consensus on articles such as this. No consensus just prolongs a problem if there is one. Looking over the past AfDs I think there is a leaning towards delete. I think the admin made a good decision considering BLP. Then again, I admit, I have deletionist tendencies. Sleep On It 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Note that this editor has no edits in mainspace. All his edits as far as I can see are calling for the deletion various pages or calling to keep them deleted. I urge to closing admin to ignore this editor in determining consensus. JoshuaZ 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. BLP policy allows for the removal of material of non-public people that are borderline notable if the harm outweighs the benefit. Sources exist but are not enough to establish true notability in one area. Also it appears the subject of the article may have desired deletion, which should be taken into account in theses borderline cases. The reality that this article will be used as an attack piece needs to be taken into consideration in the cases of non-public people also. These altogether make this a good decision as intended by our BLP and deletion policies and our notability/bio guidelines. FloNight 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I disagree that the article on the subject was or had to be an attack piece. The subject of the article main recent objection to the article seems to have been the mention of the nickname "Arky" which some other Useneters have refered to him by but which the subject considers an insult suggesting he is from Arkansas. -- Infrogmation 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Overturn (Vote changed to overturn per discussion below). The AfD shows no consensus to delete. Additional notes: there were irregularities while the VfD was going on such as the article being speedied at least once, before closing, AfD being closed, then reopened. -- Infrogmation 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator for this third AfD, I endorse this thoughtful and well-reasoned close, which was founded on lack of unbiased independent reliable sources as well as WP:BLP violations. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per FloNight, and the need to draw a line under these things.--Docg 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion - Consensus was totally ignored is this AfD closure and the closing statements were that of a "vote," not a proper non-partial administartive one. The closer even cited WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which states very clearly at the top "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline;... " (bold not added by me as it is part of the text). Very improper close. --Oakshade 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion FloNight pretty much said what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The argument for deletion was that this violated BLP by being badly sourced and biased. This was never countered; people just said "but he's notable!" That's not the point. -Amarkov moo! 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I presume those voting to uphold deletion based on BLP bias would have no specific objection should someone recreate the article with neutral language and proper sourcing? -- Infrogmation 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what ways are the cited Usenet posts contentious? I have never seen AP or anyone else suggest that these posts were forgeries. Perhaps you could explain your point? Thanks. Phiwum 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse usenet is most certainly not an acceptable source of information for a BLP. I could write any old junk on usenet and there is no way to verify if it is true or not. Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification Just to clarify my comment - I do accept that there are circumstances where usenet can be a reliable source but I firmly believe that in a Biography of a Living person we should only use absolutely reliable sources and usenet doesn't qualify. Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That whole argument is irrelevant, though. Once again: Usenet was not used as a source here except for direct quotations, of things written by the subject and then quoted in other sources, and dual-sourced to both those sources and the original postings for accuracy. Don't make me put a pretty coloured box around this. Uncle G 12:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment was a direct response to N's one that usenet posts were acceptable sources. You going to put a pretty box under his comments as well or will you overlook them because he supports your POV? ;-p Spartaz Humbug! 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whom you were responding to does not make your rationale relevant, and that you apparently, from what you have just written, have such little clue as to what my view on the matter is, despite the fact that it is written in boldface above (as well as in the 2nd AFD discussion and various other places, and is even deducible from the article itself), indicates, that you, specifically, are in need of a pretty coloured box. The argument about the use of Usenet postings as sources is irrelevant here. The article did not actually use Usenet postings in the ways that you are arguing about, in the first place. Uncle G 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per FloNight's arguments. Riana ⁂ 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep per relevant arguments presented in AfD. WP:BLP may require deletion of the facts about the person, but the facts about the Usenet poster are clear and sourced by the subject's own comments. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus is an excuse. Consensus can exist only within the purview of policy. RS is policy and administrators close AfDs while keeping policies and guidelines in mind. Posting on forums and discussion pages cannot be taken as a reliable source especially when "it is contentious". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing contentious about the fact that he said them. Whether they mean anything may be contentious. WP:RS does override consensus, but it doesn't apply in this instance. There is no claim that the Usenet posts were not made by the poster "Ludwig Plutonium", so they can be used as examples of what he posts without violating WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments on Usenet forum are contentious and controversial. There are no multiple, secondary and independent reliable sources available to establish notability of the subject. That combined with BLP concerns is a good reason for deletion, as summed up by various established users on the AfD discussion page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usenet posts were never used in order to establish notability, as far as I know. They were used in order to present AP's theories. Nobody is a better source for what AP alleges than AP and no one has disputed that the cited posts were authored by AP. Thus, citing these posts do not violate WP:RS. The claim that AP is notable depends on other sources (including newspaper articles and a mention in both Discover magazine and a real crime book, as I recall), not AP's posts. Phiwum 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I voted to delete this on the AFD because establishing notability for a person requires more than just sources, in most cases the sources need to demonstrate some level of achievement as well. In response to Uncle G, I agree that the use of primary sources in order to meet WP:BLP and WP:V were met, but they did not convey any real sense of achievement. AFD ran full time (which is good) and the close was within reasonable bounds for discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of the support for deletion was based on alleged embarrassment caused to him, and not lack of notability. I think his being known by so many people for his long-term pattern of internet activity its itself enough to establish notability. I do not think the close was reasonable, and the deleting admin has just expressed his belief that WP:RS is a valid reason for a contentious delete, which it should not be. The way, the truth, and the light 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think his being known by so many people for his long-term pattern of internet activity its itself enough to establish notability." – Are you unilaterally trying to rewrite policy? I expressed that WP:RS and WP:BLP were reasons enough to delete the article (on the basis of opinion presented by various established users), for the article neither properly sourced and unbiased but existed solely to make a mockery of a lesser known individual. Imagine yourself in his position and you will understand what BLP means. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per FloNight. I think BLP issues presented in the AfD are valid. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per FloNight. The things FloNight said are what I actually want to say. Terence 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The recent deletion of this article seems to have been mishandled from the start. There was no consensus in the end and I dispute the claim that a college newspaper is not a WP:RS. Phiwum 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When was the last time you were on a college campus? As someone who has been on one recently, I can confidently say that they are at best borderline. JoshuaZ 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. I am regularly on a college campus, although my experience is largely irrelevant. Are there other instances in which college newspapers are routinely denied use as an WP:RS without evidence? Is there any policy suggesting that we should treat college papers as unreliable? There is, to my knowledge, no clear reason to believe that the Dartmouth paper reported inaccurately regarding AP but if WP usually regards college papers as unreliable, then I will acquiesce. (I notice that the VT newspaper is the first source listed on the Virginia Tech massacre page. Should this be removed as unreliable? Bot the VT newspaper and the Dartmouth newspaper were reporting on a campus event.) Phiwum 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I think the decision made by Nick was incorrect and that the sources given met WP:RS and he met WP:BIO. Moreoever, as pointed above AP's main concern was not deletion of the article but the presence of a certain nickname he found offensive. That said, this was a borderline enough case that it was within admin discretion about how to close. If I can find more sources about the individual in question or more evidence for his notability, I will bring a new DRV at some point in the future. In the meantime, let's let this lie. JoshuaZ 19:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my mind to overturn per comments of Barberio, Phiwum and rereading of the both the AfD and its close. There was a strong consensus to keep in the AfD. There was no strict BLP violation (that is, unsourced or poorly sourced content) aside from the use of usenet posts which can be easily handled by simply removing those parts (as was pointed out in the AfD). While it is reasonable to delete articles based on the general ethical point behind BLP, admins should not use this as an excuse to go against the consensus of an AfD. Furthermore, if anything, AP wanted an article about him. The only detail he was unhappy about was a nickname that he didn't like(heck, if we need that to keep the article, we can just take that out easily). JoshuaZ 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little dubious to endorse a deletion you disagree with on the basis of the arguments made, think happened out of process, and might DRV again in the future? Isn't the whole point of "no-consensus" results to err on the side of keep? --Barberio 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it's a BLP, and most of the arguments to keep completely ignore the arguments to delete. "Notable" is not a good reason to keep a BLP violation. --Rory096 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Non-notable individual; WP:BLP violations. In relation to notability, the subject has zero publications for his theories, and zero adherents for his theories. Nobody has ever put forward a reasonable claim as to what this individual is supposed to be notable for. The WP:BLP violations are obvious: the subject was systematically mocked (however much a pretense of neutrality may have been maintained), and the potential effect of the article on the subject persistently ignored. FNMF 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AP is notable for being a remarkably well-known example of a crank using modern techniques to spread his message. Like Gene Ray, AP has become a part of modern crankdom by relentless self-promotion rather than by actually persuading others. In this respect, he is unlike cranks of yore (say, Alfred Lawson) who needed converts in order to create a widespread and lasting reputation. The modern use of free self-publication to successfully spread one's unusual theories is frankly quite interesting to me and there are few better examples than AP and Gene Ray. Phiwum 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the subject is interesting to you for that reason is fine. Unfortunately, however, there are no reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject on these grounds. What I suggest is that you publish an article about that aspect of the subject in a reliable source, which other Wikipedia editors may then consider using as a source for a future entry about the subject. Until such reliable sources are written and published, claiming that the subject is notable for that reason constitutes original research. FNMF 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your right FNMF, multiple articles about the person in a newspaper and a chapter in a book devoted to the person and having his perculiar and personality discussed in a major magazine don't show any encyclopedic notability at all. JoshuaZ 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of sarcasm is of course highly amusing, if a little heavy-handed, but the resort to it suggests it may be time to bring this deletion review to a close. By the way, I'm pleased to see you using the concept of encyclopaedic notability. Oh, and a tip for future editing: it should have been "you're right," not "your right." But then again, that's your right. FNMF 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm or not, JoshuaZ's points are relevant. Unlike, oh, I don't know, say, spelling flames. Do you have any reaction to his substantive claim, namely that AP has been mentioned in a college newspaper, a popular science magazine and a true crime book? Much thanks. Phiwum 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The very minor mentions do virtually nothing to establish any notability worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that JoshuaZ did not at all actually address the point I was making: that the grounds of notability you were claiming are not supported by the sources, and thus that basing an entry on those grounds constitutes original research. In addition, of course, the article is essentially and in toto (pardon my Latin) a BLP violation. FNMF 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That's something we might discuss. On the one hand, we have proponents of the article claiming that AP is notable because he is very widely known for espousing certain theories (admittedly cranky theories). They offer as evidence newspaper articles, a magazine article and a book which mention him espousing those very theories. These articles don't need to say he is notable. By their existence, they establish notability. They also cite Usenet posts (undisputed) which elaborate on those theories. Can you please restate your dispute? Thanks! Phiwum 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my "Delete" vote, his "theories" have no publications whatsoever, nor do they have any adherents. The fact a person has posted nonsense on the Internet and other people have read the nonsense does not by any means establish notability worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. The fact the entry is maintained to laugh at his nonsense is the crux of the BLP violations, and, given that he is in all likelihood an essentially defenceless and vulnerable person, I consider the entry to be a gross violation of the Wikipedia credo to "do no harm." No doubt some people will say, "But he's an attention seeker," but to me, if that is the case, it is very clearly connected to the reasons he is defenceless and vulnerable, reasons that do not have to be spelled out here but which should be clear to anybody with eyes to see. And, given that there is absolutely nothing this person is genuinely notable for, there is no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to maintain such an entry. FNMF 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems about identical to endorsing deletion because you don't like it or don't like articles about extreme cranks. However, notable cranks do exist and AP happens to be one of them. JoshuaZ 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterisation of my argument is inaccurate. FNMF 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you make an assertion with no logic or evidence to back it up. It would help us all if instead of simply asserting that my summary was inaccurate you explained how and why it was inaccurate. JoshuaZ 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've given plenty of evidence. I am not endorsing deletion because I "don't like articles about extreme cranks." I am endorsing deletion because the article is about a non-notable individual and because the article is a systematic violation of WP:BLP. It's clear I won't convince you no matter what I say (not surprising, given the vigour with which for a long time you have tried to keep this article and its content), and I can only hope that objective and sensible readers will grasp the points I have made, in spite of your misrepresentations of my position. FNMF 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't see how you've disputed Joshua's claim. Suppose there is a guy who has a wacky, off-the-wall theory, a theory that is clearly cranky, indeed, so cranky that it barely counts as a "theory". Suppose the guy achieves some infamy by widely publicizing this theory. He's mentioned in a few minor articles and such. This hypothesis is along the lines of (I think) what Joshua means when he refers to "extreme cranks". The question, then, is whether you would reject an article about such a fella. Clearly, Joshua and I would not. Personally, I find such guys quite interesting and worth documentation (not ridicule and not paternal protection). And, indeed, we cannot claim non-notability when in fact evidence of notability is given: book mention, magazine article mention and newspaper articles (not to mention quite widespread familiarity, far more than Kibo, Gene Ray or Joel Furr). Phiwum 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for your welcome attention to process. As to the AfD, I believe a review of it clearly shows a lack of consensus. -- Infrogmation 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are decided by the arguments. As Orderinchaos put it, the delete arguments were pretty solid. In fact, very. FNMF 13:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the relevent delete arguments oppose an article on LP the notable Usenet poster; only the references to LP the person are at all questionable. See, for example, the article we used to have on Armando (blogger), since deleted for not being notable, rather than for BLP considerations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orderinchaos, there were by my count 16 keep, 1 "allow existence" 3 merge, 11 delete. All the users commenting were longstanding so there's no issue of sockpuppetry or anything similar. The notion that that reflects a consensus to delete is difficult to understand. JoshuaZ 14:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; as an aside, some of the information from this article should be included in the Usenet personalities article. How can we do that and maintain the GFDL if the article is to be deleted — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was neutral on the AfD and expressed no opinion at that time. The arguments for deletion were indeed solid, but to claim that "the consensus was clearly delete" makes me wonder if I was reading the same page as everyone else. I'm neither an admin nor an expert on AfD procedure, but I was expecting to see no worse than a "no consensus" verdict. --Finngall talk 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I planned to stay out of this until I saw the arguments above. Most significantly, the arguments revolving around the reliable sources are very sound, the delete arguments surprisingly weak on a re-read of the discussion, and FloNight's commentary in particular completely unconvincing. Deleting was the wrong read on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Certainly the article and sourcing could have been improved. But by way of comparison, I haven't noticed any significant push to delete Baldassarre Squitti or Tommaso Squitti. Those articles, given merely as two of countless possible illustrations, just happily sit there with little or no controversy. Which leads me to conclude that this article was likely deleted because of contention about this figure known as Archimedes Plutonium, rather than for lack of notability or any other valid reason. Irrespective of arguments about Usenet as a source, Archimedes Plutonium is notable because the figure has caught the attention and fascination of a large number of persons outside of Usenet. (A cached version of the article as of May 30 is available here.)
    Moreover, this should also be overturned on procedural grounds. There was not a clear consensus to delete, and according to established practice an AfD is not a vote, but rather is expected to reach a threshold of consensus prior to deletion. A slim majority vote tally does not in general meet this threshold test for deletion, but rather should be noted as "no consensus" and, accordingly, kept. Any violations of WP:BLP should simply be noted and fixed.
    Worse yet, I now note that the "vote" in the AfD was 16 keeps, 3 merges, 1 to "allow existence" and 11 deletes. What on earth is going on here? ... Kenosis 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is a vote? --Rory096 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD isn't an admins dictate everything. Consensus is generally necessary. And when the majority of people favor keeping and all those editors are well-established users it is at best hard to reconcile with people claiming there was a consensus for deletion. JoshuaZ 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AfD is not a vote per se. The "vote" tally is merely a convenience to allow an admin to quickly assess consensus, or lack thereof, and move onto the next task. To illustrate, an 11-9 vote to delete is not clearly a consensus, and should not, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, be called a consensus to delete but rather should be recorded as "no consensus" and thus defer to the status quo. But that's not what happened here. The "vote" [quotes intentional] or "tally" was 20-11 to keep, if you include requests to merge (which really need be a separate discussion unless there's a clear consensus to merge into a specified article). If you exclude the "merge" opinions, the tally was 17-11, taking into consideration the one user's stated request to "allow existence" as an obvious alternate way of saying "keep". If you eliminate that, the tally was 16-11 to keep the article. While this may or may not necessarily be interpreted as a strong consensus to keep (it's roughly 60% to keep and 40% to delete), if anything it was most certainly not a consensus to delete. Instead, as occasionally can happen, there appear to be other administrative preferences at work here, which are not being disclosed but rather couched as various arguments why this article should be deleted, and none of which are compelling. ... Kenosis 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Process was not followed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No consensus to delete in the AfD. BLP arguments unconvincing. Spacepotato Spacepotato 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per FloNight. ElinorD (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Allison Stokke – Jeff, let it go. Two AfDs and a DRV are enough. The article has been established as non-notable via the second AfD. Deletion Review was designed to debate xFDs that were not carried out properly, or ones that had been closed improperly, not as a "second chance AfD" to try and get the result you want. If you wish to create the article again, please wait a few months, see if she's still notable, and then bring it up. – ^demon[omg plz] 13:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allison Stokke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2|DRV 1)

This debate simply was not weighted properly by the closing admin. I'm trying extremely hard to assume good faith about the whole thing, so let's go over the discussion:

The keep suggestions were mostly based in policy - noting the subject's national records in her sport, noting her notoriety stemming from the internet fame she has received (both of which are noted here: [17]) and noting the multiple, reliable, non-trivial coverage she has received both as an athlete and as the subject of her internet fame. There were a few questionable comments (noting only her records, "holds WP's interest," Google counting, age discrimination, citing Star Wars kid), but the vast majority of keep comments were strongly rooted in policy, many debunking the arguments made by the delete suggestions.

What did the delete suggestions cite? WP:BLP, which this article met with flying colors, ranging from reliable sourcing to undue weight concerns, as noted numerous times by the keep voters. Many cited non-notability (often per WP:BIO), one even suggesting a speedy deletion, which was not at all supported by policy due to the numerous sources and noted as such, others "human decency," because the subject has not been happy with her fame (which is dealt with through BLP and was, again, addressed fully via sources), one comment questioning the legitimacy of the sources (and since one was the Washington Post and two others were internationally respected papers, this was easily countered), one questioning her record as compared to the overall record (an odd statement that has nothing to do with anything), three blatant misstatements of what the sources say (about records and about her notability, the latter very bizarre), one delete without extra comment, one citing WP:POINT (huh?), one blaming "male hormones," one person who !voted twice, one blaming "masturbating neanderthal bloggers," oen blaming "drooling idiots" and an incorrect weighing of the arguments at the initial DRV, one simply asking "why the hell is this still up for debate," one citing that a person interviewed by the Post "doesn't want the attention," one blaming "bottom feeders and bloggers," one simply asking "please...," and a couple simply saying "so what, she's a high school athlete." There was also a pretty heavy sock farm that I'm confident got dealt with properly.

Every one of those delete suggestions were addressed using policy, guidelines, and basic knowledge of how we do things here. Yet, somehow, User:Coredesat, who closed the discussion as delete, somehow found the strength of argument to be on the side with no policy arguments that weren't adequately countered. A question as to what arguments swayed him did not garnish a response, and his closing statement even completely ignored policy, which is entirely problematic.

The last DRV was closed as an overturning of the deletion, while noting that there were BLP deletions in the past that may have met muster. This ambiguous closure has been erroneously interpreted as saying that no mention of her internet fame can be put in the article. I'm hoping this time that those taking part in the discussion will actually use policy properly, and this will be closed due to the proper weight of knowledge. The closure was simply interpreted improperly, and thus is under DRV's purview. This article needs to be undeleted. To the closing admin - make sure you note which policy arguments are being used here when you close this - DRV is not a vote count, and we need to fix our mistakes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fictional ninjas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Category:Fictional_ninjas said to go here (after another told me to go there). You know, it's getting kind of tiresome. My arguments are there. In very short: it's Category:Fictional samurai not Category:Fictional samurais, and Category:Historical ninja not Category:Historical ninjas. Also: Ninja in fiction as the main article. Every serious source uses "ninja" as a plural form; "ninjas' is a popculture word used by teenagers and in bad (or badly-translated) movies (these movies were actually an argument for "ninjas"). Dictionaries use both forms, but there's just no reason to favour "ninjas" and several to favour "ninja" (above). --HanzoHattori 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure: nom's claim that "every serious source uses 'ninja' as plural" was fully rebutted at CfD by reference to the Oxford and Webster's dictionaries, both of which list both forms as valid pluralizations. I think the professional lexicologists who help prepare those dictionaries might be surprised to hear that they are not "serious sources". The argument by analogy with "samurai" is unavailing, since no dictionary I have access to lists "samurais" as a valid pluralization. Nom's disdain for the influence of "popculture" on language is apparently not shared by those who study language, and is not relevant to a review in any case. Xtifr tälk 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - No one actually cited any reference material on actual ninja. Books by Masaaki Hatsumi, the current Grandmaster of three ninjutsu traditions, use "ninja" as the plural form. Although both "ninja" and "ninjas" may be correct, Wikipedia should probably work with the form used by the primary source of information on this topic. Dr. Submillimeter 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation of closure. Ninja is now an English word, steeped in the common vernacular. To me it's irrelevant whether one classical source uses a particular terminology. Books like Ninjas: Mastery of Stealth and Secrecy are now much more common than the ancient works of scholarship. The comparison to samurai is not relevant either; there's no such common parlance of using samurais. But regardless, it comes down to whether one believes that common parlance matters. The nominator does not, and a majority of editors in the CfD debate did. (Please also note that Category:Historical ninja is now up for rename to "HIstorical ninjas".)--Mike Selinker 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. "Ninja" is the correct version in Japanese, both uses are acceptable in English, and consensus at CfD supported "ninja" (twice). The parent category will probably also remain "ninja", unless the closer ignores consensus. -Sean Curtin 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not meant as a next iteration of the same debate. There is something to be said for both "Ninja" (original plural) and "Ninjas" (using English grammar), and consensus has elected to use the latter. >Radiant< 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Radiant. --Kbdank71 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original close with no prejudice to relist. As Radient said, DRV isn't the place to reargue the debate. --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

8 June 2007

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

The old article was created by someone who was banned. I am not that person, I am not banned, and I didn't know that, but that was the reason that it was deleted before, and because of that it was deleted again using TWINKLE. Besides that, there was no reason to delete the article. I wasn't even done writing it yet! Shaymus22 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted TWICE at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ExtraLife (2nd nomination). While it has seen a modest jump since then at the WebComic list from #224 to #192, it is still not notable. —Ocatecir Talk 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as notability goes, ExtraLife returns 330,000 search results on Google. To give a good frame of reference, "Leo Laporte" returns 859,000 search results. MY name returns 40 search results - THAT is non-notable.

As for reliable sources, I have these, pasted from my saved text-based copy of the article:

Also, keep in mind that I wasn't done writing the article. If you want more sources, I can easily get them for you.

