Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 16-31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 1-15 2007 Deletion review archives September 2007 >

31 August 2007

  • Image:Bleach 01 - The Substitute.jpg – Speedy undelete, since it was accidental (a probably legitimate fair-use image was replaced with a non-legitimate fair-use image, and the legitimate one was deleted as a result). Ral315 » 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC) – Ral315 » 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Bleach 01 - The Substitute.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was previously used on the

List of Bleach The Substitute arc episodes
, where it not only served to identify the subject of the article but was specifically discussed in the article text, since it was an award-nominated package design. It bore a rationale reflecting this.

However, it was later replaced with another image that was used solely for identification and had no commentary (ergo no strong rationale), with the consequence that both were deleted, the original due to its replacement by the newer image and the newer image due to being "unnecessary". I would like the original image to be brought back so that it can be used in the article. --

talk 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Reply Yes, it had a rationale. It was deleted due to being orphaned, which is normally a legitimate reason for deletion, but the image which replaced it on the list was then itself deleted without the original being put back on the page. --
    talk 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It was a DVD cover, so yes, I could. However I would prefer to avoid having to mentally reconstruct what I wrote as the image description, and by using the formal process I gain a defense against accusations of reposting deleted content. --
    talk 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Akatsuki members – Deletion endorsed. This DRV closure is influenced by the current status quo, where redirection and merger have accommodated much of the list's information elsewhere. Some of these merges necessitate the history undeletion of the content for GFDL purposes. – Xoloz 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

The AfD log for this article has an overwhelming amount of Keeps, but a lot of them are

WP:ILIKEIT which is what the Admin wrote as a main reason for deletion. He seemed to completely skip over the good amount of unbiased Keeps and Comments though citing good reasons, precedents and sources though, which alone outnumbed the amount of Delete votes. The article is a sub-page of a notable subject relating to Naruto, one of Wikipedia's most visitited articles and branched off its main page for formatting and length concerns. The Norse 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closer -
Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. Thirty+ editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about List of Akatsuki members were informed about this current !Vote on their talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
xDanielx notified every participant in that debate equally, including yourself, the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. --
talk 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Reply Noted characters are the main villains of one of the most popular and longest-running anime/manga series of the last decade. I believe someone in the AfD cited a magazine directly pertaining to the characters too. - The Norse 03:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be even better formatted if the huge amount of tangental information that is sourced to nothing but a primary source was ruthlessly stripped out.
    ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not at all. WP:V is quite clear about this - using primary sources is fine, but using only primary sources isn't.
ELIMINATORJR 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume you're referring to the sentence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is simply a restatement of
WP:N. In this case such sources are all over the place. It is a mistake to suppose that an article of this nature requires sources discussing the subject of lists of Akatsuki members; by that logic we would have to delete list of bridges, and so on -- almost every list and category on Wikipedia. — xDanielx T/C 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If it was just a list, that would not be a problem - but it isn't just a list, there's a whopping great piece of what is effectively plot summary for each character.
ELIMINATORJR 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I also gave a magazine that focuses much more substantially on the Akatsuki. However, I thought the dispute was to establish that there were third party sources, not that the article could be written from only that info - articles on fiction are allowed to use the primary source a substantial amount, so long as they can verify that there are third party sources, yes? So, we know that there are independent, verifiable, reliable third-party sources. What else is the problem?KrytenKoro 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing at all to do with the verifiability of the content. --
    talk 08:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of Norwegian Americans – Deletion closure endorsed. The continuing debate over lists vs. categories sees yet another incarnation. The relevant question seems to be whether the AfD closer abused his discretion. After discounting the needlessly inflammatory comments of one particular editor, there is a narrow consensus that the closer did not. The DRV nominator's suggestion -- that these matters be considered en masse (perhaps at centralized discussion... again) -- is a sound one, but inconsistent treatment of various nationalities at various AfDs is not, in itself, a reason to overturn. As Carlos points out below, structural problems with the nature of AfD make it impossible to render a complete judgment over such a large group of articles at one time. By strength of argument, and numbers, the original decision stands. – Xoloz 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Norwegian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Swedish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
List of Finnish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans for all the lists deleted. There needs to be a discussion on the Portal level on these lists, and not deleting or saving them one by one. Compare to:

The categories exist for the same information, but if you are looking for that Norwegian American scientist, your not going to find him. Having a category is no reason to delete a list that is sorted differently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted despite non consensus for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Corpx, excessive for a single decision, no matter how poorly thought out. We don't punish people for making mistakes. The implied reprimand of an overturn is sufficient. DGG (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I don't think Neil's summary was a fair representation of arguments by any means, but blocking editors for a small number of (probably) good faith closures seems very extreme. — xDanielx T/C 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - These people being of <descent> had very little to do with them attaining notability in their fields, so I fail to see why a blanket list is appropriate Corpx 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A rather idiosyncratic (but unfortunately not very novel) re-interpretation of policy a justification to discount votes on a flimsy basis. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Closer shows evidence of prejudice against the keep arguments; the nomination for deletion did not even bother to state a reason for deletion. There was NO CONSENSUS--a fact the closer chose to ignore. Hmains 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further info Closer Niel's main page says: "I also think Wikipedia has around 800,000 articles more than it need have, therefore I am a founder member of the Association of Redirectionist Wikipedians"==further indicating Niel's POV pushing attitude toward WP Admin work. Hmains 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it is not the role of the closing administrator to decide on notability; but to formulate the community decision. The discretion that is required is to distinguish those arguments that were based on policy and consider only those. As I said during my RfA, about how I would decide if I altogether disagreed with the apparent consensus on what the policy is, the proper course is instead to join the discussion, advocate one's view, and let somebody else close. There are over one thousand admins available for the purpose. Clearly there were no solid arguments for deletion--almost all sad merely that a category was better. The closer therefore discarded without explanation all the ones for keep, saying baldly that they were invalid. To enter an AfD in order to close in opposition to the community's interpretation of policy is to mistake one's role. I would equally call for an overturn here whether I agreed or did not agree with the actual decision. DGG (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - this just looks like another attempt at re-doing the AfD, with most of the same people replacing "keep" with "overturn" for the same reason. Admin discretion was fine, and that's what should be judged here. Most of the keeps did justify
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, seems fair, even if I will be accused for being biased. Bulldog123 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Not true. The "non-existent" rationales included: “Valid per WP:LIST", as well as rational explanations as to why categorization is a inferior tool in these cases (example: Drieakko-“there is no way referencing article's inclusion in a category. Whenever you need to source that, you also need to start making lists”, Mandsford-“they're all well-sourced, something that is to be encouraged in Wikipedia, with an attempt to explain the connection). Other ignored explanations were references to the inflexibility of categories (“Keep until the software provides category intersections”, “Categories will never be flexible enough to do this”), and arguemnts that the lists in question are not "indiscriminate" and "limitless" (strict criteria is used for inclusion on the list, such as the person's fame/notability, in combination with verifiability/news coverage focusing on his/her ethnicity, and also self-identification by the subject with the population group). In addition, list such as these can easily be further reduced by the introduction of stricter criteria for inclusion. Concerning the claim of "overcategorization", several editors pointed out that this is not a policy applicable to lists. I also want to stress that Scandinavian immigrants, as well as other groups listed for deletion here, are not “loosely associated items”-Identity based on heritage or roots is not considered a “loose association” by a lot of people, as evident by the majority vote "Keep" in this instance. Pia 22:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a similar level, for articles about individual cities or towns, we include a "Notable residents" section, as we should. When this section grows too large for the city article, this data often gets moved to a separate article, often broken down by occupation. Notable Americans of various national origins (Vietnamese Americans or whatever) are a similar case. When there are too many to list in the Vietnamese Americans article we move to a List of Vietnamese Americans, of course meaning "List of notable Vietnamese Americans." The fact that some of these lists have been deleted on flimsy grounds ("I don't think people should identify with their nations of ori0gin because everyone should just be *American*!"), and that the data was not merged into the "[X]-Americans" article, but simply deleted forever, shows bad faith on the part of both the AFD nominators and closers, as it robs researchers who rely on this valuable data. The fact that one can now go to the Norwegian Americans article and find nothing about the many notable Norwegian Americans throughout the United States' history shows that the deletion proposal, as well as the against-consensus "delete" close, had a punitive motivation, blanking the data forever (rather than merging) in order to "teach a lesson" to the editors that would even deign to maintain that such information has an encyclopedic value for our users. Badagnani 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Admins personal view should not be the deciding factor in AfD.Inge 10:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, agree with Bulldog123. ugen64 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per AfD consensus. Neil's interpretation of the discussion seems very idiosyncratic to me; he certainly didn't do any justice to the Keep !votes that were voiced, and while a couple of editors who favored deletion voiced reasonable concerns, they were