--Shaymus22 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through all of this before in the previous AFDs. None of these meet the requirements of WP:WEB and represent a "death-by-papercuts" attempt to establish notability. No substantial independent works from reliable sources are given. They are all either trivial mentions or links to other webcomic sites. —Ocatecir Talk 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq is not trivial.
Are all of those >300k sites trivial?
Also, why is a webcomic site not a reliable source? --Shaymus22 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq contains plenty of non-notable webcomics. The Joystiq article says nothing about the notability other than the webcomic exists. A google test is useless because Extralife is a common term in video games. Even on the first page of results you get pages that have nothing to do with the webcomic. Also remember, notability is different from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".—Ocatecir Talk 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ExtraLife" is NOT a common term in video games. "Extra Life", which is what you are thinking of, is not even a common term in video games anymore.

Even so, if a google test is useless, how would you suggest that I prove the notability of ExtraLife? By telling you, perhaps, that they're featured on ustream? That they're sponsored by Godaddy.com? That they've interviewed Veronica Belmont of CNET? Perhaps I could tell you about how Scott Johnson created the largest World of Warcraft guild, of which Leo Laporte is a member? Would it be notable enough if I was to tell you about how Scott Johnson will soon be releasing an ExtraLife TV (video podcast) in which he will interview the creator of the "Will it blend?" Blendtec commercials?

I can go on (and on and on), if none of these are notable enough for you. You see, I would have written about all of this in the article, but for one problem - it was deleted. That is why I'm here, typing this, arguing with you. I'm certain that I'm right - just tell me how I can prove it to you! --Shaymus22 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless whether it is "Extralife" or "Extra Life", a quick browsing of the results show a produce preserver, a heart website, and a book all in the first 5 results. The only way to prove notability is to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, which I don't believe have been satisfied yet. Has the webcomic won any awards from the Web Cartoonist awards? That would be enough to establish notability. Who someone interviews doesn't make them notable. My high school paper once interviewed Al Gore, they are not notable. Sometimes things just aren't notable no matter how hard you want them to be. —Ocatecir Talk 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Spoilers rated them as #9 on their "57 best webcomics" list
  • ExtraLife Radio has a perfect 5-star rating on iTunes
  • The Pisstakers gave ExtraLife Radio 5 out of 5

There's more if you want me to dig it up. That, and there's also all of the magazines and articles that they've been featured in...and no, they're not high school magazines. --Shaymus22 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 constitute trivial coverage as well (blogs and itunes ratings are not reliable sources). I would be interested to know what magazine covered extralife, though. —Ocatecir Talk 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation as the grounds for the original deletion seem no longer to be applicable given increased notability since then. A new AfD could be filed if necessary, but hopefully it should not be (one of the top 200 webcomics should be a Keep). I have become convinced that our fundamentally negative attitude toward webcomics and related media needs reconsideration. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be allowed to be recreated as DRV is for reviewing process and this discussion has strayed from that. A new AFD can be introduced for the recreated article. —Ocatecir Talk 01:09, 9 June 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.
Unlawful enemy combatant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Closing admin's decision conformed with policy, but current events, I believe, have caught up with the consensus, and, I believe, show the wrong choice was made.

Peter Brownback and Keith J. Allred dismissed all the charges against the two remaining Guantanamo captives who faced charges before Guantanamo military commissions -- because of the distinction between "enemy combatants" and unlawful enemy combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 only authorized the DoD to charge "unlawful enemy combatants", but none of the Guantanamo captives had an AR 190-8 Tribunal convened to determine that they were unlawful combatants.

IMO, Events caught up with us. IMO, those who argued that the distinction was not noteworthy would probably all now agree that they were mistaken.

The article could be rewritten. But given that a perfectly good article had already been written, IMO, it should be restored.

Unfortunately the closing admin can't be reached. Unfortunate, because this is a current event, and it would be good if the wikipedia could flexible enough to restore this article ASAP. Geo Swan 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and done- . (subject to further discussion on this page, of course)DGG 20:24, 8 June 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.
High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not O.R. and the current article Gravitational Waves only deals with low-frequency GW, so by the wieght rule High-Freq. GW is needed to balance that out. Please restore the page. Csblack 18:59, 8 June 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.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskilstuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

there were several links in the 'notable natives' section that have been removed -- for some reason the above general link doesn't work, but if you directly use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eskilstuna&action=edit&section=2 you will get there 217.67.138.100 16:00, 8 June 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.
Dynamic Submission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not Spam, Not COI and no discussion, was done by a user that was upset because, I afd two of his article, this product is noteable, as defined by wiki. Saying that this is a confilt of interest article, is like saying I cannot write an artilce about DSL because we sell this service or I cannot write an article about MS Windows because I work for a store that sells MS Wildows. Since the article was new, it was not very long and I was hoping others in the SEO world would expand upon the work. Akc9000 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the other editor. Akc9000 and I have discussed this and I offered to help him recreate the article. I've got a copy at User:Jehochman/Sandbox and will do a bit of expansion, check for NPOV, and then recreate the article in a day or two. I listed this article at WP:COIN because there was an appearance of COI. Unfortunately the article was speedied before Akc9000 had a chance to clear up the confusion. I intentionally did not tag the article for speedy. Anyhow, I will help him fix this, and make sure the new article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Akc9000 still appears to have zero mainspace edits other than this article and linking it. AKC is listed as one of dynamic software's corporate domains, the contact name is Al, User:Akc9000 says on his user page that he is Al. [18]. And from the request (his second) it is pretty evident that he is tied to the product, but doesn't think it's a problem. I do think it's a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy, what does any of this have to do with whether the article should be restored or left deleted? Even WP:COI doesn't forbid editing by an involved person if they can follow NPOV.--Chaser - T 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's certainly not spam, since the version I'm looking at says its a worthless waste of money at best. If Akc9000 is happy with the version, we can presume that he's not associated with the company. So that would mean no COI, unless he's working for a competitor or is a disgruntled employee, which we can't assume. I don't see why the article can't have its day in court at AfD. Herostratus 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Herostratus. The sandboxed article has references that at least justify a trip to AFD, if not outright undeletion. The award is a possible indicator of notability, though we'd have to assess the award some, too.--Chaser - T 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is now a copy of this article in my sandbox. Using it to learn how to build a software OS release template while you decide. While I am here I must point out that I did write other articles. This article was just the first or second one I ever wrote. I did not know what I was doing too much at the time. Still do not think it should be deleted (of course), I would like it restored and still don't think its COI. You could say it was COI (maybe) if the company I work for wrote the whole thing but we did not; we maintain it, sell it. Just as many companies maintain and sell the Windows operating system. Yes, there is a website that sells this product that I registered the domain name for it. It is one of thousands of websites that sell maintain this thing. If you search for Dynamic Submission on Google you will see: 4,960,000 results for the product name. So my one website is making a real big difference! Wiki uses the nofollow tag anyway so I have no idea why you think this is COI. What can I gain by listing the product? It will not boost the products PR in Google, where the sales come from. I just don't understand why this issue came up, beside the fact that another editor (Jehochman) posted the article on the COI board and I only think he did this because I afd two of his articles. I actually do not have a problem with this editor and we spoke and I explained what the issue was with his article and this same editor asked that this article I wrote not be deleted. Furthermore, I cannot see how it may be deleted, the more I read and learn about Wiki, the more I see that what was done here is outright wrong and should be reversed. Before you even ask, if the article is not undeleted, I will still be here writing articles but I will always think what was done here with this article was unjust. Gessh! I have found articles that have no cite's no references nothing and they are not deleted, and instead of removing them I am looking for reference for them. This article, has cite's it was not only in the first edition of SEO for Dummies but it is also in the second edition as well and it one an award from PC Magazine. What more does an article have to have to be listed? Yup! You guessed it! I am defensive about this article, not because of COI but becuase I think it belongs in Wiki. --Akc9000 16:00, 15 June 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.
Charlie the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please undelete this wiki, it is very informative. If admins are going to be hardcore about the 'reasons behind' why articles exist, than why do articles like "What, What in the butt?" exist. Come off it and restore the article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.84.221 (talk • contribs)

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.
Hi-Zack (Mobile suit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Review that bared the article was a mass deletion where the result was decided because only the Wiki Project members wanted to keep and fix the articles. i find it very wrong that the votes of the project members were ignored because it send a message that some projects are not worth listening to i feel that references to something that may be obscure in the english speaking world deserve to be in the English wiki This info was not transwikied beyond the answers.com copy of the article i did every thing i could to cite the article and merged some of the other notable versions of the unit in to one Article. If given a chance and some time withe the project it would be up to standards. I demonstrated in the new opening how often this very model appers in the gundam universe. Jeffpiatt 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... see also this deletion review here. I don't exactly think this is the place to debate the AfD process. The "votes" of the members were not ignored, but keep in mind AfDs aren't votes. If I had a good reason for keeping the article but I was outnumbered by twenty to one "delete" votes with no rationale, I highly doubt that the article would get deleted. I looked at the differences and could see very little had changed about the article. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 11:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but what i can't figure out is that even if i try to add how notable The Hi-Zack is the article is judged for the lower paragraphs i was trying to model the article after the one on the [Zaku II] and merge in the one shot ms that were told in storyline were decedents of the model in order to prove notabilty i need to use plot details but if i add too many it would be removed as have a long plot summery. This mobile suit got to be in 2 gundam series and the hobby version was in the 4th movie in the gundam franchise. I removed the Advance of zeta units due to the fact the manga and photo novels are harder to get in the us but i should at least get to work on the ones in the animation.Jeffpiatt 12:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tried, but ultimately what you added was either not enough, or it was unsourced information. For example, you said in one revision that since the release of the Zeta Gundam movies the HGUC and MG Hi-Zack models have had sales that rival those of the Zaku II. This doesn't really provide any significant real-world notability--that is, notability outside of the Gundam fandom--nor was it a sourced piece of information. While it's certainly possible that this is or was true, you failed to provide a source to this, such as an article about this in terms of Bandai's business, or a Bandai quarterly sales analysis for the models in question. Ultimately, though, that one piece of evidence wouldn't be enough to change the notability--or rather, lack thereof--of this particular Mobile Suit.
I'm a bit worried by the fact that you are using the Zaku II article as a basis for the article. Instead, I would have said, "Could this work in a manner similar to that of the Gundam article," or any of the other titular Mobile Suit articles. The Zaku article's a terrible mess and should probably be cut down considerably as well. Maikeru 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It has been deleted seven times now, totally valid AfD. No objections to a transwiki to GundamWiki if they don't already have it and the license is compatable. Heather 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Quite frankly, unlike other Mobile Suits in the Gundam lexicon, there just isn't much information on the Hi-Zack outside of its in-universe role. If, after seven deletions, there still isn't much more to be added to this besides a few new variations from a comic book, then perhaps it just shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Most of the information in this article was already transwiki'd; all that would need to be done would be the addition of the Advance of Zeta manga variations mentioned above by Jeffpiatt. Maikeru 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly userfy the latest version to anyone who wants it for that purpose. Jeff obviously already has it, from the regular recreatings. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all of the basic info is written in a in universe style in the scource material i could start sourcing episodes the verients appear in but the Hi-zack and the other ms need to be treated like the Pokemon articles or the other scifi articles i was trying to keep it from being the copy and paste job the original article was. i am stil trying to figure out what else i could but in the gundam wika does not even have a good chunk of the info the wikipedia crew removed i was I was even thinking that the entire RMS-XXX line form the Zeta to CCA era of the gundam Franchise could be made in to one page. but i thought it was set up where the hi-zack was linked to the ms of the gundam x series witch has yet to come to the us. The lead article on the Dijeh was an ms that only made it to at least 2 episodes of the TV series and was only notable for being used by Amaro Ray the main character of the first gundam series. while this is a rant i really want to find a way to work this info in in some form short of turning the list in to one long article. Jeffpiatt 04:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to get up to the standerds of the gundam articles but the hi-zack was no worse than any of the star wars articles most of the profiles are in universe and need to be deleted.Jeffpiatt 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC) my point was made in the first revies the article is easy to source the orignal debate seemed to become a witch hunt if anything it needs to be merged with the rest of the missing zeta articles.Jeffpiatt 03:53, 10 June 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.
Camila Janniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Dr. Camila Janniger is a full professor on my voluntary faculty at the New Jersey Medical School. She has far superior credentials than many other physicians listed on Wikipedia. She has written 34 book chapters and 143 full articles. You can verify most of her full articles using pubmed, which using Janniger CK gives 133. Please reinsert her into Wikipedia.

2002–present Clinical Professor, Dermatology; Clinical Associate Professor, Pediatrics; Chief, Pediatric Dermatology, UMDNJ—New Jersey Medical School

Honors & Awards

Multiple Dean's prizes (monetary awards) for academic excellence, Medical Academy of Warsaw Charter Member, Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society, New Jersey Medical School Chapter Fellow, American Academy of Dermatology Member, National Tuberous Sclerosis Association Professional Advisory Board (1993-1996) Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare (1st edition, 1997-1998)

Editorial Activities

Member, Editorial Board, Cutis (1991-present) Co-editor, Cutis, Special Issues, World Congress (1992) and Pediatric Dermatology (1996) Founding Pediatric Dermatology Editor, Cutis (1992-present) Member, Scientific Committee (International Editorial Advisory Board), Mikologia Lekarska Medical Mycology (Wroclaw) (1997-present) Managing Editor, eMedicine Dermatology (2006-present) Member, Editorial Board, Dermatologia Kliniczna (Wroclaw), (2005-present) Member, Editorial Board, SKINMed (2007-present)

Dr. Janniger is someone of the highest ethical standards. 

         Robert A. Schwartz MD,  MPH, FAAD, FACP ([email protected])
         Professor and Head, Dermatology
         New Jersey Medical School 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Rickyrab/Hasidic nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Personal joke page, intended to be a complement to WP:BJAODN. It had been deleted as an "abandoned sandbox" during a dispute (over the mass deletion of WP:BJAODN articles) with the deleting admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and it was NOT a sandbox. It contains material sporked from Biala (Hasidic dynasty), which can be attributed on the basis of the creation date of the "Hasidic nonsense" article and some work on documentation of the edit history. Since some subpages of BJAODN were restored to allow work, it follows that this non-sandbox also be restored to permit me to work on attribution, too. If this article is not fit for Wikipedia, I am ok with a history-only undeletion which would allow proper attribution to the authors of the Biala (Hasidic dynasty) page, and subsequent removal to Uncyclopedia. — Rickyrab

  • Divide this review I would like to discuss these one at a time--the same rationale will not apply on each. i am certain that some of them are totally unsjustified, but not so sure about others. DGG 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, DGG, I recused all but the Hasidic nonsense page from the DRV for now. I have Ali Sina backed up on my home computer anyhow; moreover, a couple of the pages involved may actually be someone else's creation. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, now this makes it relatively straightforward.

Restore history to permit re-creation of any appropriate material in whatever format at whatever location consensus agrees on. I can understand considering it abandoned since it had not been worked on since August 06, but I accept the assurances of the editor involved that it will be used appropriately. it is good to start with a straightforward one like this.DGG 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll use it appropriately (that is, I won't restore it to Wikipedia against a consensus, and I won't use it on an anti-Wikipedia rag like WR), as promised in the e-mail. — Rickyrab | Talk 09:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sporked to Uncyclopedia. Original edit information/ attribution was part of first edit, but then blanked; however, it's there for anyone who wants to look. See [19] — Rickyrab | Talk 01:40, 13 June 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.
. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HHO gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The sudden speedy deletion of this article while it was under considerable debate and discussion is way out of line. Closing admin cites that it is recreated content/promotional material. Although the article existed before, this version was not recreated with the deleted material and should not qualify as a speedy deletion. As far as calling it promotional material, again, there is significant discussion going on regarding the fate of this article and how to make an encyclopedic topic out of it. Overturn the speedy deletion of this article as well as Brown's gas and allow the AfD debate to come to a conclusion on this topic.

Note this has gone through multiple AfD discussions, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination) . Also note previous DRV on the topic which concluded with the unprotection of these articles and allowed for recreation - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_14

The speedy deletion in the midst of a constructive debate is not helpful to reaching any kind of consensus on this topic and should be overturned. Arkyan • (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, so it was deleted, the deletion endorsed here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 14, and a whopping great article was dropped straight back in less than a fortnight later. It's been deleted under several titles for the same reasons (sourcing and neutrality), was worked on by the same editors, exhibited the same problems, and got nuked again. How many times do we have to go round this loop? Guy (Help!) 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that the 3 previous AfD's were all pretty much uncontroversial delete decisions, and there was little in the way of constructive ideas from the article's proponents on how to clear up the problems with it. However this time the discussion is significantly different, many editors have become involved and serious effort is being made to try and determine the best course for eliminating the sourcing and neutrality concerns. Whether there exists a solution or not is not my point - my point is this AfD is far more productive than the last 3 and should be allowed to conclude, as it would provide a far more satisfactory conclusion to this loop than a unilateral decision by one administrator. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I will admit that the promoters of HHO gas are this time doing an excellent job of making the topic look and sound notable, but once you look "under the hood" the real purpose of these articles are to promote the hoax. IMO the 3/14 DRV decision to permit recreation was based on false pretenses, and these topics should stay deleted and salted. BTW - I was a participant in the AfD. --EMS | Talk 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The fact this has been deleted four times, and in all that time people are still unable to address the problems voiced in each AfD, is the principal reason it does not survive repeated AfD's. So get out there, find reputable sources that are not a promotion for some company and we may gain a valuable article debunking this scam. Untill such time it cannot exist as the community apparently agrees violation of WP:SPAM (company websites), WP:RS (no scientific article debunking the stuff), WP:NOR (because of the previous stating it is a hoax is a violation) and WP:NN (only company sites and news reports on the promotion of the thing) is not compatible with accepted deletion policy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and stop being so silly. This useful, well-constructed article was deleted because it was notable enough to get noticed. Man with two legs 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd more than happy when this stays deleted. Yes, hypothetically there can be a good article about HHO fraud, but I fear, not on enwiki anymore. The negative attitude toward domain experts and the the change from aiming for correct information to aiming for a lot of cites makes this nearly impossible. Look at Water fuel cell for comparison, which is pure bollocks. For some months in a year it is a rather decent article, thanks to an actual court case debunking this stuff. But every attempt make the information correct is met by newly invented templates like Template:Syn and whatsnot. --Pjacobi 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Closing" admin Tom Harrison has not closed the AfD yet (and while he has provided a rationale in the AfD Talk, there is obviously no closing justification above if it hasn't been closed yet.) Not trying to Wikilawyer, but can we get either the AfD closed, or the delete speedy undone? This is confusing. (He has been asked to close on the AfD page. Haven't yet checked his talk, but will.) - LaughingVulcan (Talk | contribs), 23:05, 7 June 2007
  • Comment/Question: Does this have anything to do with the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
right.DGG 00:37, 8 June 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.
Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Survived unanimous AfD a year ago, but was just speedied as NN. It's apparently notable in its field. Lots of blog/forum links: for example, [20], [21], [22], [23] Overturn as nom. SarekOfVulcan 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly a purported POV-aligned deletion campaign without proper discussions following a debate in ru ([24]). Notice the brief wiping out links to the page in other articles by User:Minor_edit ([25]). --ssr 15:49, 7 June 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.
Vault_(company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable company and publisher of well-known ranking guides. Nearly every law school in the country provides it to their students (e.g. [26]), numerous legal commentators discuss the rankings (e.g. [27]) and many large firms cite their Vault rankings in press releases (e.g. [28]). There's no way it should have been speedily deleted. Cheapestcostavoider 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete wasn't blatant advertising and asserts importance. But like seemingly every website/business article that's been speedy deleted lately, just citing some independent sources probably would have avoided the deletion. I remember when inline sources were just something you saw on featured articles, but the times are changing. --W.marsh 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator: Have you requested undeletion in the first instance from the deleting admin? Newyorkbrad 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted this because it gave no independent sources for its notability, and read like promotional material. However, I would now accept that it could be rewritten and restored (and no, I wasn't asked to review my deletion.) Jimfbleak 05:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted valid speedy. ViridaeTalk 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this advert, without prejudice against creating a sourced, neutral article which demonstrates notability. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion more than 3,500 employers, thousands of undergraduate, and over 3,000 companies and 70 industries -- big claims with big numbers make an article sound like ad copy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too consider it a valid speedy--as such, there is not bar t o re-creation if there is more material. For something like this I would expect to see references from at least two substantial published works--there is no point in re-creating it otherwise. DGG 00:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are dozens of references to the company and especially to the ranking guides. There were several in the article itself, or at least there used to be. I have no idea what it looked like when it was deleted. Cheapestcostavoider 23:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can we see the history here? I'm inclined to endorse the speedy w/o prejudice, but if there are non-spammy versions in the history, it might be worth restoring one of those instead. Xtifr tälk 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2007

[edit]
  • Userful – Re-creation permitted. However it is advisable to initially create the article in userspace and get a review on the content and sourcing before moving it to mainspace. – Srikeit 09:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Userful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a notable software product. See TheGlobeandMail, ITWeek, Netscape Tech 64.178.96.168 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation. Not sure what was originally written, but the second speedy was bad anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • very marginal... the first deletion was fine (the article just consisted of an infobox at that point), the second wasn't really valid because prose had appeared by that point. The claim "were recently listed as the 10th fastest growing company in Alberta", but it was unreferenced... vague, unreferenced claims like that are very weak claims of importance. I would suggest writing an article in your user space then moving it to the main namespace when it's actually ready. --W.marsh 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with W.marsh's suggestion--it will be more satisfactory that way. DGG 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree put something together with references and citations in a user sub-page for evaluation about inclusion in the article space. (aeropagitica) 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation, but not with current content. After looking at the deleted page, it is clearly a CSD G11. ^demon[omg plz] 14:52, 7 June 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.
People Against Censorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article about a club or group that does not assert significance is incorrect and therefore censoring and deleting this artice is ridiculous, unfair, and a bit ironic. PLease overturn and place back up Vulpineny 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — Vulpineney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article doesn't assert notability, that meets the speedy criteria. --pgk 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...which is something that can almost as easily be fixed with the Edit button as the Delete button. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:08, 7 June 2007
Right, well better change the policy then, Speedy Deletion is not permissible if you could do the creators work for them. G12 well that can be fixed, the admin can rewrite it in their own words no needy for speedy. Attack pages, well you might want to research and see if a non-attack article could be written. How about spam, they could be rewritten also, in fact me may as well scrap the delete button all together. --pgk 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete as it makes a tangential claim of importance (creator has appeared on notable shows). But some sources really should be cited. --W.marsh 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion doesn't assert notability. Notability by association normally sucks and in this case if the best is that group somehow becomes notable by virtue of the creator somehow gaining notabilty by appearing on some notable shows. I guess we'll start accepting has a "best dad in the world" mug as an assertion of notability soon.(Of course that doesn't mean there is any prejudice against creating a sourced article which does assert notability) --pgk 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per W.marsh, appearing on shows to discuss what they do is an assertion of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per W.marsh; appearances do count towards assertion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, not a speedy--A7 was not meant to cover this sort of implicit assertion--asserting the size and the appearances counts; I note the same admin has speedied it twice in a row in spite of it clearly not meeting the criteria for speedy. How I will !vote on AfD may be another matter, depending on sourcing. DGG 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn notability asserted, hence not a speedy candidate. List it at afd if you want it gone. ViridaeTalk 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my speedy as making no claim of notability; this is a group that exists to protest at the sacking of one radio presenter. It can be covered in the article on that presenter, with a redirect if we must. The last version was created by Debbiewolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The article stated: People Against Censorship was formed on April 12, 2007, by Debbie Wolf and Franklyn Strachan, in response to the firing of Don Imus. Most of the content in all versions was by single purpose accounts. No evidence that the people writing the article and agitating about it are any different fomr the people against "censorship" (i.e. sacking of someone for mouthing off), or that these people amount to more than a handful anyway. This article exists solely to promote this agenda and raise its profile (it was created by a single-purpose account only a month after the group was formed), it is a soapbox. "Was talkled to be a radio station once" is not a claim of notability, I know this because I have been on BBC Radio 4's PM and Today programmes (two of the most influential programmes on British radio), and have been interviewed in the studio by one BBC station on three occasions and by phone twice more, plus a scheme I created was features in the national press. I am not notable. Neither is this group, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, seems to be sufficient evidence to show the topic is notable. I would like to think that when it is undeleted, the references provided here will wander their way into the article. If Guy does believe there is a COI afoot, then he can always take it to AFD. Neil ╦ 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:BCYP Arms.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was speedy deleted by BetacommandBot for failure to provide a fair use rationale despite my having provided a fair-use rationale. As the page was deleted, I cannot repeat the actual text of the rationale, but suffice to say it conformed with image and copyright policies. In addition, I am the person who drew the original picture that was scanned for the image, which I stated in the rationale, yet this fact was also ignored. Agent 86 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the actual text of the rationale was I am the artist who drew this image. This image is not replaceable with free content. The image is used in conjunction for the main subject of the article, being the British Columbia Youth Parliament, whose logo this is. The the image is being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. Fram 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it was deleted by Naconkantari, not by BetacommandBot (which can't delete anything, bots have no administrative buttons). Secondly, you claim that is the logo of the BCYP, but when I look at [30], I see a completely different logo. Why should we use your logo in that article? Would the actual logo not be better as a primary means of visual identification? Fram 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this one, but if it's like the one below the fair use disputed tag contains the text "You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern", you added a rationale but didn't remove the template hence it looks like these got caught up in the process. It is important that you read the templates on pages they give important info, like the requirement for the rationales and source information (the latter the one below is missing). I won't restore this image yet, since there seems to be a question about it's use above. --pgk 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization uses both logos. They are both used in the organization's publications, all available in the UBC library and BC archives, among other places. Many organizations have a number of logos. This one is no different. Agent 86 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I notice that the current template states "You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern"; however, the version of the template that was on the image contained no such instruction. It said to leave the template for removal by an admin.Agent 86 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:BCYP Mace.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was speedy deleted by BetacommandBot for failure to provide a fair use rationale despite my having provided a fair-use rationale. As the page was deleted, I cannot repeat the actual text of the rationale, but suffice to say it conformed with image and copyright policies. Agent 86 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use dispute tag says in nice bold letter "You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern", when you added the rationale you didn't do that. I've restored this. It still seems to lack source information though. --pgk 10:56, 6 June 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.
Hunter Street Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in March 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Street Baptist Church) as a supposedly non-notable church, despite the fact that is the largest church in Alabama or close to it (I'm working on verification of that fact). User:Mailer diablo, who deleted it after an AfD last time, retrieved the original article for me. I added several sources and did some re-writing. The new article is at User:Realkyhick/Userbox. Based on these changes, I'd like to nominate this article for restoration. Thanks! Realkyhick 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good to me ... the AFD was a year old and you have done a good job of finding sources. If nobody objects, I see no reason not to just do a speedy restore. --BigDT 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of it still seems unsourced and without a source for the apparent claim to notability (largest in Alabama), which even as a claim to encyclopedia notability some may differ) I would think a speedy restore to be premature. --pgk 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that this is substantively different from the unsources thing that we deleted, so wouldn't qualify for a G4. Whether it is notable enough for an encyclopedia is something to be hashed out at Afd. My advice is to see if you can improve the sources a bit further, then restore the article. But be ready that AfD may reject it a second time around.--Docg 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • GayNZ.com – Deletion endorsed without prejudice to re-creation with more reliable sources. According to Guy's suggestion, article may be restored to userspace on request for improving the sourcing. – Srikeit 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GayNZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Due process was not followed. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GayNZ.com was to keep. Alan Liefting 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn invalid speedy deletion. -N 02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as AfD consensus was clearly to keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion what a shocker, huh? The article simply had no assertion of importance (and I'm very lenient on that issue) and no sources. That this survived an AFD is kind of surprising but not all that meaningful since the AFD seems to have chosen "lots of Google hits" over sources, which happens from time to time but is still not an excuse to keep an article around perpetually. If sources can be cited to go towards notability, I'll userfy and once added we can move it back to the article namespace. --W.marsh 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Article did not assert notability at time of (speedy) deletion. Naconkantari 03:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore/list - An article that has been kept at AFD should never be speedied under A7. It's actually right there in the criterion - "If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." An A7 deletion is out of order for an article that has been kept at AFD. --BigDT 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was an overwhelming consensus to keep at AfD - shouldn't have been speedied. WjBscribe 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of this article which had no sources and contained no assertion of notability. I will userfy it to add sources if you want. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, according to WP:DEL speedy trumps AFD. Please make a new version that does assert notability and has sources. >Radiant< 08:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you point out where it says that? And even if it's so, WP:CSD A7 clearly says that if an article has been kept at AfD, it's not eligible for A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't say that: However under the heading of Reasons for deletion we see "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed". The bold is mine to make it a little cleaerer for you... Now, if you would have a look at the afd, you would notice that someone provided some reliable sources. Aww shucks I don't think that deletion reason applies. ViridaeTalk 00:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted, not endorsing deletion Yes by a strict reading of the A7 criteria this was an unacceptable deletion. However, deletion was clearly the correct thing to do and a second AfD in which people are now paying attention will almost certainly result in deletion. I'm more than willing to change my opinion and go for relisting or simple restoration of sources can be provided. JoshuaZ 13:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy/endorse original keep: the AfD gave us an assertion of notability and sources sufficient to satisfy numerous established, experienced editors at that discussion. Someone may have dropped the ball on merging those sources into the article, but in any case, a speedy after an AfD keep is utterly inappropriate. If you want to challenge the keep decision, bring it to DRV! (And I would still endorse the keep decision if that had been done, so this is not process wankery.) Xtifr tälk 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment None of the sources given are more than mentions, nothing is a non-trivial source. One of the sources isn't even a reliable source but is merely a press release. There's simply not enough reliably sourced information to write an article. JoshuaZ 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - invalid speedy. If it survives AFD discussion, community consensus is to not allow speedy. The argument that it didn't assert notability is an overly rigid interpretation of a7 - if it's notable, it probably shouldn't be deleted simply because it doesn't assert notability. If this were the case, then it would be terribly WP:BITEy to all the new users who create stub articles and don't know enough to use the words. The Evil Spartan 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat: Consensus cannot trump policy. WP:V is policy. It is the burden of the person who claims notability to provide proof of it. Corvus cornix 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It didn't trump policy. Policy was completely ignored as well: WP:CSD#A7 says directly: If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. At the risk of upping the ante, it's wikilawyering to require a page specifically state so and so is notable or delete it - the spirit of A7 (i.e., the other half that wasn't ignored by the deleter) is to delete something that is actually non-notable, not just somethign that doesn't claim it. By that argument we could never get a valid stub started (e.g., the first stub on Paula Abdul). The Evil Spartan 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So in other words, even though the policy page at WP:CSD specifically says Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject., if, somewhere down the line, at some vague point in the future, somebody might just possibly come up with an assertion of notability, and provide a source for the assertion, we can't possibly ever delete anything? Corvus cornix 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wasn't "somewhere down the road", it was right there in the AfD! Assertion. Sources. Accepted by established editors. XfD regulars for the most part. I really don't know what else you could want! Ok, I can see why it was speedied, and I certainly accept that it was an honest mistake and a better call than most improper speedies (A7 would have applied if not for the AfD), but it still should be restored so that the sources that were found can be added. Xtifr tälk 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore A speedy after a keep decision at AfD is putting oneself above the community. If one thinks the decision was in error, then one should renominate after a few months. The reason I and Jeff and others argue for process is not a fascination with legal codes. Its because process serves to prevent unilateral action based on one's own individual feelings. I don't accept that my own are better than the community's, and I equally don't accept that any other individual person's is. DGG 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear god restore like it or not that was a clear Keep consensus. What DGG said. ViridaeTalk 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah and why does everyone suddenly think that articles not compliant with WP:V are suddenly speedyable - first a incredibly liberal interperetation of BLP and now WP:V. They are not speedyable, never have been and its likely they never will be so wrong on two counts of policy - 1. Deletion policy (speedying an article that had previously been kept at afd) 2. WP:V = not a speedy issue. ViridaeTalk 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I said personally. This meets A7 because the article just described the website, it made no claims of importance, and there were no sources that could also be claims of importance (in that, the source wrote about the site). As was, the article fit the exact profile of the kind of website-description article that gets created and speedy deleted 20 times every hour. --W.marsh 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to recreation with reliable sources cited. AfD consensus cannot and does not supersede basic encyclopedic policy. As with Guy, I will undelete and userfy upon request to my talk page. This is not punitive, just encyclopedic. FCYTravis 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Afd consensus is one part of the deletion policy, hence it over-rules certain parts of other policy, because as stated, this is simply not speedyable under deletion policy. ViridaeTalk 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an AfD consensus completely ignores an article's fundamental failure to comply with policy, that "consensus" is invalid. FCYTravis 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simple as this: WP:V is not a speedy reason. Deletion policy prohibits speedying articles that have previously been kept through afd. End of story. You don't like it, either fix the article or renominate it for afd. The consensus is not invalid - the vast majority of articles on wikipedia are not fully sourced - does that mean we should start speedying everything we see? No, afd is the formal deletion process. It is there for a reason - no need to circumvent it, creating a very shoddy precedent - hell I might just start deleting everything I see that doesn't stack up to WP:V. It would certainly cut down on the backlog of unreferenced articles - I will even remain within part of the deletion policy that has been violated here - I won't delete anything that has been kept at afd. The is wikipedia, by the definition of the word it is a collaborative exercise so articles evolve - that's why we have different levels of articles - FAs GAs normal and stubs, that's why we have a multitude of templates to indicate cleanup/referencing required. You are very very wrong when you say that a lack of references trumps the community consensus in a deletion debate - especially one as clear as that one is, afd deletes articles that are unverifiable, and occasionally it deletes unreferenced articles - speedy does neither of those. The rules of speedy deletion are very specific and very narrow. WP:V is not one of them (nor might I add is hoaxes, cutting out the unverifiable part). No admin is entitled to override the community consensus in this way, ignoring the result of a valid afd and making a judgement entirely of their own - that much sis set down in the deletion policy. Once an article has gone through afd and been kept, it may be assumed that any speedy will be challenged, and therefore it cannot be performed. ViridaeTalk 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - if you think it lacks references, {{sofixit}}. Failure to comply with WP:V is not a valid reason to speedily delete an article. Neil ╦ 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So... it went through AfD, where despite the lack of sources, it was kept. That's a fundamentally mistaken closure. I'll be happy to userfy so that the article can be sourced, or alternatively, to undelete with the stipulation that it be sourced within an hour. FCYTravis 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the closure was wrong, you bring it to DRV. It doesn't matter if the AFD was "flawed". That's what DRV is for; to assess the validity of a process such as an AFD. You don't ignore the AFD and merrily delete it anyway. Neil ╦ 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It went through AfD, where established, experienced editors (several with a long history of deletion nominations, and all with a wide history of well-reasoned participation in XfD debates, and none with any obvious tendencies towards inclusionism) agreed that there were reliable, third-party sources. And looking at those sources, I agree. There were reliable, third-party sources. Looking through google results, I see many more reliable sources. Yes, many of them are passing mentions, but WP:V doesn't say, "the article must be deleted if reliable sources only make passing mention". It says, "if the article has no reliable third-party sources", which is clearly not the case. And WP:N was recently modified, after extensive criticism and lengthy debate, to allow broad-but-not-necessarily-deep coverage. This site seems to be involved in a wide variety of judicial and legislative matters, and has gotten broad press coverage for it. They're even syndicated by Google News (something I've never encountered in an AfD or review of a website article before), which indicates an above-average level of notability, and even suggests that the site may constitute a reliable source itself (albeit a primary one in this case). If this were an equivalent site in the US or UK, I don't think there'd be any argument about keeping, which suggests that systemic bias may be a factor here, and I'm also starting to have some suspicions about plain-old bias, given the site's subject matter. Xtifr tälk 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy The AfD was flawed; the article meets the criteria for A7. Guy has suggested userfying it so that some sources can be added, which I'm all for; while I think the speedy was fair, we should also be willing to have another decent article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it doesn't meet the criteria for A7 because: "If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." is part of the criteria. ViridaeTalk 00:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy per EVula. ^demon[omg plz] 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD per CSD A7. Some sources were bandied about at the previous AfD but unfortunately do not appear to have been added to the article. Tim! 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I have to agree with Guy here. WP:V also trumps WP:CSD 100 times out of 100. It doesn't matter if sources were talked about in an AFD, it is the burden of the writers to put sources in, not the other way around. If you want it to be kept, you need to do something about it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to point out where in policy that is written? I can point out where it says that articles that have gone through an afd and been kept must not be speedied - someone quoted it up further. WP:V is a content policy, it instructs you to use reliable and accurate sources when writing an article. WP:CSD/WP:DEL is deletion policy, it instructs on what articles may be deleted and in what way. There is no trumping going on - WP:V is simply not a speedy deletion criteria, and does not instruct on what may or may not be deleted. Perhaps everyone should familiarise themselves with the relevant policies befroe wielding them as if they knew what they conained. ViridaeTalk 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed. I extrapolate that to mean that if a whole article is not sources, then the whole article can be removed. And just so we're clear on the issue here, the afd was in February, and the deletion was on June. If there were sources to make it notable, it wasn't enough for any editor to put them in in the 3 1/2 months after the afd. Over 3 months is considerable time. You can't hide behind an over 3 month old afd for a speedy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, if you believe that the AfD was closed improperly, bring it here. Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article is not policy, it's an essay.--Rayc 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleting after there was an overwhelming "keep" at an AFD is certain to cause feelings of ill-will. I truly don't understand why there is so much effort put into deleting articles like this. They don't mislead, they might be useful, and their deletion takes much more collective effort than finding a verifiable source. I can understand deleting things that are bad, that mislead, that are erroneous, that are spam. This is none of those. Wikis work best when people improve on what is there. That is what AGF is about. That is why the default for all xFDs is "keep". The burden of proof for deleting is that there is harm in keeping. I think the previous AFD shows that this was not the case. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Article clearly violates WP:V, and had 3 months to be fixed. Bye bye. Nandesuka 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Should not speedy delete what was Kept at an AfD. Not all AfDs will reach well-informed decisions, but respecting them is a good idea. (A mistake at one AfD can be corrected at a later one). The alternative to respecting AfDs seems to be non-terminating DRVs that just go on and on. EdJohnston 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

5 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
1000000000000 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was nominated for deletion at about 3 am this morning. Less than 24 hours later, a decision and a redirect made. What was the rush ? Why has insufficient time been given to allow people to even see it was nominated, let alone to comment on it ? Jeesh, not all of us are glued to Wikipedia all day long ! Aren't we meant to have 5 days to comment ? The Yeti 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still less than 24 hours ago since it was nominated for deletion, and then redirected. Now its been nominated to delete even the redirect ! PLEASE can we have at least have a decent amount of time to discuss things. What is the goddam rush ?? The Yeti 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This article was rapidly heading towards a "delete" outcome, with the addition of "redirect" as an alternative. The closer was of the opinion that the redirect would satisfy the "delete" !votes and surmised that letting the AfD run for the full 5 days would not result in any other outcome. Forcing it through another 4 days of the same for the sake of procedure is silly. Arkyan 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a reasoned argument to make, and was not given a chance. See the talk pages. The Yeti 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the appellants settle for 999999999999 and spare change? --Tony Sidaway
  • Endorse for 1000000000000 reasons. Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist & I'd appreciate a serious discussion on this. The point of AfD is discussion. Almost always, there is no reason why the discussion should not continue the full length of time. SNO is a dangerous clause, which is easy to invoke much too early. There are many discussions where the first two voices say keep (or delete) and then the balance of the discussion is otherwise, after people have a chance tof ind arguments and as people interested in the subject notice the discussion. I am not sure how I would !vote on the article in question, but once something reaches AfD, I expect the chance to argue one way or another and to !vote on it. (The only exceptions are when the nom. withdraws, bad faith noms to AfD, and AfDs which are obvious speedies--but if not everyone agrees, its not obvious). DGG 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The first AFD closed with consensus to redirect to the place it is currently redirected. The Numbers wikiproject consensus was not to run the scale this far. Both are reasons why there is a presumption in the close that the article wouldn't be kept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Obviously contentious, no logical reason to endorse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This AfD wasnt a clear WP:SNOW, while it was looking like a strong delete/redirect result some(more than one) editors were obviously wanting it to be kept and engaging in meaningful discussions, given the short time frame the afd should be relisted. Gnangarra 01:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I was the original nominator to have this article deleted/redirected, but I feel process was not followed. The AfD should stay open for five days, or say three if the outcome is perfectly clear. Less than 24 hours is too little. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List somewhere ... unless content has been merged, this certainly isn't needed as a redirect. Who is ever going to type this into the search box? --BigDT 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Furry Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Category was deleted after two explicit keep discussions and several implicit keeps by having users from other categories migrated to it. When the original deleting admin was contacted, she stated it could be re-created, however it was then immediately re-deleted by another admin. Contacting the other admin has failed, gathering only responses stating that his opinion of the category was reason enough to remove it, regardless of any community consensus. While this category may fall under the "all pages deleted by this user" discussion below, it is substantially different than most of the others, and can not be lumped in with them. This deletion was clearly both out-of-proccess and against established consensus, given the prior keep decisions. Most of the other categories being considered in the all-things-deleted deletion review do not have any prior consensus decisions and are of political or polemic nature (such as Category:Wikipedians who support Tibetan independence), and while this is not the proper forum for discussing the merits of the material, it is useful to note that this category does serve an encyclopedic function by helping with the administration of the thousand or so pages about or of substantial interest to wikipedia's furry fans, and should not be considered along with the political statement categories. Bushytails 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: could the nominator provide links to the mentioned discussions? I am unsure of what previous discussion are being referenced and am unable to provide an opinion based on the above DRV nomination alone. Arkyan • (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at WP:UCFD. Doesn't quite seem to fit in any speedy categories, and while I may agree with the deleting admins in their rationale the fact that the deletion has caused some debate is enough to make me think it's a bit too controversial for a unilateral decision like that. Let it run through UCFD again to see what the consensus is on the topic. Arkyan • (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy should be construed narrowly, and what doesn't fit, needs AfD. Speedies after two successive AfD keeps are especially difficult to defend, because the criteria for a speedy require that nobody could reasonably disagree. DGG 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. After the prior keeps, I was rather surprised to see it just drop off the screen without a word of warning. I also think it shouldn't have been re-deleted a second time, because it shouldn't have been deleted the first time. GreenReaper 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is already listed on DRV, follow whatever the current discussion says. (To clarify, I don't believe it's different enough to need its own venue.) --tjstrf talk 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't. I'm not an administrator. :-) Though the Wikiproject isn't a bad idea - I was thinking of something similar on the way back to work. Anyway, at the time it was formed, this was a fine name for categorizing the group of Wikipedians interested in a topic. If this is now wrong, then whoever changed that consensus is welcome to change it, but that's a rather different thing to deleting it altogether. GreenReaper 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn two previous keep consensuses prove the community wants it. -N 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - give me a break--Docg 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. One person's assessment of whether something does or "does not further the project" should not override the consensus of an XfD discussion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Want it deleted? List it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No valid reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Some of Dmcdevit's deletions were valid (and many were more arguably so than this), so trying to apply the consensus on the entire group to here doesn't work. And this is clearly not a valid deletion. -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Shanel speedy-deleted it with "Does not further the project", was overturned by Jc37 who listed it at UCfD, and who was again overturned by Dmcdevit stating "disputed deletions go to DRV". The main issue is that the initial deletion was defintily unwarranted (I have yet to spot "Does not further the project" on the CSD list), especially in the light that the category survived two deletion discussions - basically this looks like bypassing a deletion discussion (which would have resulted in a keep) by speedy deleting it - which is both against the spirit and the letter of the wikipedia policies. I see a frightful trend that some admins become more and more triggerhappy and say "FUCK PROCESS" and just delete what they believe needs to be gone, and when we - the people - want it restored they come and say "awww, go through DRV". I begin to feel that some admins think they are above and beyond the policies, and that they need an urgent reminder that being given the Mop&Bucket is not a privilege but a carries a duty. CharonX/talk 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: such spurious speedy deletion is dirty pool; circumvention of process serves even less to further the project. I have more censorious words, but I think I'll keep them to myself. >:) (It should also be noted that my user page is listed under the category in question.) ---Bersl2 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: The category facilitates collaboration—and anyway, deleting a category and saying go to DRV to restore it is the wrong way to go about things. The category should have been relisted at UCfD first, not gotten rid of first. Blast [improve me] 06.06.07 0428 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - every user category not related to something helpful to writing an encyclopedia ought to be deleted. --BigDT 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget that DRV is for discussing the proccess of the deletion, not the content... If you disagree with user categories, you may wish to start by removing most of the ones your own user page is in, and the divisive religious userboxes. Bushytails 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, BigDT. However, in this particular case I could see it being of some help in writing the encyclopedia, for example if an admin thinks an article on a furry comic looks speediable but isn't sure, they could always ask somebody in the category to get a second opinion. It shouldn't be used for spamming, votestacking, or other shenanigans, but the same applies to every category.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been on UCFD before, and always kept. The only reason to not have a discussion is if you're worried you won't like the outcome. Bushytails 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the process keeps things that don't help the encyclopedia, then the process is broken. Category space is a pseudo-encyclopedic space and really ought to not have junk in it. I'm all for having userboxes and anything (within reason) in user space, but category space needs to be kept presentable. --BigDT 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus does not "break". If the category has survived UCFD before, then the speedy deletion is out of process. "Category:Wikipedians XYZ" is obviously out of the encyclopedia, and nobody mistakes this, because there are no crossings of the category structure. The fact that user categories reside in a technical namespace does not negate that they are functionally in userspace. ··coelacan 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - there are countless other categories whose only effect on the project is to give people a way of expressing themselves. Userspace is a way to let editors use the edit button for kicks, whether it be for silliness, self-description, or other harmless things that people really have no business meddling with. Effort at crunching userspace usage would be better spent writing. As such, this category has no reason to have been speedied. Milto LOL pia 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and no need to automatically relist. The category has survived UCFD before. We can have the "what does and does not benefit the encyclopedia" argument again, over and over and over if this bugs people so much, but we are not going to have that discussion in the middle of a DRV for an out of process deletion. DRV is not where you argue "oh but it shouldn't exist anyway", only the procedural facts of the deletion. ··coelacan 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong who cares? I suggest we create a new process for reviewing deletions of user categories. >Radiant< 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Category:Wikipedians who think Wikipedia is MySpace... Guy (Help!) 11:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The category has survived deletion before, users clearly want it and it doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. While Wikipedia is not myspace, there is a clear community element to Wikipedia and having a few community related categories reduces stress and makes editors more likely to stick around and help out. Thus, categories like this do in fact help building the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WJBscribe, and an element of who cares per Radiant. As with standard templates, this does not preclude against stating one's preferences in the text of one's user page, so it's hardly censorship. Orderinchaos 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - This is silly. Categories not related to the encyclopedia should not exist. Grokmoo 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is clearly persecution of a minority group based on their practices Has already survived the deletion process twice, and has clear support from many editors. --MichaelLinnear 23:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Enough. Admin!=God. Consensus trumps one person's opinion. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WJBScribe said it one way, I'll say it another: this isn't myspace. --Tony Sidaway
  • Then bring it up at user categories for discussion, and we can hash out the pros and cons. And maybe it'll be third time lucky, and it'll get deleted. But I think it's wrong to just delete a category that's been in use and which has been judged as keep twice before, and that's what you're endorsing - an administrator making an editorial choice and enforcing it with administrative tools, over prior consensus decisions. That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to change the consensus first. GreenReaper 00:35, 7 June 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.
Cocknubbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This should not have been deleted, as it isn't a neologism and it's not a hoax either (it's Midlands slang). It's notable enough for inclusion here, and shouldn't have been deleted. It's been covered in enough LGBT British regional publications, e.g. Out Northwest, so sources are not lacking. This should be undeleted with the {{drv}}; template and relisted for debate. Just because there's no web references doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic, even though people said that in the original debate. It should never have been deleted, and this should be relisted with {{drv}}--Whitfurne333 14:13, 5 June 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.
Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
As I understand the process described in Wikipedia:Deletion review, neither I, the person who initiated the request for undeletion, or anyone else commenting here, is supposed to comment on the merits, or lack thereof, of the article in question. As I understand it, comments here are supposed to be about the process. I hope I have that right.