not based on any policy and the majority of editors found them uncompelling. There are perfectly valid reasons to prefer lists over categories in cases like these (organization, description, etc.); I see no reason to ignore the consensus which supported retaining the list. — xDanielx T/C 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all - Please stop the attacks on Neil's judgment. Everyone has opinions on Wikipedia issues. Just because he chooses to express his opinions elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean that he is "POV pushing". Is any admin that has opinions about the general direction of Wikipedia not allowed to close an AFD? Should someone who says that they are an inclusionist not be able to close an AFD as a "keep"? Accusations of "prejudice" and the like should be ignored with regard to this DRV: argue the AFD and the closure - not the editor! Wickethewok 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More admins covering for one another regardless of the severity of the abuse that may have taken place (which in this case was truly egregious)--not to be tolerated! Badagnani 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your response is to attack more people? Great... Wickethewok 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The problem is that Neil used his 'judgment' to determine which arguments he would accept as valid (all those indicating 'deletion') and which arguments he would reject (all those indicating 'keep'). Had he not used this arbitrary judgment to justify his decision, his judgment would not be questioned here (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans. There is also the fact that the deletion review process says very little/too little about what constitutes valid arguments for overturning a decision so anything and everything gets thrown into the pot. And the matter that there are virtually no guidelines on when lists should be kept or deleted which results in deletion debates that just go in circles instead of advancing WP. See User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines Hmains 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amateurish" job? If you want to see an amateurish job look at 90% of closes by admins. Neil actually went into great detail with his close, even if it didn't suit your opinion, it tried to find consensus for the list when there was just consensus for an article. This DRV isn't a second AfD but an analysis of Neil's close. Bulldog123 05:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kindly note that: a) vague references to admins' actions elsewhere have no relation to this case; b) Neil did not went into any detail at all; c) Neil did not try to find any consensus. --Drieakko 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • snowball endorse. I also would have liked to retain the article, but admitedly the AfD was procedurally sound, and the overwhelming consensus says endorse. – — xDanielx T/C 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
HAL_9000_in_popular_culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A long list of references to HAL in popular culture was moved from the HAL main page to a page of its own and then deleted, apparently because the references were uncited. This seems ridiculous, as each reference clearly has its own citation (e.g., a reference that HAL was seen on a particular episode of the Simpsons can be verified by watching the cited episode of the Simpsons--if only all Wikipedia data points were so easily researchable!). I believe a close reading of the history of the main HAL page and the HAL in popular culture page reveals a large bias against this sort of "trivial" data. As a student of popular culture and how information can take a life of its own, I actually found the bulleted list to be fascinating. Trivia or not, since the content doesn't violate any of the three primary rules, I believe the article, either as a stand-alone page or as a section on the HAL page, should be restored. If not, please do a search on "in popular culture" and decide what the difference is between this article and the many, many articles of the same ilk. As it is, I believe deleting data that can be clearly used to create information/knowledge/wisdom shows an odd, non-objective bias on the part of Wikipedia editors. I'm referring to these deleted pages:[1], [2] (Note: I personally don't care if the article is spun on its own page or not.) Here's an example of a Wikipedia page devoted to the same kind of content that got deleted: Wikipedia_in_culture. 71.198.224.245 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled--i didn't ask that DRV do that now. (As for the future, we'll see about that.)DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm puzzled. Did you think Dave meant you? It doesn't. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Right. I really prefer being called David, in any case. :) DGG (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - AfD discussion was clearly interpreted correctly. --Haemo 00:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AfD closed correctly. Crazysuit 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dammit, Guy made the joke I was going to. But endorse deletion nonetheless, I don't see any abuse of discretion here, and
    What about something else? is neither a valid reason for keep nor a valid reason for undeletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse not even a close one. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Kerry Marie – Deletion endorsed. Keep arguments in the AfD at issue were based entirely on the claim of subject having won a notable award within a sub-genre. Besides that basic claim, keep arguments were spare, without elaboration. In closing, the administrator investigated the question, and found evidence (presented hereinbelow) that the award was non-notable. This is something administrators ideally wouldn't be asked to do, because it is hoped that keep commenters will support claims with arguments of some kind. Where that argumentation is absent, however, as it was in this instance, it is difficult to call such an investigation an "abuse of discretion." The case made by Fram is so compelling that -- had the AfD been closed as a "keep" -- I would expect Fram's argument, made at DRV, to have resulted in an overturning. By strength of argument, and of numbers, the decision stands. This is without prejudice, as always, to a newly written, reliably-sourced draft with clear evidence of notability. – Xoloz 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kerry Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|AFD3)