The closing admin closed this discussion as "delete", when only four of the nine wikipedian who participated in the discussion said they favored deletion. I believe this discussion should have been closed as "no consensus" -- not "delete". Geo Swan 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close, seems proper. A Gitmo detainee and.... nothing else. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but, for clarification -- was I correct Wikipedia:Deletion Review says comments there should address "the process" through which the contribution was removed -- not the actual merits of contribution?
    • If I have that right, I shouldn't try to put any comments on the drv that argue for the article's merits, and you shouldn't address the content of the article either. Maybe you didn't mean the second part of your comment look like a comment on the article's comment. But, I am afraid it does.
    • Now maybe the proscription about confining the discussion to process, not content is observed in the breach so often, it is routinely ignored. If so, I would appreciate having someone spell that out to me.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 13:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry Guy, but you've got your arse and elbow the wrong way round here. One is probably firmly lodged up the other :-) Geo is perfectly correct, this is about procedure, not opinions on the merit of content. And please, don't start suggesting I'm a wonker :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Guy was suggesting it was me that was baiting him. Hmm, well firstly, it's not my "pet article" Guy, and secondly, admin baiting is not one of my hobbies. Wait ... in fact, I am myself an admin, gosh ... I suggest that you get a sense of humour. As a fellow Brit, I thought you would have understood the "arse and elbow" connotation - clearly not. Never mind, my comments stand. Your posting here is merely your opinion about the article content, as opposed to the application of policy regarding the validity of the deletion, hence the arse and elbow comment. Oh well, never mind. See you around. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the non-delete voters said "merge", and there wasn't much to merge in this WP:COATRACK. There was clear consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article on this person. Kusma (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect would probably solve the issue. >Radiant< 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close per Kusma. I count only 3 out of 9 comments (10 if you count the nominator) asking for a keep. That's a consensus for me. —Moondyne 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not quite a correct enunciation of the numerical tally. If you want numbers, here they are (ignoring the nominators unstated opinion, and adding in your omission of the Merge "votes"):
Delete - 4
Merge - 2
Keep - 3
However, we operate on consensus decision making, not numerical "voting". Please read the discussion again. There is no consensus to delete, merely a small numerical majority for such. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure This is a fundamentally flawed deletion. See my comments above to various parties (Guy, Kusma and Moondyne) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: of the three keep !votes (or should I say votes?), only Cactus.man gave anything even approaching a valid reason for his opinion, and even he has to concede that there is little information about this person to make a meaningful article about. Corvus cornix 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closing/Deleting Admin my thoughts -- its complex issue here as I understand it this DRV has been brought not because you take the position that the consensus was keep but because the you think the result should have been no consensus. This is what I looked at how I came to the conclusion that consensus was delete.
reviewing the "votes/opinions/comments"
  • Nomination -- notable but no content available
  • Delete -- not notable, bulk of article content wasnt about the subject
  • keep(weak) - asked for more sources, noted error in article.
  • Keep -- due possible confusion over name by keeping it'll prevent this. Dab pages are for this type of problem, the confusion is with other detainees, the "list of" should cover address that it does.
  • merge -- due to no WP:V from independant sources.
  • responded to with it wont work, I've tried but lets talk at Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees at this point it indicates that a merge option isnt viable, from this opinion lack WP:V sources hasnt been addressed as such I considered it delete until it can be sourced independantly
  • at this stage is was relisted for more discussion
  • delete - not notable no independant information
  • delete - same as above
  • wikilawyer response to relist vs unclosed AfD, no contribution to discussion so ignored
  • Delete - not notable due no information being available.
  • merge - to "list of" until more information is avaiable.
  • response - already on the list
  • Keep (strong) is notable, but no information avaiable due to supression, ignore WP:NOTE, WP:BIO or a WP:IAR recommendation.
What I read was, including the nomination there were 9 comments that clearly stated not enough WP:V information, vs 3 keeps, 1 because he has a confusing name, 1 IAR and 1 more sources required. What is also present is an acknowledgement that the Detainees are notable providing there is sufficient information then they should have an article. A normal AfD has 5-6 days to address any concerns this one had 12 days there was no new soucres offered either here or on the article to address the lack of WP:V. The consensus here is clearly that the detainee is notable but until there is sufficient information about the person from verifable/independant sources this person should be in the list but not have a stand alone article. Gnangarra 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the detailed explanation Gnangarra. It's not the conclusion that I would have come to (but I would say that, wouldn't I :-). However, it's a reasoning worthy of respect. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks -- Okay, thanks for the explanation. I am satisfied now.
    • I would still really appreciate it if someone could confirm or dispute my understanding that this fora is for discussion of the processs, not the merits of the articles. Gnangarra's comments were about process. But some of the other comments here did seem to cross well over into discussion of the article's merit, not the process. I would really like to know whether stretching the proscription of discussions of content was something I should prepare to see if I participate in other deletion review discussions. Geo Swan 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion per Gnangarra's excellent explanation of closing logic. JoshuaZ 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion because while another admin may have closed it differently (perhaps with a redirect), I don't view Gnangarra's closure as 'out of process'. When appropriate sources materialize, a proper article can be written. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inexplicable deletion - restore then redirect to list. If information about this person already exists in Wikipedia then we should make it easier to find. Catchpole 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within Gnangarra's reasonable discretion. I think there might be a better solution overall, though. Per DGG's reasoning in the AFD that more verifiable sources are honestly to be expected in the future, it might be best to go ahead and open up the history now so that the article needn't be rewritten by a inexperienced user in the future. As Radiant suggests, a redirect would be good now. And I would not be opposed to protecting that redirect until sufficient sources show up for WP:V. ··coelacan 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as within Gnangarra's reasonable discretion. AfD is not a vote, and the consensus was clearly far more strongly Delete than Keep. I would have closed it the same way in the same circumstances. I don't think a (protected) redirect would be an unreasonable solution to the situation per Coelacan. Orderinchaos 17:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to recreation - arguments were valid that there might be more information coming out on him in the future - which is exactly what the closer properly argued - that nothing is really known about him. The Evil Spartan 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure was good, but allow recreation if notability asserted--Rayc 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


4 June 2007

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

Unfair Deletion SSMatt 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information as to why this deletion was unfair is here:

User_talk:Wickethewok#Bob_Ricci

It seems that the only criteria that matters to admins on WP:BAND is having a reliable source. The page was deleted and the only reason given by each vote was "No reliable sources". The text on WP:BAND clearly states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any ONE of the following criteria". None of the other criteria, for which I provided a LOT of information towards, were considered. This wasted a lot of my time, since after reading WP:BAND, I was led to believe that my article met some of the criteria where only one was needed, yet it was deleted because it only didn't meet 1 criteria. SSMatt 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability is subject to verification. If there are not sources we can't verify the information and the article becomes original research which we are supposed to avoid like the plague. Does this help? Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for now. If reliable sources are provided, I might change my mind. Corvus cornix 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is exactly the problem. I provided sources to verify that he had met OTHER criteria. I provided plenty of it. It seems like nobody's reading or responding to any of the data that I DID provide, and immediately respond endorsing the deletion because it doesn't meet ONE criteria. Let me put it this way, why does WP:BAND say that only ONE of those criteria needs to be met, when in actuality, apparently only the first one matters to any of you? SSMatt 22:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese perfectly valid afd result. ViridaeTalk 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to ask that people who vote on this actually take the time to read through the info I provided. Some of you are asking me to cite sources for the criteria other than third party articles, and I've done that if you click the links I provided. Why do you keep telling me to provide sources for the notability guidelines that Bob Ricci meets when that's all I've been doing in the talk page link I provided? Nobody's commented or told me why the information I've provided is not valid for meeting the guidelines. I don't even think anybody's reading it. If all the admins here are like-minded and have their own rules for AFD then fine, but at least update your guidelines to match your rules. Don't post guidelines that don't matter. Bob Ricci currently meets your WP:BAND requirements since it's stated on the page that notability can be established by meeting ANY of the criteria, and I've provided plenty of sources and links to verify his meeting some of the criteria. I just don't have number 1, but that's not a requirement. Why doesn't anybody seem to understand this, or tell me why my info provided isn't valid? At least edit your WP:BAND page to coincide with this. Maybe make a note: "Number 1 is really the only one that matters even though it says you can meet any of these". That would suffice. I'm just very frustrated that you all say the same thing and it contradicts what you posted on that page.
  • Endorse Deletion I can't see any sources at all on the article cache and the discussion referred to above clearly shows that they have not been provided. If you have sources please post direct (i.e. not google) links to them so we can verify them. Spartaz Humbug! 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is the problem I have with all the subject specific notability guidelines; they encourage people to think that anything which meets them should be included, when that isn't the case. Things which meet WP:BAND must still meet WP:V, which means reliable sources with significant content. I've seen no evidence of that. -Amarkov moo! 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. Autobiographical article, undelete requested by single purpose account with eight or nine months' history of promoting only this subject. Nothing new is added to the deletion debate, and no credible reason is advanced for overturning deletion. Guy (Help!) 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I was the article nominator. When this user left a message on my talk page regarding what he could do to prevent deletion, the first thing I told him was: You need to add reliable sources that show the subject meets WP:BAND. Check out WP:RS for a better definition of a reliable source. So I don't know why he claims that he didn't know he needed to give sources. Anyways, unanimous AFD with valid close. Wickethewok 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion until we see an explicit presentation of reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. I agree that this is a bit of a borderline case, but the comments about how this is "unfair" strongly suggest that the motivation here is to promote the subject, rather than to benefit Wikipedia. There seem to be some misunderstandings here. First of all, the first criterion at WP:BAND is multiple, non-trivial independent published sources, not "reliable sources". All of the criteria require reliable sources because of WP:V, which is policy. Second, WP:BAND is a guideline, not policy. It is generally accepted as a mechanism to guide decisions, but some parts of it are more accepted than others. It's a work in progress, subject to change without notice (unless you track the discussions on the talk page) and in general, it guides; it doesn't rule. A decision that goes against it may simply indicate that it needs further refinement. Anyway, the conflict of interest issue was apparently too great to ignore, and the AfD was unanimous. Suggest subject find other means for self-promotion, and leave any decision to recreate up to established, experienced editors. Xtifr tälk 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at a couple of the deleted versions, including the last version by SSMatt and I saw no sources at all in those versions, for anything at all, other than a link to Bobricci.com. That, by definition, is not a reliable source for an article aobut Bob Ricci. So I don't get what SSMatt is talking about regarding sources, he didn't add any that I could see. If SSMatt wants to pursue this further, I'd be happy to undelete and userify so he can add the sources into a copy of the article, and if those sources pass my smell test, and establish notability, I'd be happy to move the article back to article space for him. But for now, endorse delete ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 9 June 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.
Sorcerers cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe the article was deleted in error, no categories of [WP:CSD] apply, and the game in question is referenced in many places. Davémon 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever an article with this name? It doesn't show up in the Logs when I look for it in the history. Of course, I'm not an admin, so I can't read the deletion history. Corvus cornix 20:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual title appears to have been Sorcerers cave, which was deleted by Ocatecir under WP:CSD#A7. It's a board game though, so A7 doesn't technically apply. It appears to be published by reputable companies and has a boardgamegeek entry [31] so I think should be undeleted and perhaps discussed further. --W.marsh 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no assertion of notability and the dungeons and dragon mention made it seem that a club A7 would be the closest fit. Rereading the article I still don't see the notability, but I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it and having an AFD. —Ocatecir Talk 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - the article title was indeed "Sorcerers cave", the board game. I've attempted to rectify the links above, perhaps if the article is restored the admin would be kind enough to fix the title to be Sorcerer's Cave. --Davémon 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the links, it would really help to have some formal review in addition, if there is one. DGG 22:23, 4 June 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.
SimCity 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was salted after last deletion. There is a preview of SimCity 5 in the July issue of Games For Windows magazine which confirms the title's existence. Noclip 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedy deleted and salted it based on the fact that it was a short, unsourced article recreated very shortly after an AfD debate that was closed as "delete." Anyway, if we can write a well-sourced article now, then unsalt it and off with my head. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know how substantial the magazine article is, but I can say that I was excited when clicking on the links above but disappointed when I found they had almost no information on SC5. Based solely on those I would say keep deleted, but like I said, I don't know whats in the mag piece. Wickethewok 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is clearly another example of an out of process deletion - no categories of WP:CSD apply. While this is perhaps a discussion that the community should have, it is exactly that: not something that one administrator, however well respected he is, should take upon himself without community consensus. We should not allow one rouge administrator to hijack the process of community consensus. The Evil Spartan 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is ridiculous. You could, perhaps, make an attempt at discussion first before simply listing "Whole lot of categories deleted by User:Dmcdevit" here. If you disagreed with a deletion of mine, you should have told me, and we could have talked about it. I gave a reasoning in the deletion log; "out of process" is not an inherently bad thing, or a reason for undeletion. Rather, you should actually give an argument for why you want something to be undeleted based on its merits when making a nomination. At this point, you haven't actually given any such reason for undeletion at all, and seem to just be making a nomination out of some misguided legal application of process. Dmcdevit·t 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should have been started as a talk page discussion (and there is currently one atm). The question isn't whether the categories should be deleted, it's whether the process Dmcdevit used was appropriate. Please see User talk:Dmcdevit#Reasons for more information. - jc37 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems within the spirit of CSD T1 (inflammatory and divisive templates can be deleted on sight), although I agree that this was not the proper way to do it. (should have had a UCFD discussion first, especially in case he picked up some non-polemical ones) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking closer, it seems to be very clean. All of the deleted categories professed a particular position on an issue, rather than an interest. Categories of Pro-choice and anti-abortion don't help with building a neutral encyclopedia. Still, UCFD preferable. If anyone can make a case for these, sure, give them a chance, but if not, it's just uncontroversial housekeeping (G6) 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs)
    Absolutely. Because community consensus has agreed that talk pages may contain information about the individual, even when political or polemical. Please look to Hit bull, win steak - the community decided this user ought to be able to have the said picture on his(her?) page. I do not believe this is a valid deletion, any more than deleting these pictures would be. If that would be so, we should delete every potential userbox out there, whether it be User Republican, User Democrat, User Labor, User Pro-Marijuana, etc., as they are all illegal. And please, I realize that this may seem like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it's not: I'm referring to other valid uses of the userspace. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, this has nothing to do with pro-choice, etc. It has to do with many different userboxes.
  • Endorse deletion - product over process, please. If it is right that junk gets deleted, doesn't matter how it goes. Moreschi Talk 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, at the risk of sounding whiny, that I am very disheartened to often see administrators who have the ability to do things that regular users can't review talk about product over process when it is something that regular users like myself cannot challenge. I actually agree with this statement usually in principle, but when one person decides that something's junk, against what the rest of community has decided in similar circumstances, this is not at all necessarily product over process. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - This acttion looks to have had support in a UCFD nomination a while back but nothing was ever done. All these support/oppose categories should have been deleted long ago, and renamed to "Wikipedians interested in x". User categories should help the encyclopedia, not advocate a position. VegaDark (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, wait a minute, the reason to review these deletions is simply because they were deleted out of process? Nope. Endorse deletion and ask Dmcdevit first about any individual categories you are concerned about; if he is unwilling to work something out, then bring them here. --Iamunknown 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not simply about process, though it is about that. I believe this is a bad deletion for the reasons I explained above. In any case, I'm not sure about what precedent you refer to in needing to ask deleters first before bringing to deletion review or else the deletion review should be considered invalid. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dmcdevit gives as reasons for deletion: "Divisive POV-advocacy user categorizations: please refer to WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, and especially WP:ENC; this promotes no encyclopedic purpose.)" And by golly he's right! I endorse this deletion wholeheartedly. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn If we delete everything out of mainspace that is POV, we'd delete all userboxes and at least 50% of the user pages. POV user categories are completely fine, and they are also long-standing. Never delete a hugely populated category. WooyiTalk to me? 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete all userboxes and abused userpages? Yes please! This isn't myspace. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet at least 50% of the Wikipedians will disagree with your statement on userpages. WooyiTalk to me? 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOT has a pretty strong consensus Wooyi. (H) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does, but according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria it's not a valid speedy deletion criteria. - jc37 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CSD is not definitive. It has long been community practice to delete obvious and damaging rubbish on sight. --Tony Sidaway 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A myspacer who thinks the URL of myspace is en.wikipedia.org is still a myspacer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 20:03, June 4, 2007
    You are saying all users with userboxes are myspacers? Think about recant that statement, because more than half active Wikipedians do have political userboxes. WooyiTalk to me? 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Insofar as they use stupid templates, they are myspacers. My opinion on this matter is well known and I'm in no mood to recant for fear of annoying some timewasters who abuse Wikipedia to promote their personal political and religious views. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment above is divisive and inflammatory, as it insults half of the users on Wikipedia, and must be striken... WooyiTalk to me? 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deleteion Looks like a constructive move to me. (H) 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions due to a lack of any substantive reason not to.--Docg 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Overthrow We should not delete Categories in the spirit of a rule about Templates; certainly we should not speedy who masses of them without any justification in the rules. With respect to arguments of product over process --first of all I totally disagree-process is designed to reach the right results & if it doesn't work that way, the remedy is to revise the process. (IAR exists, but its for emergencies, and using anything like it to justify this will discredit it for even its true use.). Second, that principle doesn't work: have any of the people saying this individually considered each of the categories?
    I can't think of a mass deletion in the last 6 months or so which hasn't done injustice (except where the things were essentially identical, such as alphabetic divisions of something, or where it's changing a series of identically formed categories. The suggestion of delete them all, and then argue about the ones you want has things backwards--DR isnt for the arguments over individual deletions; it resembles the sort of justice that throws everyone in prison and then releases a few after long appeals. In recent use of that there was at least the conviction--however misguided--that the safety of the country was at stake--and this is not quite as consequential, even to the safety of WP.
    We justified unilateral process to prevent copyright violation and direct harm to individuals. But just in order to clean up the encyclopedia, especially when there is no agreement over the cleanup. we have CfD to discuss these things, and we should use it. Reverse, and I think this is so out of process as to threaten the stability of WP decision making. It could be seen as vandalism--deleting without discussion or consensus. A speedy deletion of WPedians who support public transit? Overuse of speedy can be detected by the absurdities it produces. DGG 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it dead - user categories that aren't directly useful to building an encyclopedia aren't just background noise, they have been used for attempted vote-stacking to POV-push before - this was the issue that caused the big userbox war in late 2005/early 2006. The relevant policy for their speedy death is that they are proven incitement to NPOV violation. These things need to be killed and kept killed - David Gerard 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These and undoubtedly would be deleted as not useful for collaboration in UCfD, so I can't really say to undelete. But do people not realize the terrible precedent it sets when admins can go through and delete hundreds of pages at a time for a reason no more substantial than "unencyclopedic"? That reminds me, time to go check what log entries have accumulated in Category:Wikipedians born in 1992... -Amarkov moo! 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they fail to realize the awful WP:CABAL effect it has on some of us who don't happen to be so fortunate as to be administrators. It's really quite sad that no one seems to see that using their an interpretation of WP:IAR to ignore process every time it suits them is an awful turn off. And I had to tone down this statement for fear of being uncivil. The Evil Spartan 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Acceptable. --MichaelLinnear 00:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT?. The Evil Spartan 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Acceptable removal of divisive nonconstructive material, it's not like these were articles. --MichaelLinnear 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Tony Sidaway, these deletions look sound to me. This is an encyclopedia; divisive political user categories such as these do not help build it or the community. --Coredesat 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I just started creating/editing user categories in the last couple of weeks and what a hornet nest it can be. I'm learning a lot about how WP works, though. In general, I agree with the concerns and sentiments of The Evil Spartan though I'm not so sure the issue is being an administrator as much as it is knowing the ropes. In any case, I think the deletes should be rolled back with the categories added to UCfD if they really are a problem. This, IMO, would be more consistent with Wikiquette. It seems to me that jc37's strongest argument in favor of deletion of these categories is WP:SOAP but is creating or being listed in a category of "Wikipedians who oppose the death penalty," for example, really a form of "Propaganda or advocacy"? I don't think so. And, really, just how are such categories divisive? Have they spawned edits wars or what? --DieWeisseRose 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. One of the chief reasons for WP:CSD#T1 in the first place was the abusive use of these kinds of categories. This deletion was very much within the spirit of T1. Chick Bowen 04:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Speedy deletion criteria should be construed narrowly and should never be used to override consensus or short-circuit a discussion that is taking place. No evidence of disruption, no evidence of consensus to delete. Plenty of evidence from past history that trying to delete these kind of pages or categories is far more trouble than it's worth. Legitimate Wikipedia contributors (as opposed to people whose only edits are to their user pages) deserve a fairly wide degree of latitude in their user space. *** Crotalus *** 04:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While I prefer to see consensus formed before (rather than after) these kind of actions, deletion, IMO, is clearly the correct result so overturing would be a bad idea. Unlike userboxes which are a way of communicating via userpages these categories have no encyclopedic purpose as far as I can see. Lists of users who express a certain opinion are useful for social networking or votestacking but niether of those are appropriate activities on Wikipedia. I would also urge the nominator and anyone else interested in contesting these deletions to make a list of which categories precisely they want restored. A bare link to the Dmcdevit's deletion log isn't enough to determin the scope of a DRV. In addition, some of the categories are presumably more defensible than others and it may well be that some of them should be restored/sent to UCFD when considered individually. Eluchil404 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Zero encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. We aren't a place to express your political opinion. MER-C 06:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There were maybe one or two categories that I would have left alone, but whatever. The question is not "Why did Dmcdevit delete these categories?", but rather, "Why were they created in the first place?" Placeholder account 07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, this would be backed by at least the intent of CSD #T1 (no divisive templates) and C3 (no categories based on deleted templates). >Radiant< 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, most of the deleted categories were the sort of utter garbage we delete one by one at WP:UCFD every day, the ones that only gather keep votes from the people that are in them. While having categories for major worldview issues is imo acceptable, trivial views and fetishes do not need categories. --tjstrf talk 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletions - Whether its user boxes, categories, or just plain ol text on the page, none of this garbage serves any purpose other than to thumb one's nose at others. Tarc 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese deletions. The phrase "at last" springs unbidden to mind; MySpace is thataway----> Guy (Help!) 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overthrow some. Review seperately. There are categories of different natures all lumped together in this one section, and can't all be considered in a single review. Some of them were deleted in a blatant affront to community consensus, as they had recent keep decisions in previous discussions, and should be restored until a proper discussion deletes them. Regardless of personal opinions of the worthyness of the categories, community consensus needs to be considered. Bushytails 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many of the opinions expressed here are about the content of the items deleted, not if they were properly deleted. To remind people of the start of this page, "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." Bushytails 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and suggest The Evil Spartan become more familiar with Wikipedia before he starts this kind of thing. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No reason for the community to further debate the obviously unencyclopedic categories. FloNight 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as to the question of "We should not delete Categories in the spirit of a rule about Templates"; please see WP:CSD#C3, which states "If a category is solely populated from a template and the template is deleted per deletion policy, the category can also be deleted without further discussion." --After Midnight 0001 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 0Comment First of all, I am on the fence about whether or not these categories should be deleted. After all, they DO show some background into the User, which may be helpful. However, they are not purely encyclopedic in nature. No matter what, they should all be treated the same. You admins should not be running around deleting and restoring articles. You NEED to get a consensus on what should be done, and either keep ALL the categories or delete ALL of them. littlebum2002 12:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn: I realize the categories were pretty pointless and the Wiki isn't much poorer for the lack of them, but I also didn't see that they were doing any harm. Yeah, they were superfluous, but so are userboxes and babelboxes and whole scads of other things. My feeling is, unless something is actively detrimental to the functioning or credibility of the Wiki, it should be left in peace. My main concern, however, is that these mass deletions appear to have taken place without any discussion beforehand. K. Lásztocska 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions — I don't care how the shit gets flushed, I just don't want it overflowing back out of my septic tank. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it, the deletion removed items which did have unquestionably correct copyright, mixed in among all the others which may have been technical violations. Removing items without adequate justification is vandalism, and there is no better word for it. Saying that one item is a copyvio--no matter how clear that may be--does not give a right to delete other associated items which are not copyvios. I think this should be treated as we would in the case of any anonymous figure who came here for the first time and started removing content. That it was deleted it instead of just blanked made it even worse. No ordinary non-admin bent on destroying content could have done that. I don't want to wade through content I personally dislike, but if anyone is prepared to identify content with clear copyright, they should consider proceeding accordingly. DGG 02:36, 7 June 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.
Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Jeffree Star (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ah, Jeffree Star. An article created numerous times, AfD'd a few times, and the subject of numerous deletion reviews that hadn't gone anywhere due to lack of source material. This is most certainly not the case now. Star has now uneqivocally met our standards for sourcing, and the article should be undeleted and allow for editing to continue. Please note, the subject has yet to go through an entire AfD. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since some editors need to be spoonfed: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38].

Apart from all the previous dleeitons and reviews, and rampant astroturfing, you mean? ;-) Guy (Help!) 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spoon feeding me, Jeff. Now, let's see: 1 is an opinion column, not news. 2 is an opinion column, not news. 3 is a press release. 4 is a copy of the same press release. 5 is broken. Corvus cornix 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This person is, by all accounts, an extremely active self-publicist, so the number of news hits is trivial given their supposed importance. Given the enormous past history of astroturfing of this subject I am going to hold out for non-trivial independent sources such as profiles of this individual in reasonably sober publications, not just mentions in the scandal sheets. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Astroturfing? I haven't seen much evidence of that (not that I've actively been looking for it). But, according to your holdouts, you already have them - The Arizona Daily Star, the New York Daily News and Los Angeles Weekly aren't really "scandal sheets," after all. Besides, past astroturfing doesn't really make a lick of difference here, unless you think I'm part of that machine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you didn't bother to check where the Google searches led because the nominator didn't follow your process? Next time, instead of all this friendly banter, it'd be quicker just to make more clicks. - hahnchen 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, I believe the issue is that, when presented with a Google search, one doesn't know which articles may be wheat and which are chaff. It may be "spoonfeeding" to provide specific links, but the alternative wastes the time of people who want to evaluate the sources. Powers T 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the specific links, I accept #2 as substantial, and possible #1. I don't see why feature articles are not as good as news articles for the purpose--if anything, I'd think they'd be better. DGG 23:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Allow recreation. As a side note, I find it incredibly funny that some people shift their opinion between "OMG U NOT FOLLOW GUIDELINE" and "OMG CONSENSUS >>> GUIDELINE" depending on what their opinion happens to be on a specific article. Actually, "most" is the better word, both inclusionists and deletionists... -Amarkov moo! 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation but do not undelete. Write a new article on the subject using sources; there seems to be enough for an article now. The previous articles (the ones whose deletion I endorsed in most of the previous DRVs) are garbage and would contribute absolutely nothing to a new article (most of them are random stuff written by the subject's fans), so keep them deleted. --Coredesat 01:13, 5 June 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.
Bindows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Technical and informative description of a major software, Bindows www.bindows.net is a market leader in the field of Ajax framework. Bindows is in use by 91 of the Fortune 100 companies). Here are some links about Bindows: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/27/48FEajax_1.html http://mb.bindows.net/news/MBT_Accessibility_PR_6-12-06.pdf http://web2journal.com/read/187444.htm http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1895,2008931,00.asp http://www.fcw.com/article94879-06-13-06-Web http://solutions.journaldunet.com http://www.bindows.jp http://www.bindows.ru http://www.bindows.net.cn http://www.bindows.fr http://skypoetsworld.blogspot.com/index.html http://blogs.jetbrains.com/idea/2007/05/bindows/ A simple google search will show more than 450,000 results for Bindows... Ronm4321 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image deleted by nominator despite no consensus at IFD discussion. Image fair use rationale used to state: This is a unique historical photo usually used to illustrate the outbreak of World War II. Its use adds significantly to the article about World War II as well as articles about Invasion of Poland (1939) and History of Poland (1939–1945). This image cannot be replaced by a free photography, as no free photos could have been taken of this historical event. Claims of that this was not a photo of 1st September but propaganda event staged a few days later were not verified by any source, the original source - Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - gives the date as September 1st, 1939. This is confirmed by another source, which also notes that the photo is held by The Archive of Audio Visual Records in Warsaw, Unit IKP. The date is again mentioned at (BBC), (Spiegel), [39], [40]. Republished in many books in Poland in the past decades, as photographer is unknown it may also be eglible for {{PolandPD}}. Further, Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs encourages redistribution of the photo (see licence at [41]), although its license has been recently judged non-free (see Template talk:PolandGov) and thus forced us to switch from it to fair use - but as the Ministry gave us permission to use their photos before, we can be certain that they will not sue Wikipedia for using this photo under any license (and certainly not fair use...). In conclusion, this is a possibly free photo, certainly highly notable, increases the readers understanding of the event, is impossible to replace with a free photo, is not infringing upon (unknown) copyright holder, and should certainly be allowed to use under fair use in related articles on Wikipedia.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know DRV isn't the place for further argumentation about deletion, but I'd like to comment that (1) per Wikipedia:Non-free content, we need to know the copyright holder to use non-free content (this is necessary so that we can assess what, if any, consequence our use of such content has upon their exclusive right to republish or authorize republishing of an image) and (2) I doubt that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland is the copyright holder of the image unless the photographer transferred rights (which would require documentation). It is indeed a notable image (given the sources you've provided) and, as such, I would think that someone would know the original photographer and or copyright holder. These should be provided if it is to be undeleted. --Iamunknown 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IFD discussion noted this is a staged reproduction...is that a reference to the common practice back in the day of recreating news events for pre-movie newsreels? -N 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: Image was deleted by me, not the nominator (User:Abu badali, who is not an administrator). I don't see how this image increases reader understanding of the event. It's just a bunch of soldiers pulling down a barrier. How are the words, "German soldiers tore down the barrier, thus signaling the start of the invasion" any less effective? The Foundation's licensing policy makes it clear that non-free material should only be used when absolutely necessary. This image is a nice-to-have, but is not critical to the reader's understanding. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another possible source of the image, sans watermark is from Yad Vashem http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/he05n14.htm. I know the Associated Press, the AP, was around during the war, but from the searches that I have done, I have no idea who would be the exact copyright holder. I am working with the DRV nominator on finding the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Restore the image. I won't rehearse the excesses of the Deletionists here. Just add my voice to those who think the image enhances the article and that this trumped-up fear of Phantom Lawsuits is downright childish. JDG 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a little ridiculous to paint those who are interested in following the Foundation's licensing policy as "deletionists". I've uploaded non-free images of my own and I've ruled on IFD nominations for keeping non-free images as well. One of the prime goals of the Foundation and the encyclopedia is freedom -- the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with the content. Obviously we can't get rid of all non-free images, but we can keep that number down to only those that are absolutely necessary for readers to understand the article. As you state, this image enhances the article -- but it's not critical. It thus fails WP:NFCC #8, which is why it can't stay. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't go into the dozens of reasons I find current Foundation policy on retention of images to be painfully misguided and damaging to the project, but it's clear that even by the standards of those in agreement with the policy the deletion of this particular image was wrong. I can only explain it as an act of cultural elitism in which the elites (Western European/American) have cut the non-elites (Eastern European) off at the knees, and proceeded to execute their will while the non-elites tried to rear themselves up on their stumps to continue the lost battle. Dramatic language, yes-- but tossing out a historically important image on grounds of "non-relevance" is also dramatic, and dramatically insensitive... One factor hurting the image is its very small dimensions. The viewer can hardly see who is doing what. But that was also an appeasement to the Deletionists, so it gets into a bad cycle. And yes, I will continue to use the acid, derisive term "Deletionists" because I am quite upset to see this... Thing I've been working on since 2002 suffer such damage from them. Sadly, Jimbo is among them. If reproducibility (usually by dubious website operators looking to make a quick buck with Google ads) is such a sacrosanct goal, tools should be developed allowing re-users to spin off imageless or strictly-licensed or moderately-licensed versions with a few clicks. Instead, Jimbo and the Deletionists strive to turn Wikipedia into a wretchedly illustrated compendium, all due to fear of lawsuits that never happen and never were going to happen to Wikimedia itself. JDG 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the...? You were the one who spearheaded the drive to delete the thing, and also the one to actually delete it despite having no actual votes to do so. I was thrashing about, trying to find a reason, when I speculated it may have been due to an unconscious cultural elitism-- if you have saved other Eastern-themed images from deletion, then I apologize for my speculation. Yet it remains that you had a choice between esoteric policy notions and the sincere wishes of a number of valuable Eastern European Wikipedians, and chose the former in this case. This is another reason Jimbo's sudden, excessive fear of copyright troubles has created far more trouble than it can hope to avoid-- it drives a wedge between editors who don't share Jimbo's paranoia and those who share it and implement it. JDG 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [edited 13:15 after re-reading howcheng's response][reply]
        • If you don't like the foundation's policy on unfree content, you should probably find another project. Just look at the rhetoric above - Jimbo and the deletionists? Great name for a band, but get over yourself why don't you? Wikipedia's mission is a free content encyclopaedia, and that means we keep use of unfree images to a minimum, especially when we can't even find a source for them. Guy (Help!) 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, what? This was deleted on commons, according to the image description. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was deleted at Commons in April 2006, and somehow still needed to be purged. (?:-\) This DRV does relate to the recent deletion on en.WP. I don't know, however, why this was relisted: we still don't know who the copyright holder is, and I would expect that we should know considering all of the folks saying how notable this image is... --Iamunknown 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion If the photo is a unique historical photo, write an article specifically about the photo. In spite of the statement on Non-free content, there is no absolute requirement to know the copyright holder--this is not one of the considerations in the US law, since not all 4 of the conditions have to be met, The use is non profit, the material is factual, but it is the whole photo. If there is no evidence that copies are sold commercially, and evidence that they are freely available elsewhere, there is little possible economic consequence, & I think it meets the test on the whole. But has AP replied? their having but a copyright label on it does not mean that they actually own the rights. DGG 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no absolute legal requirement for much of wikipedia policy (unless you know of laws which outlaw original research and the like), can we then ignore those policies also? --pgk 06:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that both the Polish archvies and the YW sell the photo commercially, but claim no exlusive copyright, nor do they appear to even know the original source... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't expect the Polish archives or TW claim to copyright; it is bizarre, however, they don't know the original source and yet continue to sell the photo commercially. I would expect that they would at least know the estate of the photographer and be indebted to them. I wish that we could find out who the photographer is; I'm sure that someone knows — a World War II historian, an agency, someone. In the meantime, however, I think that it is probably safe to use the image and give a detailed explanation on the image description page that: (1) the identity of the original photographer could not be discovered after contacting the agencies (2) those agencies sell the photo commercially without knowing the photographer or the photographer's estate; but with the caveat that we leave a note on the image description page with a link to the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent for claimed infringement of copyright.
    • Regarding the e-mails, I assume they are in Polish, no? If the image is undeleted, it might be good (regardless the language) to forward them to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org; though they are not permission to use the image under a free license, they are evidence that we tried to figure out who the copyright holder is. In the meantime, I saw overturn deletion. --Iamunknown 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

3 June 2007

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

I nominated this page for deletion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker), and it was deleted because it contained a price list that seemed like advertising. The user has contacted me on my talk page and asked for the deletion to be reversed because he did not intend to advertise, and he was just using his userpage as a sandbox for RapidWeaver, which he has edited. Since I am not sure how to proceed, I seek opinion from the experts here. Thank you. YechielMan 23:57, 3 June 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.
Miss Dynamite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD result was redirect due to unnotability. Just because five people did not know about it does not mean it is not notable. It is one of the oldest running anime series on Newgrounds. The episodes won numerous awards; the links to the espisodes listed at the Newgrounds collection page (click them) show this. A search for "Miss Dynamite" anime shows that there can be no confusion with the singer, Ms. Dynamite. The singer has also never made use of the name Miss Dynamite. A dablink would have been a much better choice than a redirect! Zabadab (Talk) @ 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Miss Dynamite XXII iraq, Weekly Users' Choice, 3/14/07 2. Miss Dynamite XXII iraq, Daily Feature, 3/13/07 3. Miss Dynamite XXI, Weekly 4th Place, 11/8/06 4. Miss Dynamite XXI, Daily Feature, 11/7/06 5. Miss Dynamite XX, Daily 2nd Place, 8/19/06 6. Miss Dynamite XIX, Daily 3rd Place, 3/8/06 7. Miss Dynamite XVIII, Daily Feature, 8/24/05 8. Miss.Dynamite XVII, Daily 2nd Place, 4/2/05 9. MssDynamitevsTerriSchiavo, Daily 3rd Place, 3/26/05 10. Miss.Dynamite XV, Daily Feature, 8/21/03 11. Miss.Dynamite XV, Weekly Users' Choice, 8/20/03 12. Miss.Dynamite KISS doll, Daily Feature, 3/14/02 13. Miss.Dynamite xmas card01, Daily 3rd Place, 12/25/01 14. Miss.Dynamite VII, Daily 2nd Place, 11/16/01 15. Miss.Dynamite XIV, Weekly Users' Choice, 10/31/01 16. Miss.Dynamite XIV, Daily Feature, 10/25/01 17. Miss.Dynamite XIII, Daily Feature, 4/14/01 18. Miss.Dynamite XII, Daily Feature, 1/22/01 19. Miss.Dynamite XI, Daily Feature, 11/14/00 20. Miss.Dynamite VI Swimsuit, Daily Feature, 10/12/00 21. Miss.Dynamite X, Daily Feature, 10/1/00 22. Miss.Dynamite IX, Daily Feature, 8/12/00 70.53.150.66 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a thread on their forum pointing people here [42]. The Awards on Newgrounds are not "well-known and independent" per WP:WEB. Neverthless, as said above, it's best to present new evidence at DRV, not just rehash the AFD and hope for a new conclusion. --W.marsh 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The Miss Dynamite IP extends beyond online cartoons, to actual Mangas sold online[43] and libraries:

1. Fichtre 436 rue de Bienville (514) 844-9550 2. Marché du Livre 801 De Maisonneuve Est (514) 288-4350 3. Millenium 451 Marie-Anne (514) 284-0358 4. Monet 2752 de Salaberry (514) 337-4083 Jameshmarshall 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • RESTORE Miss Dynamite is higher on Google than Ms. Dynamite. before this I didn't even know there was a Ms Dynamite singer out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.150.66 (talk • contribs) (That wasn't me; I just made a correction; someone's paranoid; check the history for proof 70.53.150.66 05:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable close. The sole keep advocate claimed thousands of ghits for "miss dynamite" +comic actually it's 992 of which the majority appear to be blogs and forums. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm quite surprised at this sudden large discussion over Miss Dynamite's note-worthiness. There is a large body of both sequential art and animation associated with the title, which is rich in political satire. It has been around for many years in various forms including printed media, which can be found in libraries as noted above. As far as web animation goes Miss Dynamite is an icon and this is due largely through the exposure it received on newgrounds. However, the very well-known Miss Dynamite flash animations are posted across the internet, not just on newgrounds.com. (Though I'm personally befuddled as to how newgrounds is not an independant source.) The artist, Sirkowski, is a well-known underground Canadian illustrator who has attended various conventions as a guest, and his fans are populous across the web and otherwise. A search on DeviantArt.com, from which the artist himself was apparently banned, shows an impressive collection of fan-made Miss Dynamite art. As someone mentioned earlier, however, it is easy enough to check the popularity of Miss Dynamite by searching for it in Google or Yahoo where it certainly comes far ahead of the (previously unheard of to me) singer with the similar name. It seems to me something as well-established across the web and otherwise deserves more than this sudden scrutiny. Taintedink 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MensuHell has also published notable artists like Jacques Boivin (Melody, published by Kitchen Sink Press), Michel lacombe (Star Wars comics)and tons of well known Quebec artists. Miss Dynamite has been a featured artist on the cover of MensuHell a few times. Eric Theriault

  • missdynamite.com has a higher alexa rating than msdynamite.co.uk

http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=MissDynamite.com http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=msdynamite.co.uk 70.53.150.66 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse redirect - Lack of independent reliable sources. Winning newgrounds awards (there are thousands) is hardly noteworthy and certainly not independent. Wickethewok 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are the Canadian National Archives not a reliable independant source? 70.53.150.66 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore "The sole keep advocate claimed thousands of ghits for "miss dynamite" +comic actually it's 992". Forgot a zero there mate, Google says ""miss dynamite" comic" has 9,410 hits as of my writing of this post. As has been stated before the comic and animation has been around for a number of years both on the web and published in independent publishers, it is more notable than many of the comics on this list all of which have wiki pages but few have been published by anyone in real world print. Personally I think the artist offended someone (which wouldn't be hard considering the content of his sits) and they are trying to censor him by destroying the wikipedia entry for some of his works, petty vendettas like that shouldn't have any place here. Lando242 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the Canadian National Archives site may be a selective site, or it may archive all Canadian produced webcomics. It obviously makes a difference. DGG 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First appearence of Miss Dynamite in printed media

http://catalogue.banq.qc.ca/cgi-bin/bestn?id=%255FZjow%252F%25E2%257Dt%252DJQNFwwdX&act=8&auto=0&nov=1&v0=0&t0=100%25+papier&i0=0&s0=5&v1=0&v2=0&v3=0&v4=0&sy=&ey=&scr=1&x=25&y=10 100% Papier, is in the Québec National Library since 1995 70.53.150.66 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kessé? where an entire episode of Miss Dynamite was published over the years 2000-2001. "Kessé?" was also sold in librairies in Montreal.70.53.150.66 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the publishers of Miss Dynamite's cartoon (through MensuHell), I find very amusing that printed material isn't considered as evidence in this case, as a proof of history in the use of a name. Sirkowski's comic version of Miss Dynamite was printed and published by several independant (clearly not self-published) organisations in the past:
- 100% Papier #1 & 2 (1995)
- Kessé? #1 to 5 (2000-2001), with the front cover of #2.
- MensuHell (multiple appearances from #10 [March 2000] to 82 [September 2006], with the font covers of #29, 37, 57 & 71)

Other than that, Sirkowski has self-published 4 zines since 2003 using Miss Dynamite's content: 3 comics, and one with only illustrations. You may not like a webcomic entry on Wikipedia, but why sabotage a comic entry too? There is not link between the comic cartoon Miss Dynamite and the musical artist Ms Dynamite, so who can really get confused between the 2? If one form of art has his place here, then why not the other? Who's to decide which arts are good enough for Wikipedia, and which one are not? Will that list of accepted art forms be well placed so that everyone will see it up front when consulting this web-based encyclopedia?