No consensus to delete at the AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Marie (3rd nomination) Epbr123 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale: Indeed, but I disregarded "keep" opinions genre "Keep: plumper of the year!" and deletes like "complete nobody" (since that's the one thing that can hardly be said about her :-) ). The award is not notable, and since that is her only claim to fame, she isn't notable either. "Plumper of the year" and "Kerry Marie" gives 26 Google hits[3], many of them about winners of other "plumper of the year" awards, and just mentioning her in passing. "Plumper of the year" plus "xl magazine" gives a whopping 9 Google hits [4]. How is this award notable? It's not like she's won a
Fram 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Criteria 3 states, "Performer has been prolific or innovative within a specific genre niche". Plumper of the Year may not be well-known compared to AVN, but it is still probably a top award within the bbw genre. Epbr123 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you draw the boundaries narrowly, you can argue pretty much any award is a "top award". And, anyways, that's immaterial, since I'm not seeing any evidence that it IS a "top award within the bbw genre". --Calton | Talk 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you draw the boundaries narrowly, you can argue pretty much any award is a "top award"." Explain, please? And where's the evidence that it isn't a top award in the genre. How many google hits come up for the other bbw awards? Epbr123 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did you seriously ask me "And where's the evidence that it isn't a top award in the genre?" You might as well have asked me, "Where's the evidence it isn't obsequious, clairvoyant, or purple?" Hint: Evidence? Not the job of MY side of the argument. I prefer my own arguments to be fact-based, not faith-based. --Calton | Talk 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Plumper of the Year has 734 google hits, and I can't find any other bbw awards on google. There's the evidence. Epbr123 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits aren't a reliable source. --
desat 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you talking to
Fram or me? He insists the award isn't notable due to google hits. Or does that rule depend on which side of the argument you're on? Epbr123 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This is one of the reasons why I deleted it instead of just following the consensus. "Plumper of the Year" indeed has 734 google hits, but there are different magazines and websites who award the title to different people. (warning: following links may not be suitable for work or minors!): the second hit is from the IMO much better known bbw magazines "Voluptuous" and "Score"[5], just like e.g. the ninth one[6], the fourteenth (an IMDb link)[7], etcetera. In fact, there are 553 hits for "Plumper of the Year" and "Voluptuous", and only 13 for "Plumper of the Year" and "XL magazine". So it looks to me that while there is a little known award called "Plumper of the Year" from Voluptuous; there is also another little known award from XL magazine with the same name. And even more damning, there are only 40 distinct Google hits for both awards combined[8], making it still clearer that this is not a "well known award" as defined in
Fram 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, there are just 41 google hits for "plumper of the year" when you exclude the repeated entries. Corpx 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't eligible for a Voluptuous Plumper of the Year Award because she was working for Score's BBW magazine, XL Magazine. To add to her notability, she came 3rd in the 2003 Voluptuous Model of the Year Award [9]. Epbr123 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This is a review of the closing decision, not an AfD discussion. The overwhelming consensus at the actual AfD discussion, for the third time, and in opposition to the closing decision, was Keep. Indeed, no coherent Delete arguments were presented at the AfD. This looks like a case of "keep nominating for deletion until you get a Delete decision, and if you can't get that, then a sympathetic closing admin." Dekkappai 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • GRBerry 17:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Zombie Powder Vol. 01 cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was deleted in process due to being replaced by another copy of it, however the new one is of no better utility and lacks a fair use rationale, which I believe the old one possessed. I was inactive for a while, so I did not catch this deletion being announced on my user talk. I would like the image and its description page to be restored if that is at all possible.