Therefore, a single entry on Miss Dynamite (the printed version AND webcomic) should stay on Wikipedia like before the deletion process abruptedly occured, with a permanent link to the singer's page in case someone mistyped the name (same thing on the singer's page, for the comic). Francis Hervieux 01:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you mean that only people not officially knowing what they're talking about can add stuff on Wikipedia? Like a scientist or an historian can only write notes outside his field of expertise, because there would be too much chance that he had a conflict of interest? I did not try to hide my status, but merely stated verifiable FACTS upon Miss Dynamite's comics, so that people not knowing the subject were able to make a better decision. Yes, I'm a publisher and I work in the book industry: does that make me a bad person to talk about the subject, since it's my field of expertise, against people clearly not knowing one bit on the subject but who can decide it's not worth existing? I only suggest that Status quo ante bellum should apply in this case. Francis Hervieux 01:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia is not a directory of comics or webcomics", Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics and WP:WEBCOMIC say otherwise. Specifically they what to "...build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia." Printed sources have been provided for three different independent publications, the series has been published online for many years as both a web comic and an animation and the homepage (just this incarnation) has an archive going back 2 years and the web archive as pages from 7 years ago here. I think these qualify under the WEB requirements and that the article should be restored. Lando242 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the BnaQ documents everything that is published in Quebec[44], no matter if it is important or not, self-published or independently published or published by a wellknown publisher, ... It documents existence (which is not really disputed here), but asserts no importance, no notability. As for the Canadian National Archives, it has the same mission for all of Canada, and states specifically that "The National Library acquires Canadiana through legal deposit, purchase, gift, exchange and other arrangements."[45]. So it is enough to send a copy of your work to the CNA to be listed there: not really an indication of notability either, only of existence. Per WP:NOTE, these do not make for "significant coverage" and do not "provide objective evidence of notability", only of existence. Fram 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that was made here was that Miss Dynamite's notability was questionable since there was no reliable proof of its publication history by independant editors for the past 10 years. So now that we seem to agree that the source is indeed reliable, then this notability is a fact. That's publication by a minimum of three independant editors (I'm taking about independant, not auto-publication). We shouldn't move the goal post by now claiming that 3 isn't enough and we need 4 (and so on).

Also, the Canadian Comics Ressource page of the Canadian Library and Archives is SELECTIVE. It doesn't list all Canadian comics published, but those they deemed significant. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/bandes-dessinees/027002-3000-e.html 70.53.151.252 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORE70.166.102.157 10:53, 7 June 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.
Haml (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wrongly grouped with another article for deletion. The Haml article was deleted because a page about me (the inventor) didn't (rightfully) pass the notability standards. It is by far more notable than me. 166 blog posts on Technorati http://technorati.com/posts/tag/Haml. An independent PHP implementation of the markup language: http://sourceforge.net/projects/phphaml/. 1433 messages to the google group: http://groups.google.com/group/haml. This includes an active community writing patches for the primary Ruby implementation. Also, interest in a book on Haml solicited by Apress Publishing (I can forward the email about it to anyone interested). 4 talks at major conferences so far this year about Haml Feel free to delete my article, but Haml is a separate issue all together and I believe firmly passes notability standards for a computer language. I respectfully await a decision. Hampton 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like this article was deleted by mistake... the deletion log says "deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Catlin". But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampton Catlin which I closed) is only about Hampton Catlin and doesn't mention HAML. It certainly wasn't my intention for my close to be used for deletion of HAML, of which I had never heard. Maybe User:Kinu (the deleting editor) can shed some light on this. Herostratus 20:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Haml article was included in the AfD nomination with one other program article, and the nominator's statement says "The three articles together prop each other, whilst being very short on evidence of notability or reliable sources, or indeed third party incoming links." This and the other program article both had AfD templates leading to the Catlin AfD; they were all part of a package. The other articles were deleted after this was brought up during the DRV for Hampton Catlin last month. WarpstarRider 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I dabble in Rails. HAML is really neat, but it hasn't risen above techie blog buzz as yet (it was only introduced this January). If it does have a book published and so forth, then the article could be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist there was no discussion during the afd of the notability of this particular article. DGG 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In what way should this be compared against the notability of other off-broadway templating languages, such as FreeMarker? Twifkak 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore It's in real world use, more than just blog buzz. I'm a full time rails developer and my entire company switched to using it well before January so I strongly disagree with Dhartung's comment above. Comparison to FreeMarker is good. Googling for "haml template" turns up 587,000 hits vs 243,000 for FreeMarker. I guess with quickly changing computer related stuff it's hard to define what is notable, but if Haml doesn't pass the test there's an awful lot of other stuff that should go first. TomBagby 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore: Definitely passes the notability test, in my opinion: the author was interviewed on the official Rails podcast (http://podcast.rubyonrails.org/programs/1/episodes/hampton_catlin); Haml has been presented at Ruby/Rails conferences; linked to and recommended by high-profile members of the Rails community (including the official Rails weblog: http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2007/1/19/haml-1-0); and it's post 1.0 and in real use in many, many places... no way this should be deleted 80.58.205.40 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore: I don't really understand the argument for deletion. Is popularity a criterion for keeping an article in Wikipedia? When article deletion/inclusion becomes a popularity contest I think we cross into dangerous territory. The question then becomes "How popular must a topic be to deserve a Wikipedia article?" which, in my opinion, is far too subjective a measure of an article's merit. A more appropriate question to ask would be "Is the article accurate and does it provide information that a certain segment of knowledge-seekers in the world would find helpful?" and I think it is clear from the response thus far that this particular article passes that test.
  • comment: It may be worth considering that there's no article on Markaby, either (though there is one on why). While haml is definitely more awesome than Markaby, I'm not entirely sure it's more notable. njvack 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore: RyanTMulligan 21:17, 6 June 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.
Professional wrestling aerial techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was incorrectly closed as keep. Rather than overburden this page with a vast amount of information, please see User:One Night In Hackney/DRV which I will summarise here. Five (or six depending on how you interpret the comments from Suriel1981) editors said it should be deleted as original research. Five editors said to keep as it was important or ignore all rules, one said to keep it as other crap exists, two keep per above, four said to keep but it needs sourcing, and only two said it wasn't original research. The sourcing is non-existent. Out of a total of 77 moves, 68 are unsourced, 5 have sources that don't even match the article, and 4 are sourced from an unreliable source as it's self published on a wrestling fan site. There is not one single move that has a description that is reliablty sourced. Per WP:DGFA no amount of voting "keep" can change the fact that this article fails WP:OR and WP:V and should be deleted. One Night In Hackney303 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think this is the place for this discussion. I think you need to talk to the administrator who closed this debate, as this isn't "AFD review", it's deletion review. — Moe ε 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. If the wrestling moves named in this article were given their names by the Wikipedia editors who wrote this article, that would be original research. But if these names for the moves previously existed and were used in pro wrestling-related magazines, books, television broadcasts, web sites, etc., then this article would merely be insufficiently sourced. I don't personally know enough to determine which is the case. But given that several of the participants in the AfD discussion said that the article was in the process of being sourced, the administrator was right to assume good faith and take the word of the majority that the article warranted being kept. --Metropolitan90 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not the names I object to, the descriptions are original research. Also the article won't get sourced based on previous experience. At the time of the first AfD in January the article looked like this, when it was nominated for a second time it looked like this. One source was added, and that's on the list of sources that don't match the article. Please see how many sources have been added since the AfD as well. One Night In Hackney303 06:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and no amount of trying to get it deleted will change the fact that the article is linked to by over five hundred articles meaning its deletion will be devastating to wikipedia. My previous objections to the article being considered original research notwithstanding. –– Lid(Talk) 13:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, given that there are attempts being made to add or improve the sources, and these moves are likely described in sources, I think the closer was perfectly reasonable to give sourcing a chance. If you find any particularly egregious statements in the article, tag them or remove them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't delete this article, because it would heavily damage the whole wrestling project. One Night in Hackney, might I suggest you to stop deleting everything and have a go at trying to source for a change? Govvy 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep as per other reasons above and my reasons stated in the original Afd discussion. And for Govvy's comment about Hack sourcing for a change, I asy, "Here, here, I'll second that!" - T-75|talk|contribs 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't a second AfD, this is a review to see if the AfD was handled properly. –– Lid(Talk)
  • Comment I quote from WP:NEO: "Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability." I would personally define many wrestling "moves" as protologisms. Wikipedia policy is against maintainance of an article like this (at least in its current form). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last time the movesets were all up for deletion, it was surmised that the television show can be used as a primary source, which was one of the reasons it was kept (That is if I recall correctly.)--ProtoWolf 21:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Comment "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. ... Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." That is quoted from policy...--ProtoWolf 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would be a mistake given (a) differing naming conventions in different promotions, (b) some moves never used in some televised promotions, (c) this means a casual reader has to watch endless WWE crap just to see if a move is accurately described, (d) what if the reader has no access to wrestling television?... Whichever way this goes, this will be setting a precedent which will have a major knock-on effect on professional wrestling articles so I humbly request the considering admin to approach this neutrally and give serious thought. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some of the difficulty in using a television show as the primary source, I was just voicing the fact that it had been established before in previous AfD. Thats why it was in a comment.--ProtoWolf 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This and four other articles form the basis of the descriptions of all that Pro-Wrestlers do in the ring, which is about 90% of everything they do, the article may need to be re-written and sourced but the existence of the moves themselves shouldn't be in question, ONIH can watch any episode of any WWE program and hear the announcers refer to moves, the difficulty is taking this that exist and tying them down to be encyclopedic. Of course ONIH prefers to delete, which is his prerogative, but he must accept that WP:PW are trying to get article up to scratch, and when a wrestling article is without merit then an AfD or PROD succeeds, just in this case it didn't, but the point is consensus rules, and if WP:PW have to live with that then ONIH should too. Darrenhusted 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, I'm in the process of adding references, on this and several other articles. In fact, I added three to this article just now. The problem with some of the moves is that descriptions are hard to find because their name also describes what the move involves. For example, a "ropewalk" is clearly when a wrestler walks on the rope. Why cite common sense? (although I will admit that this only applies to only a few moves in the article) Nikki311 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note to reviewing admin, the vast majority of those endorsing the keep are those who voted to keep in the AfD, it would be nice to get some more uninvolved people's opinions. One Night In Hackney303 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't voted keep at all in this, only voted comment to keep myself out of the situation. I believe DRV is to be used to see if an AfD was handled fairly and the correct decision was reached based off the evidence, not a second AfD with delete and keep votes. –– Lid(Talk) 06:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah...I was looking on the wrong line. It was me and User:Theophilus75 who endorsed the keep from the original AfD discussion, not Lid. Nikki311 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also hasn't been brought up that ONIH already discussed the close with the closing admin here, which included another admin reviewing the close and agreeing the keep was the correct decision. –– Lid(Talk) 06:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ONIH has made six edits to the page since the 18 January, 2007. Two weere to add the first AfD and one was to add the second AfD, he has made more edits to the AfD pages for the article and to protest the AfD on this page and on the closing admin's talk page than he actually has to the article, it is clear that he does not want to improve the page but merely get it deleted and even when two AfD's go against his wishes he still complains DRV and the admins, if the page had been deleted then WP:PW would have had to move on and rewrite hundreds of articles (to which ONIH would never have even made on edit to help). ONIH would only have been happy if the article had been deleted and no deletion review will satisfy him because it won't find in his favour, and editors are wasting time here justifying a correct decision rather than editing. Darrenhusted 16:54, 7 June 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.
Crumb family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This family of artists, four of whom have Wikipedia articles, is clearly notable and their notability was asserted in both the article and on the talk page but an admin speedy deleted it anyway despite the assertion of notability, apparently as the last thing before going on a long Wikibreak. Otto4711 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn clear assertion of notability. ViridaeTalk 12:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh I have just notified the deleting admin of the DRV. Concerning the article, are there any reliable independant sources that address the work of the family collectively or are we looking at an artile that reproduces the content of the individual articles as an novel synthesis? Willing to consider supporting overturn if there are sources. Not interested if this was original research or a synthesis. Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? telling me that there are other similar articles and that there is a demand for it doesn't address the need for an article to be based on reliable sources rather than a synthesis or original research. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm, I wouldn't personally accept any film as a reliable source to base an article on - there is far too much room for artistic interpretation. Also there needs to be more to the article then rehashing the content of a film. The content needs to be verifiable which doesn't mean it was in a film but that there needs to be multiple independant non-trivial sources. So, I can see that there may be something around which to base an article but not that the contents of said article can be verified. It looks like there is enough support to undelete this but - fair warning - I'll almost certainly be visiting the article afterwards to check for sourcing and verifiability. If its not there, I'll list it at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not claiming anything - I'm not an admin and I haven't seen the deleted article.. I'm pointing out that unless you actually have sources that address the Crumb family collectively, you will be either rehashing what's in individual articles or effecively engaging in original research - otherwise where does the information in the article come from? Spartaz Humbug! 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I just don't understand this point. To me it is self-evident that a family with more than, say, two or three notable members rates a page which can lay out the relationships and "rehash" in summary style the key points about each. Wikipedia is not paper, we can include this type of information with little burden. It seems from what you say that you expect that the article must perforce be about the family as a collective entity, but I don't see why that must be, other than your conception. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is becoming purile because I haven't actually expressed a formal opinion and I asked for some information; so I don't see the big deal. What you are suggesting is that we have a fork of the other articles. Sheesh. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:sp (edit | [[Talk:Template:sp|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache| )

I do not believe that consensus was reached on the template's Tfd debate, especially because there was a long-standing debate regarding the utility of such a template at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Votes on tagging pages proposal. I do not think that the admin who closed the debate and deleted the template was aware of and reviewed this page prior to action.

It should be clear that {{sp}} should be undeleted along with the subpages Template:sp/colour and Template:sp/doc per policy on Tfd and consensus. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 3 00:42 (UTC)

I have just gone through the debate at MoS and from a quick tabulation, 29 supported the idea of some sort of localization and 17 opposed.
Additionally, I think that {{sp}} would generally be supported by those who raised support for User:PizzaMargherita's proposal because the template follows it rather closely. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 3 01:07 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you provide a link to the TFD as I can't find it in the page history? Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Found it. Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse I can see where you are coming from on this but the TFD raised valid concerns as making editing far to complicated for the uninitiated. We need to keep it simple to encourage new posters and avoid WP:CREEP Spartaz Humbug! 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse, neither the TFD nor that silly vote for creating the template show any kind of consensus for using this. Using template-based localized spelling is an idea which impacts the entire wiki, and should never be implemented without consensus. >Radiant< 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As for WP:CREEP, try explaining to new editors the guidelines on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. This is creep, too. Here, for example, is an excellent, recent example of why this template should be given a chance to work. An anonymous editor, probably thinking he or she was improving Wikipedia, "fixed" the "obvious misspellings" of meter, but it was reverted in less than three minutes. What a waste of time for both the anonymous editor and the reverter!
>Radiant<, it is imprudent that a seven-day "discussion" in a context that favors its deletion should suddenly override over a year of discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Votes on tagging pages proposal. The very fact that a majority of editors expressed interest in the idea shows that the template should be allowed a chance.
The "without consensus" part leads me to think that you would like some form of debate, so why delete this template so quickly? Why not let the debate occur instead of deleting within one month of its introduction?
Arguments against {{sp}} are based on supposition; we do not know for sure how novice editors will react to this template. If there are signs that novice editors are getting confused, then an attempt can be made to correct the template, otherwise it should be deleted (and I would personally undo everything). But as of now, the is no evidence that users are getting confused by {{sp}}. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that users are confused by the status quo: [46], [47] , [48], [49], [50] (several items), [51] , [52], [53] (see color -> colour in middle), [54] (vandalism motivated by "improper" spelling), [55], [56] (classic example), [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] (excellent example of not understanding MoS), [65] (classic example), [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] (petty vandalism), [71] (spelling-motivated vandalism), [72], [73] (endless edits to Etymology sections could go to Wiktionary finally), [74] (soy -> soya), [75], [76], [77] (another Etymology edit), [78], [79], [80], [81], [82] (Etymology edit), [83], [84] (Etymology edit), [85], Frozen yogurt (need I say inconsistent?), [86] (this is interesting), [87], [88], [89]
« D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 5 01:36 (UTC)

Closing admin's statement. This TfD was quite difficult to close. Although I agree with dtrebbien that an enwiki without spelling wars would be a beautiful place, I did not feel that this template was the way to do it. Unlike articles, which generally cannot be deleted solely for being poorly written (assuming they meet our notability standards), templates, even ones which accomplish useful or necessary things, can be deleted for being difficult to use or not being used at all. Considering the length of time this template had existed, its relatively few transclusions at the time the TfD closed, and the extreme amount of markup it adds to articles, I was more inclined to call this as a "delete." RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that a single user reverted all transclusions that were added. Regardless, thank you for adding your input. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 June 6 19:43 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

2 June 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD | 2nd | 3rd)

Subject is a popular columnist and noted information security researched. In addition to being in the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times, a Lexis search shows almost 200 columns by this author. He has recently had extremely popular columns [90] and was recently on the Daily Show as an expert [91]. He is an editor for BC Magazine and syndicated columnist, his notoriety is certainly on par or above many of the other biographical articles on wikipedia. 69.218.223.2 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Subject is an influential columnist with both relevence in the political and educational fields. His appearance on the Daily Show grants him pop-culture relevence, and his recent run for School Board and surrounding publicity adds to his notability. Bambenek is easily influential enough to belong in Wikipedia. RealTeen 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, not this again. Sources provided are not sufficient for notability. This isn't any different from before. --Coredesat 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, regardless of what John Bambenek wants, it seems from the previous AfD that the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times stuff are one line quotes and the books he published are through the SANS Institute. If you still want information on him in wikipedia, you could try placing it on the SANS page. Maybe even a redirect. --Rayc 05:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate – BJAODN is beloved by many; BJAODN has some obvious GFDL problems. The arguments below are impassioned, and contain the speculations of many non-lawyers about the technical restrictions of the license under which the project operates. Mass deletion was an interesting approach to problem, considered by many inappropriate; mass restoration is a compelling solution to the controversy, but it seems to be equally inappropriate, given that there are certain to be some GFDL violations in the pages restored.
To complicate matters, it appears this mass restoration has already happened, at least in part, which is unfortunate from a process point-of-view. Given that circumstances, some of the comments below are probably moot. The best compromise consensus to be found below is this: BJAODN should continue to exist, but it must be absolutely free of GFDL violations. Over the next days (and weeks), interested admins should review page histories to determine if license compliance is possible. Some content will have to be removed. Some pages will be deleted temporarily, some pages will be empty of source-able content, and will be deleted permanently. There is, however, a consensus that BJOADN should be retained in whatever form is GFDL-compliant. I'll begin work on attributions immediately -- please help. – Xoloz 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

BJAODN sub-pages were deleted for GFDL violations. I believe that the pages did contain GFDL violations and such violations were a problem that needed to be fixed. Some have claimed that they would have fixed such problems given the chance. It is impossible to fix many of the older pages due to the loss of deleted revisions but for the newer ones it would be technically possible. This being the case I propose we should the most recent page and give those who say they can and will fix a week to do so. If they do not the page should be re-deleted and the matter settled. If they can fix it we can re-examine the fate of the other sub pages. A week to fix the problem is typical for NSD on images so it is seems a reasonable time to give here. Geni 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for now so people can see for themselves what content was there. None of the articles in question were speediable. +sj +
Restore this and all other sub-pages since deletion was blatant vandalism. In any case, if a week is appropriate to fix one image, how can it also be appropriate for an article that has many different sub-parts? (I don't know how many sub-parts because some busybody of an Administrator deleted the lot.) Js farrar 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I am correct, there were 64 BJAODN pages, each with about a hundred entries. If it takes a week to fix one entry, then it should take about... 123 years! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I listed an entire page so just over a year if they could so one a week.Geni 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I'm actually fairly sympathetic to this in principle but, as I understand it, undeleting these pages would violate the GFDL. That's law. We can't violate copyright because we like it. Where does that stop? It certainly should not start with unencyclopedic stuff. I'm afraid the request, whilst understandable, but legally wholly illegitimate. No consensus here can make it otherwise. WP:IAR does not apply to the law.--Docg 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We? who is we? if law is going to be discussed you must be careful of your terms. In any case DMCA safe harbour should apply for now.Geni 23:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'We' is the community whom you are asking to concur with your nomination. I know nothing of the DCMA, so please help me. How does your request not violate the GFDL?--Docg 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisticaly the GFDL has to inforced through the DMCA. Things are unlikely to get that far ever but a week during which it is attempted to meet the requirements of the GFDL would be unlikely to be viewed as unreasonable by the courts.Geni 00:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, no one will sue us anyway. That's true of most cut-and-past moves indeed most copyright violations we delete. However, the question must be: "how do we keep within the licence?" and "How do we avoid violating someones's copyrights?" Not: "will we sued".--Docg 00:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well in that case it could be fairly well argued that spending a week to cleanup would fall under fair use.Geni 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use requires attribution, the point is we can't attribute this.--Docg 02:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fair use does not always require attribution.Geni 02:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'as I understand it, undeleting these pages would violate the GFDL - that's certainly the claim by the rogue admin who deleted them all. Such a claim is all the better for proof, and better still for evidence that deletion rather than fixing is a better plan. Js farrar 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Divorcing text from its contribution history violates the GFDL/ If that's what happened we don't need proof. --Docg 00:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, what is the best solution? Fixing what can be, or deleting the whole lot on a pretext? Js farrar 01:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To fix this you'd have to undelete it - you can't undelete it without violating the GFDL (and probably for quite some time). Violating the GFDL is not allowed. Sorry, there is no dilemma here. There is no choice to debate.--Docg 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only solution at this point is to create a new BJAODN from the ground up, if that's even worth it. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, we just had a DRV on this, and we can't selectively apply or not apply the GFDL to pages unless we're talking about substituted templates (quite a few of which give the source pages within their code). --Coredesat 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous DRV was for more pages and was under different conditions.Geni 01:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, then, for the second reason. We can't fail to apply the GFDL to something because people like it. --Coredesat 02:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL allows fair use.Geni 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4)mirrors 5)meets requirements for wikipedia namespace 8)matter of opinion 9) historicaly we have only inforced that with respect to images 10)talks about images not text.Geni 08:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BJAODN sub pages ware deleted by a cold-harted admin he shured disgust it on WT:BJAODN talk about what is disgust above.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's funny or not is in the eye of the beholder. The "fight", such as it is, is about Administrators abusing their powers to delete something because they've previously lost the argument when using their real reason. Js farrar 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "the administrators" you may as well give up now then, since only "the administrators" can undelete and since there is this great conspiracy to delete, they won't be doing that here now will they? --pgk 12:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you credit for misreading what I wrote, and hence give you a straight answer: I did not refer to "the Administrators" meaning "all Administrators", but instead to "Administrators", meaning "some Administrators". Not all Administrators are rogue - far from it. But that doesn't mean we don't need a check on those who do abuse their powers. Js farrar 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. GFDL/Fair Use/Copyright arguments aside (and I do believe we need to take our own licensing seriously if we are to expect anyone else to), mostly not particularly funny or funny at the time, can't see this as being a good use of resources. --pgk 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who claim it can fix beg to differ.Geni 08:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so. Many people believe many things, doesn't alter my view. --pgk 09:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Very well it appears people want to settle this rule lawyering. Well I can live with that. Section 4.B only requires that you credit five of the principal authors of the Document. Now I can't bring this particular subpage up on google but I have no reason to think it untypical and wikipedia:We are experiencing Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Please stand by. contains links to more than enough difs to meet that requitement.Geni 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt anyone would/should want to go down that path, definition of "principal authors" is open to debate, as is if the diffs actually do point to the five principal authors (Your view maybe that it is "more than enough", I'm sure others will differ. --pgk 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't say "the" any 5 will do.Geni 19:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that helps any, you still have to determine if they count as a principal author. --pgk 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore all this could havbe been done via an AfD or in a better way. As to the GFDL concerns, technically (and copyright is always a technical matter) the GFDL only requires that five prominent authors be credited, it dfoes not require the complete contribution hsitory -- and if it did, no non0wiki source could ever reuse our work anyway, which would violate the purpose of having a free content license in the first palce. This is an examplek of why the GFDL (which was designed for software manuals for open-source programs) is not really a perfect fit for wikipedia. We really ought to ask the FSF to create a new wiki-specific version of the GFDL, and since our license allows upgrading to new versions... Any way, restore for the time being, and delete only via a deletion discussiuon, not a speedy. DES (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CC looked into wiki only it's a bad idea. The GSFDL may be of interest to you.Geni 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore all the deleted pages. If you want to claim a violation of the GFDL they you have to provide evidence. In this case, for each page you want to delete, you have to list the key authors who are not identifiable via the page history. --JWSchmidt 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. There's no good reason to be fighting to keep deleted something that could be salvageable even if one doesn't see the value in the contents themselves. As has been pointed out, the original deletion was done as a speedy and when speedies are disputed they should be given the full AfD treatment. Bryan Derksen 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore all Each of thes pages should have its separate AfD treatment. Anything more than three years old would already have exceded prosecution limitations for copyright infringement. Some may also be subject to the doctrine of laches. Eclecticology 19:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Read the GFDL license folks, it is the responsibility of the person using the information to provide evidence that it is in line with the license. I don't think it is appropriate for this to be done as a !vote when it is really a legal issue. We don't own Wikipedia's content, it belongs to the authors, and if they are not attributed we cannot use it. If consensus is to violate copyright law, that consensus should be both ignored and admonished. (H) 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it deleted. Honestly, Jeffrey was just doing what should've been done to it a long time ago. If people let go of their attachment to BJAODN and looked at the policy and legal issues surrounding it, they wouldn't see a single reason to keep it. Most of the people wanting to keep BJAODN are simply saying "I like it" and that the effort *should* be made to source it. In essence, you're suggesting we take on a monumental task just to keep a joke book in an encyclopedia. Does Brittanica have a joke page? How about World Book? Encarta? No? None of them? Why should we waste several months effort working on this when there are many other things that can be worked on? I pray the closing administrator remembers that Deletion Review is not a vote and carefully weighs the argument of "I like it" versus Copyright violations and libel. ^demon[omg plz] 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have also been speedily deleting a lot of material that is no candidate for speedy deletion and should at best go through AfD and in some cases has clearly been supported by recent AfD discussions. Please don't do that. Community fora for discussing deletion exist for a reason. +sj + 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can bet that respectable publishers like Britannica have plenty of jokey material around the office. Every good workplace does, as it's a sign that people are enjoying their work. The difference is that they don't publish it. (Except when they do, of course.) We don't publish it as part of our encyclopedia either; it's all in back-of-house space. Regarding your notions of what people should be doing, see Raul's third law. Personally, I would rather not spend a lot of time and money building something that can dig out the credits from our dumps, but this sorely tempts me. So if wasted time is your primary concern, request restoration. William Pietri 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We also know that most of the people that want to endorse the deletion are simply saying "it's not funny", and just using copyright as a pretext. Why should time be spent on it? Because people want to spend time on it. If you're going to say "this is not to be a fun place to be", you will be responsible for driving contributors away. Is this what you really want? Js farrar 01:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, because if that's what they're here for, they need to leave because making a joke section is not what Wikipedia is about. In case people forget, we're here to build an encyclopedia. ^demon[omg plz] 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're here to build an encyclopaedia - True, but spectacularly missing the point. We are volunteers here - this means we need incentives to continue to be here. For some people, having a back-of-house humour section helps them to enjoy building the encyclopaedia - if they cease to enjoy the process of building the encyclopaedia, they'll leave. And where does that leave the process of building the encyclopaedia? Worse off, that's where. Js farrar 14:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse deletion We have an obligation to credit our contributors per the GFDL and these BJAODN pages don't. That's a problem, and as demon points out, fixing it is not a realistic solution. Eluchil404 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore all. As far as I know, all of the material was given to us under license. Ergo, this is not a copyright violation; it's a contract violation. Further, it's not a violation of the spirit, just the letter. Contracts are primarily tools for holding agreeing parties to account, not religious documents. If nobody has complained about this, then there is no urgent cause for action. We should restore the pages and have a civilized, low-drama discussion about it, rather than the current polarizing mess. William Pietri 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put. +sj + 08:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be annoying, but if these BJAODN pages are a copyvio, why isn't User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Archive0? And the zillions of other archives no one is speedy deleting. --W.marsh 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Serious problems with GFDL for the content of these pages make it incompatible with the goal of the project - "building a free content encycopledia". I am not convinced the copyright problems could be remedied. Even if they could, it would involve a vast amount of time that would be better spent writing actual encyclopedic content and in maintaining that encyclopedia. WjBscribe 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you address the points made by others regarding this? Namely that it appears to be a contract violation, not a copyright violation, that we may have sufficient atrribution by linking to other pages, and that there is no reason to believe any contributor feels harmed by any possible violations that might exist? Thanks, William Pietri 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the attribution is there, it's in deleted articles and deleted edits. Besides these archives are funny and they remind us the contributors are only human. -N 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribution cannot be in deleted edits because most people cannot see deleted content. That's basically saying its attributable because some people (admins) could work out who made the edits. We need to publically attribute our context to comply with the license by which these contributions are maade. Also, for material to be compatible with GFDL it does not just need to be free to host, it needs to be free for downstream users to use. In other words someone who visited BJAODN and thought - mmm this is interesting I think I'll use a copy on my website would also need to provide attribution. But that person will have no idea who created the material. WjBscribe 03:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete personally I think these articles worthless, and so I argued originally. But I think their unilateral removal on claimed copyvio is absurd and WP:POINT. The interpretation of what is exactly required by GFDL has to be evaluated item by item, and anything less accurate is a classic case of baby/bathwater.
Our WP requirements for fair use are deliberately stringent, in order to ensure maximum compatibility with on an international basis. Fair use has only to meet 3-criterion test--and , unlike WP criteria, its balancing test--the failure to meet one criterion does not defeat fair use. But before we consider whether they are justified by fair use we should see if they are justified by GFDL. GFDL requires that we keep attribution 5 layers back. A good faith effort to fulfill it to the best of our technical capabilities might well be legally sufficient. But whose copyright are we violating? not our own, but the people who individually contributed the BJs. Probably most of them would be willing to put the material in the PD entirely. Before we remove copyright material, we give the owners the opportunity to donate it.
Everything above is debatable, and some of the issuesd may go beyond settled law. But what is really the point is that no one user has the right to enforce his own personal interpretation of GFDL in this context upon the community. No one user has the right to enforce his own ideas of anything on the community. We have a very few narrow exceptions--in cases of imminent harm, of real exposure to libel, or if an apparently valid claim is made by a copyright holder, then the material can be removed by a single user--or even if something is a blatant & obvious major violation. But nothing about this is the least obvious.
Except that I assume it was done on the best of motives, I would have called the deletion in this case vandalism--removing content from WP on the basis of person whim./ The appropriate thing to do with such deletion is to revert it. If any material is deletable, let's delete it, one item at a time. If a book in a library violates copyright, the thing to do is remove it, not close down the library. DGG 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The idea that BJAODN articles should be deleted on GFDL grounds is ridiculous. We quote, cut and paste materials from sources and across Wikipedia articles all the time without elaborate editor tracking. People who really want to follow sources back to their original authors can do so, thanks to the database of edits which preserves them even for deleted headwords. We have long ago chosen to err on the side of simple and implicit attribution save when doing an explicit transwiki of an article -- this includes splitting one article into two, merging a section into a larger article, moving a section from one article to another, copying material from a section or article into another, translating material from an article into one in another language, making a 'simplified language' version of an article, including material on a Category page about articles within that category, or drafting articles under one title and then merging them with existing articles or headwords... and many other cases besides. There may be reasons to delete BJAODN or other aggregate articles; this is not one of them, and it is being used by some as a technicality to make an end-run around a more relevant discussion. +sj + 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore all. I am absolutely flabbergasted as to why the responsible editor refused WP:CON in a circumstance as far-reaching and inflammatory as this. While I personally understand (though disagree) with the general purpose behind it, in the minds of many others less familiar with the GDFL I'm sure this will either be classified as blinder-wearing bureaucratic process-wonkery of the worst sort, or (equally as likely), deceitful back-door dealings in an attempt to avoid involving the unwashed masses in what was sure to be a massively unpopular move. While I personally dispute the GDFL rationale given, that isn't even the biggest issue here. No editor, least of all an admin, should ever fear WP:CON, even in what you believe is an open-and-shut case. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 10:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the authors of the text? How do you justify not giving the attribution as the license they release it under requires? What you are suggesting is illegal and immoral. Respecting copyright law is not "blinder-wearing bureaucratic process-wonkery" of any sort, but a legal requirement. (H) 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion-GDFL is GDFL. We must have attribution, and there is no legal way around it. We can't have people going around and copying BJAODN because they think it is under the GDFL because the rest of Wikipedia is. I would be fine if we started a whole new page(s) that was probably attributed from the start, and stayed like that. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Copyright is non negotiable. --kingboyk 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that statement. However, perhaps you missed above where I suggest that there is no copyright issue? The material was given to us under license. A license that we may or may not be following perfectly, but a license nonetheless. William Pietri 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close because GFDL trumps consensus, and suggest dragging all those people who wheel war over this to the ArbCom to seriously reconsider whether they're mature enough to be admins. >Radiant< 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion All you bad jokers need to stop joking around now. — Moe ε 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest early close, no amount of consensus will trump the fact that it violates our own license, not only is it illegal, it is hypocritical. We demand that people who use Wikipedia content give attributions to its authors, so we cannot do differently. This is not a matter for voting. (H) 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • s/fact/opinion, H. And, in any case, if there is a contract violation, only those parts that violate the contract should be deleted, and then only after a reasonable time is given to fix the violation. Js farrar 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many years is reasonable? It was in violation for years, nobody fixed it. Besides, we are not talking about deleting it, we are talking about restoring copyright violations. We don't restore a copyright violation now and repair it later. (H) 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For years? News to me. You're right - we're not talking about deleting it; we're talking about reverting the disgraceful out-of-process deletion that should never have occurred in the first place. If there are contract violations, we can fix them, and delete those parts we can't fix, and only those parts - deleting the whole lot should never, ever, ever have been an option. If someone added copyright material to George W. Bush, would you advocate deleting the whole article, or just the copyright material? And bear in mind the difference between a copyright violation and a contract violation, the former being more serious than the latter. Js farrar 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
except if you don't follow the GFDL the work is not under a free licsence thus the use is a copyvio.Geni 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The basic question that none of the pro-deletion users has answered is: even if there is a problem with some of it, why has all of it been deleted? Since that question remains unanswered, I am forced to conclude that it must be the obvious reason. If there has been a technical failure to follow the GFDL, that should be rectified - and not by deleting the whole damn thing, including many parts that demonstrably follow the GFDL. Js farrar 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's bear this in mind: if this remains deleted because a part of the material is a copyright violation, then anyone can cause damage to the encyclopaedia by adding copyright material to an article, then deleting that article as a copyvio. And there will be nothing anyone can do about it - precedent will have been set that an article which contains copyvio cannot be restored and cleaned up, because the act of restoring the article in order to clean it up is in itself illegal. This strikes me as both preposterous and potentially very damaging. Js farrar 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's incorrect for two reasons: (1) we could just delete the revision(s) containing the copyright violation rather than the whole article and (2) as long as its reverted, the version of the article on the page would not be a copyright violation. The problem with BJAODN is that it contains no revisions that aren't a copyvio. WjBscribe 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm starting from the position where some versions (including the most recent version) contain a copyvio and some previous versions don't and all versions are deleted. Now, restoring all versions to later (even if immediately) delete all copyvio versions is out by the reasoning above, so... Js farrar 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the content seems to use attribution similar to the one asked for in Help:Merging and moving pages. Do the instructions for merges on that page violate the GFDL? If yes, that's a much more urgent and larger issue than deleted or undeleted nonsense. Kusma (talk) 12:55, 6 June 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.
Donald Neilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|)

The page was hastily deleted after only being listed for deletion for a few hours the page was far more than just a stub there was no hint of any form of copy violation. Articles such as the lesley whittle article had been merged into the article. The article was not soley and BLP as was claimed in the deltion log. The article should have been debated at length rather than hastily delted. So i say the article should be immedatly restored and the correct debate take place on the merits of deletion rather than two users removing a rather long and important crime related article.--Lucy-marie 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was an incredibly negative biography utterly lacking in relevant sources. There was no BLP compliant version to revert to. By all means write an new article using sources.--Docg 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having the original back to work with would help greatly in providing a way of improving the article and no debate on the article was undertaken.--Lucy-marie 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right - see WP:BLP, there is no debate.--Docg 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rather thought we were generally agreed that when making speedy deletions on grounds of BLP (which deletions are not, it should surely be noted, consistent with CSD, but that's another debate) the deleting admin would restore the history at the request of any user initiating an AfD/DRV discussion in order that those partaking of such discussion should be fully informed (this is what we've done, for instances, with Archimedes Plutonium). While I recognize that this particular article was essentially unsourced, it may well be that an AfD would bear out sources necessary to establish notability and to substantiate the text or conclude that the sources were appropriate/that a BLP-compliant verson could be readily produced; that is, in any case, a decision that is to be made with full information and by the community. Joe 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Unsourced negative biography of a living person. Anyone wishing to write a sourced version is free to do so. One Night In Hackney303 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - How can you possibly expect an article on a convicted serial killer to not be negative? Are we meant to empathise with his motives? That being said, the Google cache of the article is unsourced. This article should be restored and stubbed with any expansion clearly sourced. Incidentally, the article is NOT a copyvio, please see the attribution to Wikipedia in external article. - hahnchen 18:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with an article being negative, just it has to be sourced. Again, nothing is stopping anyone writing a sourced version. One Night In Hackney303 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just stubbing the article such as User:Burntsauce does with Wrestlers would have been more effective and given users a possible framework on which to expand. - hahnchen 18:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would it be stubbed to though? Donald Neilson (born Donald Nappey on August 1, 1936) is a British man? The sources are the potential framework, not the existing article. One Night In Hackney303 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the cached version of the article, and you can easily stub it down. The history of the article can be a good starting point, in fact, editors could just go and source parts of the history and restore them with the new information. - hahnchen 19:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have recreated this as a stub. Those so keen on having an article here can now go an write it - with due regard for WP:BLP and WP:V. (And can someone now close this DRV).--Docg 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Tanya Kach – Unlike some of the other BLPs that have been discussed recently, this person is not "marginally notable" as an internet meme, but well-known: although her fame was not of her own making, and BLP is an important consideration as Wikipedians evaluate how to regard her, outright removal of her name is not appropriate (per the percendent of both Shawn Hornbeck, now redirected; and, Elizabeth Smart (abductee), speedy kept.) The consensus below overwhelmingly favors this judgment. AfD consideration is appropriate. The history of the article appears to contain no outlandish information beyond newspaper reports. Its existence for five days, pending AfD outcome, is not an enormous affront to human dignity (at least, not any more so than the WP articles on Elizabeth Smart et al.) If folks insist, the page may even be blanked for the AfD's duration. – Xoloz 03:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tanya Kach was a kidnapping victim and now the article has been deleted in the recent spate of BLP paranoia (see Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move for a response to a particularly stupid application recently). The incredibly tenuous interpretation of WP:NOT-Newspaper is definitely vague enough to not warrant a speedy. I'm absolutely not a fan of how Wikipedia carries News events, favouring subtrivial worthless nothings such as Essjay and Joshua Gardner just because they appeal to the techidiots. I've held this view for a long time, here's an edit I made around 15 months ago berating Wikipedia's current events.

Yet this case is way more notable and covered in the mainstream press, generating more relevant hits in Google News than either Essjay trivia and Joshua Gardner rubbish. Her case involves various reported twists an turns, her name is widely known in the public sphere. Although the best place for an article on this case may not be in the form of a biography, a biography could make a very efficient catalogue of all the information. Wikipedia is for the reader first, it is an encyclopedia first. There is a chance that readers will come looking for encyclopedic information on this case, we can provide that, and this event being notable, we should provide that.

You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the Google cache, you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement. But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input. When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input. Restore the article, move it if you want, list at AFD if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - hahnchen 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the article (which, naturally, should remain deleted as an intrusion on the privacy of a minor child and doesn't warrant a tabloid response) might I comment to your "started voting at RFA". "Voting" doesn't happen on WP about articles per se, each 'pro' and 'con' is taken into account in the final decision but isn't an absolute 'vote'. --AlisonW 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you actually think the word "vote" is relevant at all in this discussion shows an absolute failure to understand the point being made. Tanya Kach is not a minor. Every major news outlet is not "tabloid". Privacy of a now-public individual does not trump Wikipedia's core goal of being an encyclopedia. Are you one of those who feel that all victims names should be castigated from Wikipedia because of some holier-than-media BLP paranoia? Should Shawn Hornbeck be a redlink instead of a redirect? We're here for the readers, not as some kind of futile information barrier. I've linked this discussion in the DRV nomination - Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move, I suggest you read it. Incidentally, RFA is a vote, it has always been a vote, calling it a "discussion" is just a get-out clause so Bureaucrats can be elastic in their own judgments when closing decisions. The fact that in reality its still largely a vote lead to the ridiculous RFC style RFA we saw. I happen to call spades, spades. - hahnchen 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as EVENT rather than BIO and cleanup/redirect. After careful consideration of the merits, I believe that this definitely warrants inclusion. While WP:BLP considerations are important, I don't believe this warrants overly negative or defammatory information. I also don't believe that this is a case of WP:RECENTISM -- the story received significant media coverage, and it's highly likely (IMHO) that the story is significant enough that we'll have readers who are hunting encyclopedic content on this story. I have no objection to making this an article about the event, instead of a Biography of the victim, and redirecting Tanya Kach to the incident article. Come to think of it, would Tanya qualify under notability guidelines otherwise? Probably not. /Blaxthos 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as event and not a bio. Not the average kidnapping story. The legal case was widely covered in multiple reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It is a very unusual event for someone to survive such a long captivity, and the case was widely reported. A simple Google search provides all the info anyone could want, so we would not be revealing otherwise secret or even hard-to-obtain info. She was individually non-notable before, during and after the ten year captivity. Since she is 25 years old, she is not a minor (nor could she be if placed in captivity as a tenager and kept there 10 years). Does she have to be the subject of a made-for-TV movie like Steven Stayner for the article to be kept? Edison 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore under whatever fig leaf. The analogous two-centuries old Kaspar Hauser case is still hauntingly notable. If this is an encyclopedia, it must document notable events, also when they are horrendous. The reason why these articles are so controversial is that they somehow force us to look into the abyss. It's unpleasant, but you learn something important. Wikipedia is about learning, not about closing your eyes. Stammer 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by deleting admin This article was not a biography by any stretch of the imagination, and should not be restored as such. As for an article about the event, is there anything to say about it that goes beyond a bare recounting the facts of the crime? Are there reliable sources for the impact of this story on society or law? If not, the encyclopedia of true crime stories is thataway. -- Donald Albury 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no evidence this news story has lasting cultural or historical significance (this is not the Lindbergh case). Donald suggests one venue, WikiNews is another, but it is still an old news story not an encyclopaedia article. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Guy--Docg 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We're now tightening up notability requirements to need more than just multiple reliable sources and to actually have changed society and the law? In that case, why the hell do we have articles on video games, bands and god forsaken webcomics. And why is this being run as a Blind AFD? We no longer trust the users to be able to comment on biographical AFDs in case they incur the insular world of admins? Given that there are various concerns raised by different users above, I'd say that it pretty much isn't a speedy. - hahnchen 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not tightening up notability requirements, personally I think notability requirements suck and I now err to include if it is verifiable, but we have long recognised that BLPs are in a special category.--Docg 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So given that this article's contents were verifiable, you'd still put it into the BLP closet and throw away the key? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but only for dead people? So say if Madeleine McCann were miraculously to be found alive, we delete the article? - hahnchen 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT, specifically the bit about news reports. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading my nomination where I specifically address this point. Everything in Category:Bank robberies is a news story too, but we don't just speedy them. We don't just cover crimes in which the victim has died, although we do have an article on necrophilia. - hahnchen 13:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, BLP violation, why should the people in this girl's life have to put up with Wikipedia's obsession with being a tabloid? And I might have said "endorse deletion" on general principles due to the aggressive incivil nomination. Corvus cornix 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and change title I have changed my opinion on articles such as this: I previously often said simply to restore/keep, on the grounds that added public exposure via WP was trivial after widespread press coverage. But considering where WP and Google are developing, I think we can provide the information without adding dramatically to the page rank by simply not putting the name in the title, and then using it only a few times in the article itself. I still argue that once even a non-adult victim of sex abuse has the name widely publicized, that there is no point in trying to keep the name out altogether--for one thing we cant, because some of the mirrors will retain it, and, for that matter, WP space is searchable. Even if we oversight all mentions, the mirrors can keep it. So reasonable measures are indicated, but not vain attempts to deny what's in the world outside. DGG 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and change title per Blaxthos. Notable, no. BLP violation, no. Speedyable, no (it is neither A7 or G10). Event notable, yes. Hence, restore and move. ViridaeTalk 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventify per Blaxthos. (A new word!)--Rayc 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore; content is clearly encyclopedic and discussion indicates that there were reliable sources. No objection to moving it to an event title rather than a biography title. This whole argument could have been avoided if that had been done in the first place instead of deleting it. *** Crotalus *** 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore as event article instead and possible list for discussion if wanted yuckfoo 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, and if we must to satisfy new concerns, rename and change scope to event article instead of biography. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that we can treat even recent events with encyclopedic thoroughness: a living encyclopedia. I find the derisive use of "tabloid" in this context unsettling and basically an WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We may have an article on Natallee Holloway, but we don't allow it to take up half the encyclopedia, as the cable networks did. We don't permit lurid WP:POV to write its way into articles. We require verifiable facts instead of rumor and speculation. We have seen cultural clashes in the handling of crimes, with the US mystified at Canadian restrictions and the UK mystified at Portuguese limitations. In both cases the media frenzy may shock people as much as the official silence shocks others. Wikipedia, however, remains a comparatively reliable first stop for at least some people. The claim that an article is an albatross is also hard to swallow. Surely the greater harm was the experience itself. I suspect that people simply think these articles cheapen Wikipedia. But our strength is exactly because we do not sniff at the world from an ivory tower. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Just had a look at the latest version using my admin superpowers, and while it's definitely in need of citations I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with it; the previous version of the article looks like decent raw materials. Furthermore, there definitely is nothing wrong with having an article or redirect at this title even if the contents are completely redone. So the current protected-as-deleted state is unacceptable. (comment copied from the recent closed AfD) Bryan Derksen 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep undeleted/Restore BJAODN is good.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and rename. Improper speedy but the article can be turned into one about the event. Prolog 10:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as a completely improper speedy. A move should be discussed, not just done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 6 June 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.
Mimi Imfurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was suggested for deletion by others who dont have any knowlege on the professional drag queen industry. The longstanding staples of nightlife- contribute to the cultural diversity of New York City. Is notability relative?