talk 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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


30 August 2007

  • Airline complaints – Overturn, and relist at AfD. The undeletion supporters are correct in the objective observation that several deletion commenters apparently failed to notice the formal nature of the complaint process -- the article might need a better title, for this reason, but it is worth noting that all content was sourced. With proper supporting text describing the form and supervising authority for airline complaints, this could make a solid article. The lack of clarity in the deletion reasoning allows this DRV to succeed based on strength of argument. The request to delay relisting for two days, to allow improvement before AfDing, is reasonable. – Xoloz 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Airline complaints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The decision was probably made based purely on the number of votes for deletion, not noticing that all of them stated exactly the same: synthesis of sources, however, no-one brought a single example to prove this statement. Thus the decision for deletion should receive more attention and consideration. Addition, there is a separate article on "Critisism on Wikipedia", is wikipedia more important than aviation? (mentioning here, because this wasn't mentioned in the deletion discussion, and a decision to delete an article should not be made without proper comparison.) -- 195.50.215.56 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why? CitiCat ♫ 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When closing a non-obvious consensus close, explaining the reasoning can help people understand and accept the decision.
GRBerry 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure if you're referring to me or people in general, but I'm not adamant about keeping it deleted. I'm close to the fence, and have no problem if the decision is to overturn and improve. I just evaluated the opinions given in the AFD. CitiCat ♫ 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, agree with DRV nom. ugen64 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, preferably after a grace period so that small improvements may be made. The !votes were split exactly 2/3, which traditionally is considered the exact AfD borderline - so I think it would have been fair to close this either way. To put it bluntly, it looks like some of the participants only read the title of the article without understanding the subject. The article is not a list of complaints about untasty food; it regards a unique, formal process comparable to the Better Business Bureau (though not based on a single agency) and analyzes the results of that process. If some of the participants were indeed misguided about the subject of the article, hopefully this can be fixed with clarification in a second AfD. — xDanielx T/C 20:47, 1 September 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.
Darkbattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was removed wrongly, it is based on the web site www.darkbattle.com, which has a large fan base. The Wikipedia article explained history regarding the game and what the game is about. The article has been a big source of documentation for darkbattle the online game. 88.144.43.44 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is a review of the 01:15, 1 July 2007 deletion by SchuminWeb ( reason given, "Expired PROD, concern was: No assertion of notability (WP:V), no independent references (WP:V), as far as I can tell just another unnotable online game.") -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note For DRV procedures after a PROD delete, see
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs
) 15:37, August 30, 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.
Kurt Hellmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In my opininon, improper speedy deletion, full content of the article at the time of deletion was "Kurt Hellmer was a New York literary agent who represented, amongst others, Friedrich Dürrenmatt." (plus {{stub}}). Dürrenmatt was a clearly notable author. Since in my understanding of the publishing world, literary agents can only be considered notable if they represent notable clients, this is a case where notability is inherited. The deleting admin disagrees. This has been brought up at Village pump (policy), where at least one other admin has expressed the opinion that this was an improper speedy. Dsmdgold 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that unlike other deletion processes, speedy deletion is never a bar to recreation of an article in a way that addresses the reason for deletion. As such, you have always been free to recreate the article (as I implied in response to your initial inquiry to me back in July) as long as you include the missing (IMHO) explanation of significance or importance. Citations to
WP:RS are preferable, but not required to get past speedy deletion. -- But|seriously|folks  04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I sincerely appreciate your thought, and, as I indicated at that time, it's quite possible to locate reliable sources that refer to Hellmer as having been the agent of Dürenmatt and Frisch. The question, or the dilemma, it seems to me, is as to the question of whether or not having represented two very significant figures (and, yes, for many, many years, as is demonstrable from cites over time) establishes notability. It seems to me, as I've said, that it does, and I presume similar reasoning lies behind this long-extant entry for
literary agents. If, though, the view of the community is that having represented very significant clients doesn't establish notability, but is merely a claim of heritability, as for a relative, an accountant, a cook, or gardener, rather than addressing the fact that an agent is important if they represent important clients, because that is what an agent does, and if you represent major clients you're a major agent, then WP will have very nearly no listings for any agents who aren't also notable via some other element such as also being authors or murderers. This, as I see it, is the dilemma here. AtomikWeasel 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I understand what you are saying, but I think it's different from what the article said. I am not taking the position that agents cannot be notable based solely on their service as agents. I am just saying that such notability is not automatic. If an agent had a long history of representing notable authors, I would think there would be an ample paper trail of this in reliable sources (such as biographies of the authors in question and perhaps articles in journals and other periodicals), so their articles should be resistant to not only speedy deletion but also AfD. Contrast this to the article in question, which connected the agent to a sole notable author and unnamed others of unknown notability, all for an unstated period of time. -- But|seriously|folks  04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a bit of googling, and I believe I can source references to Hellmer's having represented