The page is still there. There is no deletion to review. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The article has been recreated and tagged for speedy deletion because it has already gone through AfD. The author of the new version keeps asserting notability with no evidence and is arguing against speedy deletion, thus I suggested he come here. Corvus cornix 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If assessing this article requires specialist knowledge of the professional drag queen industry, that is an indication that there are insufficient independent sources from which we can draw an article. An article worked up in userspace with sources might elp, but looking at it, I don't think it will help much, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only sources listed in the article appear to be websites belonging to the subject of the article. Without much better sources, the article fails the most elementary test of notability. -- Donald Albury 01:04, 3 June 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.
Bindows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

valid technical content Ronm4321 02:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted, six deletions would say otherwise. It looks like an advertisement to me. --Coredesat 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, no reason for review provided. As it is, looks like a valid AfD followed by valid G4s (the content was exactly the same, if I'm looking at the correct versions) that might have been G11s nonetheless, so for all practical purposes, endorse deletion as well. Blatant WP:COI and WP:SPA issues by creator/nominator (made evident here and by their contribution history) do not bode well either. --Kinu t/c 04:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Kinu; no new information here and no apparent procedural defect (aside from the AfD's having been participated in by just two editors, which is probably not sufficiently significant as on its own to counsel reconsideration). I will AGF and observe that if the nominator, in consideration of WP:COI, believes he can craft an article about Bindows that meets our encyclopedic guidelines (most prominently WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well, here, I suppose, as WP:CORP), he should, to be sure, feel free to do so (or even simply to produce here the sources that would underlie such article and attest to the notability of the subject, in order that other editors might work with him on the article) in his userspace, with the provision that a maintenance in userspace of content that is unencyclopedic and shows no signs of trending toward the encyclopedic will likely be deleted. Joe 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, advertorial with a strong smell of WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

1 June 2007

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

It does exist on the web, and not only that, it logically exists because of the existence of analingus. Finally, it was actually listed on the "requested articles" page. Besides, autofellatio already exists... Lilac Soul 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Patent nonsense, however, is. And that's exactly what this article was. It's an article about an impossible - or at leasy completely undocumented - made-up sex act. Abject nonsense of the most pointless kind. It's also arguably vandalism, since it's plainly trolling. Of course, ina project which runs on principles and intelligence instead of rules, the fact that nuking this festering heap of shit may not meet your extremely strict interpretation of the rules may not actually matter very much; DRV is a debate not a vote, explicitly so now, and "ZOMG! Process!" is probably going to be increasingly unpersuasive as that sinks in. So how about suggesting some reliable sources instead? That's the kind of argument that might be persuasive in a way that "being complete fiction is not a speedy criterion" is not. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it "exists on the web", do you have references? Of course, from the context, I don't think many would want to check them, however.--Rayc 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can't we call this an effective recreation of the properly deleted article. Autocunnilingus? I admit that it's not exactly the same, but I think it's pretty darn close. Frankly, I'm having a really hard time deciding whether I'm more upset by the abuse of admin privileges involved in many recent speedies (esp. A7 and BLP) or the policy wanking that goes on to try to overturn even the most absurd instances. I suggest a hearty round of trout-slapping for everyone involved! :) Xtifr tälk 02:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn (and, if one wants, list at AfD, inasmuch as it's most likely to end up there in any event) per Jeff. We interpret our criteria for speedy deletion strictly, IAR notwithstanding, and it is quite plain that no criterion for speedy deletion obtained here. It may well be that AfD will counsel deletion here in view of the term's being non-notable, etc., but it is at AfD, not at DRV, at which a discussion as to notability/verifiability and an adduction of sources is to be had. Joe 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROFLMAO! "It exists on the web" alright - in Urban Dictionary. AfD it if you are seriously intent on wasting everyone's time, but this is clearly a made-up nonsense term for an all-but-impossible concept. 25 unique Googles, some of which are part of the attempt to get this crap on Wikipedia. Not even a protologism, just a piece of abject nonsense. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as complete bollocks unless verifiability is demonstrated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy overturn the merits of the article are secondary. The primary purpose of DR is abuse of process. if there is a good faith dispute over whether a speedy criterion is relevant, speedy is not appropriate. Speedy is for things that no reasonable person could have doubt about it.. The objections here are sufficient to indicate that they can. The above arguments about whether this can or not not take place physically are not only irrelevant here, they would irrelevant at AFd. If people talk about it as a fantasy, it's every bit as much a subject as if it were real. WP includes fiction. WP includes fantasy. To what extent the term is the standard one is a reasonable question, but not relevant here. DGG 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with autocunnilingus, this is totally possible and I have seen it happen more than once. You've never seen a cat or dog licking him/herself? (Oh, and keep deleted.) DS 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and the only reason I'm not going out on a limb and speedy-closing this debate is that someone might file an RfAr about it, and this would look really silly on the list of arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. ElinorD (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This may not meet any speedy criterion, but that's why we ignore all rules and delete obvious nonsense like this. Insisting on process for process's sake is ridiculous. Krimpet (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this is lunacy. Jeff, pick your battles. Neil ╦ 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion Has no sources and is complete original research. Even if it were sourced it would make more sense at wiktionary than here. JoshuaZ 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Reason: ew. -N 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Autocunnilingus – The request lacks any credible rationale for overturning a valid deletion debate; trolling at requested articles is not a grounds to overturn valid and well-reasoned deletions Guy (Help!) 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC) – Guy (Help!) 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Autocunnilingus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2nd|3rd)

The autoanalingus page was requested on the "requested articles" page, and this is a natural follow-up. Besides, autofellatio already exists. Lilac Soul 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. Apparently, a lot of it had to do with the belief that it wasn't real. That may not be true. A number of foriegn language sources come up as well, so I think there's plenty of information to give this a better look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Completely silly, and if you had any reliable sources, you could post them here. The way, the truth, and the light 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no evidence that this could ever be more than a dicdef. Without sources fails WP:V. TerriersFan 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: I see no procedural problems with the AfD, nor has any compelling new evidence been offered. This is not AfD round two! Xtifr tälk 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Pace Jeff, I don't see any new information the presence of which would affect the disposition of the AfD, and I certainly see no procedural failure in the closure of the AfD. Should foreign language sources prove more fruitful, restoration would surely be in order, and I expect that this should quite properly be userfied for anyone interested in producing an article that might address some of the concerns raised at AfD. Joe 04:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no way this could be more than a dicdef even with the link given by Jeff, which doesn't help much if at all, as it doesn't do anything for verifiability. --Coredesat 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, albeit reluctantly. As an editor on the article after a prior AFD I restructured it and did my best to source it as a debunking, or at least as a bunking of the fact that nobody has produced photographic or professionally attested evidence it exists (hey, we have Loch Ness Monster ...). Unfortunately, the only really reliable source for that was a single series of brief coverage by a Time Out New York sex columnist, not really enough for an article. On the next AFD I believe I plead no contest. If something existed to properly source this article, believe me, as an editor I would have found and included it, but after several months there's nothing. Again, I wish we could have a debunking, but there isn't even material enough for that. Unless something more substantial shows up, I don't see how this can be encyclopedic (or at least, encyclopedic enough to survive the repeated AFDs thrown at it). I have neither a procedural objection to the deletion, nor "new information". --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It is only to be wished that closing admins would always address the discussion and articulate their reasonment as clearly as in this case. Stammer 10:28, 2 June 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.
Arooj Aftab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Arooj Aftab is the pioneer of music education in Pakistan.she has won Berklee College of Music's first Steve Vai online scholarship.she has set up the revolutionary idea of acquire music education in a backward country like pakistan.fighting all hurdles of the closed up society,she became the first female musician from Pakistan to pursue formal education in music.she holds great importance in this regard.i therefore request to have the page undeleted. Maaz.pk 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - trainee musician and the article fails to assert any real notability. Nominator has not provided additional sources. If she goes on to make a name for herself then I should be delighted to support an article. TerriersFan 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok i'm fine with that. Can it atleast be unrestricted? Please! I beg you! I will not attempt to re-publish it I promise. If I do,you certainly can restrict it again. But please unrestrict it.Maaz.pk 10:47, 2 June 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.
Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2nd|3rd)

I strongly disagree that this is a WP:BLP violation, even if the subject thinks it is. Almost all sources are either WP:RS or clearly from the subject of the article, except his real identity. If we excise all information about the person himself, it's a notable Internet meme, which would make it an acceptable article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy undelete and list at AfD. In fact, the AfD is possibly running right now, so undelete it, speedy close this, and hash it out there so we can be done with it. I saw the article - it wasn't unsourced, it wasn't poorly sourced, but it may not have been appropriate. That's not for one person to decide, or another to wheel war over, for that matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree this does not come under BLP. This is another example of people who deliberate campaign in the most effective ways to make themselves publicly known within a certain circle, and then object to an objective article describing what they have done--conceivably as a way to increase the publicity. A highly visible fight with WP over the article has that effect--it amounts to gaming. As an editing concern, the details of his personal life are not necessary, and soime other sections may be over-detailed. There are true BLP problems in WP, but this is not one of them. DGG 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. There's already an AfD going on, and although I have always thought this article should be deleted, it's clear that others don't given that it survived two AfD's already. The way, the truth, and the light 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This man is completely non-notable and the entry was utterly non-encyclopaedic. If anybody bothers to ask themselves what he is supposed to be notable for, the case could not be clearer. According to the opening of the entry itself, he was a guy who made some posts to the internet and said that the universe is a single plutonium atom. This does not establish notability, and there is absolutely nothing else he is notable for. His supposed "theories" had no adherents, nor any publications. The entry existed only for those who thought it amusing to discuss the life and ideas of a person who to all appearances simply suffered from a mental illness. Furthermore, the subject on more than one occasion stated he wished to have the entry deleted. When he edited the entry or commented on the talk page, he was mocked if not abused. None of this was necessary, because there is no reason for this article to exist. It, and the talk page, should be consigned to the wastebin for the good of everybody and Wikipedia. FNMF 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your characterization of the talk page discussions is not entirely accurate. AP posted many times on the talk page, primarily to insult WP editors and lambast them for "violating WP policies", specifically a non-existent policy about nicknames. All of the responses to AP made by WP editors were fairly cordial. If you consult the actual discussions, you'll see that AP's only reason for deletion of the article was because he objected to the nickname "Arky", which itself was well cited in a published source. — Loadmaster 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested a couple of ways forward with this, one is to run an AfD with the article deleted (i.e. discuss the sources), another is to have the history behind an AfD notice and a very short stub, another is to userfy and rework. But a biography, identifying by name and date of birth a man of questionable mental state who is known exclusively for being derided on Usenet, sourced from student newspapers and Usenet posts, is such an absurdly bad idea that leaving the whole gory thing there while we stare intently at our navels for a week did not seem terribly sensible to me. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your first instinct was correct: summarily delete. I don't see anybody attempting to actually establish notability and encyclopaedic-ness for the article. There is a reason for that: there is none. Including a stubbed version is simply an invitation to further problems later on, and, as has been said, there is nothing to say in a stubbed version. Furthermore, the equally dire talk page would remain. FNMF 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its at AFD What's the point of this discussion then? If there are questions about the outcome, then that is the right time to bring this back here. forked discussions are unhelpful. Go argue at the AFD please folks.Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. I thought that the proper response to an out-of-process (and, IMHO, improper) deletion was DRV, rather than a new AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The trouble with that is that we could end up with different outcomes at different fora and then we have to have an argument about which one to apply. Alternatively, the AFD gets suspended because of the DRV and the DRV decided to relist at AFD. Better to keep to one at a time and save on the time and energy - its not like we don't already have other concerns right now. I'm really not sure what is correct but we stand a risk of making complete fools of ourselves over a process. Lets close this and revisit once the AFD has been completed. Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Wikipedia (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does not want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Wikipedia should be proud of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ElinorD (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per ElinorD. I'm afraid this process wonking is at the point of being disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - this horrific stuff is long past its sell-by-date. --Docg 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "let consensus form on an article that has been here for years" process wonking? An AfD is now in progress. It has less than 5 dfays to run. Let it run. If the consensus is to delete, and nothing unusual is done in the AfD, I may disagree, but i won't try to overturn it, and I rather doubt that anyoen else will either. Why the huge rush here? What is to fear from a normal AfD process, one that is already ongoing, where you and thsoe who agree with you are in a better position to make your arguments on why this should he deleted? DES (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, think think the article in it's form is not enough to survive AfD. However, letting an AfD run without the article in question keeps the editors from actively improving the article to the point of satisfying actional concerns. In fact, it survived it's last AfD in just such a manner. Holding a AfD without the article (minus liable concerns, of course) is a bad thing. Plus, it just gives some people a valid argument as to why "another" DRV on this article should be held. --Rayc 01:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undelete with the content in the history (which google doesn't search) so that people discussing at the ongoing AfD can see what they are discussing, and then close this DRV, to allow consensus to form at the AfD. If that decides to delete, so be it. DES (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undelete so that the people at the AfD can actually see what they are debating. You think they're would be a rule that you can't have both the AfD and the DRV open at the same time.... Or have an AfD while the article is deleted. And whats up with all these inappropriate bio-speedies lately? If something is crud, AfD will take care of it.--Rayc 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion and stop with the process wonking. The speedy delete was correct. This was a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are usually wrong. Could be not this time I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete this page and get rid of BLP before it destroys Wikipedia. Enough. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book that was used as the source is The Dartmouth Murders by Eric Francis (St. Martin's True Crime Library, April 2005, ISBN 0312982313). You can use Amazon.com's "Search Inside" feature to read the relevant pages. The book is about the Dartmouth Murders. It has one short chapter about Archimedes Plutonium, with no other mentions. I think the following extracts from the its first, fourth and last paragraphs give an accurate impression:
The rumor mill surrounding the Zantop case was now in full swing ... Then, a week into February, the X-Files angle materialized in the form of a man named Archimedes Plutonium. ... The police saw it as an irritating but necessary detour, and turned their attention back to the [other] tips from the public."
I see only a few pages of light relief in a True Crime book. Does this count as a Reliable Source at BLP level? (That's a non-rhetorical question.) CWC 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Unless someone finds much better sources than the Francis book or USENET posts, we simply cannot have an acceptable biographical article about this guy. "With great power high Google rank comes great responsibility." Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for cruelty.
    On the other hand, it might be possible to cover {Archimedes Plutonium the USENET phenomenon}, as distinct from {Archimedes Plutonium the real person} in a longer article about famous USENET personalities and have Archimedes Plutonium redirect there. CWC 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An article that survived three AfDs is deleted out-of-process and then sent to AfD, before ending up here. This is a farce. Janitor, mind your keys. Stammer 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, and let the Afd discussion take its course. Catchpole 10:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD speedy closed, suggests discussion here --h2g2bob (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist at AfD. Aren't BLP violations normally stubbed rather than deleted? It looked fairly well referenced. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added this to AfD shortly before the AfD was closed: "I am in two minds about this one. I have known about AP for far longer than I have known about Daniel Brandt and as a result he seems more notable to me. However I have not looked at the article for a long time but I can not do so now as it was deleted before this AfD was opened. I do not think that arguments for speedy deletion have been satisfactory argued, so I think this article should be restored so we can debate it properly". I continue to support that view. I have seen the Google cache, but it should be easily available to all on WP to decide. AP is a notable Usenet personality with hundreds if not thousands of posts. He is certainly odd and maybe he is mentally unstable, but his impact on Usenet is significant. I think we should talk about him somehow. --Bduke 11:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I am unsure about the reliability of the sources, and considering they throw someone into a negative light I don't believe that this article in its current state is necessary on WP. ViridaeTalk 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I've done a protected history delete under the AfD notice. If anyone objects.... Well, I'm going to be off for a few hours, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Justanother's idea of a new Usenet personalities article being created to hold a few sentences for each "notable" Internet user. It also keeps the door open for expanding any particular one into its own article (which may or may not be the case for AP). — Loadmaster 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete to say that USENET posts of a person are an unreliable source, who is famous FOR his usenet posting, is laughable. Furthermore the implications of Dartmouth firing this guy for free speech reasons are more than enough notability to allow for an article. Closing the AFD and sending this to DRV was horrible process-tinkering. -N 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The deletion occurred without appropriate discussion after two previous AfDs failed. After deletion, a new AfD was created, but the result was speedy delete. The whole thing seems rather ad hoc to me and the fact that AP doesn't want the page seems utterly irrelevant. Phiwum 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the AfD was closed out of process. In my view it should be reopened but I don't immediately see how to do it. :-( TerriersFan 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per nominator. A large proportion of the material in the article is sourced to the subject of the article himself. Autobiographical publications are considered reliable sources by WP:V, whatever the means of publication (even if posted to Usenet). If some other material in the article is sourced to non-reliable sources, that material should be deleted, not the entire article. I personally believe that the material in The Dartmouth should be considered reliable for the purposes of this article, although I will acknowledge that this is debatable and therefore it may be best to delete material that references this source. JulesH 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So the AfD ended with restore history behind tag and send to DRV? Anyone else think it's strange that the roles of DRV and AfD on this got switched? Oh, and I support the emerging consensus of merge to Usenet personalities on this one.--Rayc 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and discuss at AfD The afd was closed out of process on the basis that "discussion should take place at the open deletion review and continue here only if we have an article to discuss." That was about as wrong a closure as you can have--it was backwards, as Rayc observed. Rather, the Del Rev discussion should have been closed until the AfD had finished so we would at least know what decision was being appealed. As I said there, there is no BLP concern: this is a person who has devoted his life to being noticed for his absurdity, the outside world has therefore noticed him. He has deliberately put himself in the public sphere, and if he is trying to get us to discuss it further, that may be a part of his campaign as well. He may be as absurd as he likes, but we should be objective. DGG 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DGG, I apologize for being bold and choosing between trainwrecks. It was six one and half a dozen the other which one to close. Primarily, I felt it was absurd to have an open AFD when the article was not viewable, whereas the DRV could still procedurally move forward. (Also, as a non-administrator, I don't know whether I have any right to declaratively close a DRV.) I expected my closure might be reverted, but I certainly didn't mean to preclude any discussion. Believe me when I say that AFD is where this should have been discussed in the first place.--Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 3 June 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.
Wireless Zero Configuration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A combination of admin negligence and copyvio abuse killed this page.

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.
Afraid of Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted because it failed notability, however after some research I think it might be notable enough. See User:Pizzahut2/Afraid of Monsters. Pizzahut2 10:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can be established with mutliple, independent and non-trivial mentions from reliable sources, there should be no problem with the article. You could create the article in your user space (e.g. User:Pizzahut2/Afraid of Monsters) and ask for comments - Tiswas(t) 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article created. --Pizzahut2 16:10, 1 June 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.
Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to reopen the discussion to delete this. Sorry if this is the wrong place. The last discussion was about a year ago and ended with the point that the article has nothing in it but stuff would be added. It's been a year, the article is still empty, the external link goes to a 404 error. I would recommend it be deleted and replaced with a redirect page to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi Fanra 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A redirect sounds fine to me, but you don't need a deletion review to do that. Just a simple note on the talk page would be all you need. Wickethewok 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as merge (the link) and redirect - I don't see any point in ruminating about this one. BTW there are three or four other articles on this guy's works that should have the same action. TerriersFan 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I only noticed this now. I lack JStor access, but this refers to the book as a "representative work" of one of the concepts, I've tracked down an academic review of the book but I have some more research to do on it before I can really rely on it, and it is cited a lot. I don't think a merge is a good idea, but this isn't the forum for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Soulja Boy – Deletion endorsed. I believe enough consensus has been gathered to make a reasonable conclusion. No proof has been presented to suggest that the subject of the article passes notability guidelines. – Sr13 07:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Soulja Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

He is VERY notable, as he has garnered many fans, performed at shows nationwide and internationally, and gained many rivals nationwide. He is even signed to ColliPark Music, the label run by super-producer Mr. ColliPark, best known for his work with the Ying Yang Twins. *Undelete, or at least Unprotect Tom Danson 07:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you point us to some Independant reliable sources to help us assess his notability as a musician? Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/Unprotect - allow an AFD. Appears to have notability, at least by quick ghits method. If something's been deleted this many times, it's quite possible that consensus is to allow such an article. At least give people a chance to review it at AFD. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is demonstrated. No, being persistent about recreating your vanity bio does not mean it merits an AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk)
  • List at AfD. Enoguh notability being asserted by the nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the last recreation was a joke bio on one Kadeem Roper and other than the guy being a 16 year old rapper I can glean nothing encyclopaedic from the other recreations. It is the responsibility of the creator to source notability and he/she hasn't. I have found nothing in the Ghits to indicate compliance with WP:MUSIC. The deleting admin acted properly and if the appellant wants the article undeleted then he must provide sources. I am against listing at AfD as a fishing trip. TerriersFan 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the nom asserts notability, but this is DRV: he will need to prove it with reliable sources. --Coredesat 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No assertion of notability in any of the 5 most recent version that I could see. If the nom would like to create an article on the subject, do it in your userspace and then ask a friendly admin to move it pover for you when you think it is ready - I will do it if you want (If I am happy with it - referenced etc) ViridaeTalk 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no sources offered. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No sign of the sources I asked for. Article can't therefore pass WP:V. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, under current notability guidelines, is it the act of signing with a major label or recording a song with a major label that asserts notability? Rayc 01:04, 2 June 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_1-15&oldid=1108885103"