Dürrenmatt's The Visit, for example, long listed Hellmer as his agent. In the case of Jane Rule I have a cite which refers to his having represented her as an author when publishers were resistant to publishing works with lesbianism as their subject in the early 60s. Also, it seems I can source references to Hellmer's having been a member of the German exile literary and political community in New York who fled from Nazi Germany. Is this sort of thing likely appropriate, then? I'm trying to get a handle on this. It seems to me, though, that the key issue, in a way, is whether or not representing major authors is in effect what establishes notability for an agent (so long as adequately sourced by WP criteria, of course.) AtomikWeasel 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment On DGG's request, and having reread A7, I'm reconsidering my argument. The crux of the problem is that this article (using the CSD language) "states why it's important", so there's a borderline case for kicking it over to AFD instead. The counterargument is that it's such a small, unreferenced stub that there was little loss in the deletion. DGG's concern seems to be broader policy, though, and I'm in agreement that we can't let admins start applying policy based on their own views of notability. Given that there is a slim field of editors who might understand the notability argument here, associative or not, admins should be duly cautious with material in fields where their familiarity is light. This would be a more substantive dispute, and I would have substantive objections, if there had been a more substantive article to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a proper article with references showing real notability. Notability is not contagious, so the speedy was more-or-less proper. The best solution might be to userfy a copy if someone really wants to try to fix this up and make it acceptable. Xtifr tälk 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also endorse the new rewrite which should make this discussion academic, since it clearly addresses the original reasons for deletion. Xtifr tälk 11:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now, and endorse the deletion (without prejudice, per xtifr). >Radiant< 07:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, without prejudice for re-creation of the article. Admins don't have time to research CSD nominations (there are more than two thousand articles deleted from Wikipedia every day). Let's give the admin credit for doing the right thing, and acknowledge that material exists to write a more substantial article, and look forward to seeing what the improved article looks like. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe admins wouldn't have so many deletions to make if they applied what CSD actually says, rather than guessing what the result of an AFD would be? --W.marsh 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Totally out of process, simply not a speedy. Any good faith claim to importance is sufficient, & this qualifies. Speedy is not for judging notability, its for getting rid of the articles where there is no claim to notability at all. The place to judge notability is Afd, or in reasonably straight forward uncontested cases by Prod. I am amazed to see several respected eds. above willing to completely ignore the wording and the purpose of WP:CSD. I urge them to reconsiderDGG (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion being a notable someone's hired help (a literary agent, spin doctor, dentist, ob/gyn, lawyer, maid, gardener, whatever) does not cause the notability to be transfered. A <pick a job> with a notable customer/client/employer is no assertion of notability - nor could it be - otherwise every employee of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, government (any of them), is notable because they have a notable employer. Carlossuarez46 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DRV isn't supposed to be AFD... we're only reviewing whether the deletion (in this case, a
      WP:CSD deletion) was appropriate. --W.marsh 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That isn't an AFD argument. He's saying what many of us are saying: "X worked for Y" is not an assertion of notability at all, so the speedy was not out of process or inappropriate. You're welcome to disagree, but please don't mischaracterize the argument. Xtifr tälk 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, I'd point out that I don't think the action to speedy delete was ill-motivated, ill-advised, or outrageous -- I simply think, with all respect, that it was an error of the sort that even the best will on occasion make when making multiple, often of necessity hasty decisions -- I'm reminded of the Pentago official who, when criticized for a decision someone argued was both in error and with consequences, simply said 'I make a lot of decisions, I make a lot of mistakes.' Even if one is a good decision maker, it will happen. So, while I disagree with the decision to speedy delete, I don't mean that disagreemen to suggest in any way criticism of the admin who took that decision. That point made, granted I'm not infinitely experienced in Wiki-ways, but it seems to me it was an error in this particular case to speedy delete. A minor error, but an error, which is, I would hope, addressable by re-creating an improved entry. It does seem to me, though, that arguments some have made here that a literary agent is a mere factotum or hireling are very wide of the mark, and are analogous to saying a major league baseball player is some guy who gets paid to throw a ball around and why would that be notable? In any case, I fail to see how these are arguments appropriate here, as this is, as I understand it, a discussion as to the appropriateness of the decision to speedy delete, which hinges on whether or not a statement of the form 'Joe plays baseball for the New York Yankees' as offered in example above is in fact an assertion of notability. It seems to me that it is, and that the misunderstanding here may well stem from the fact that most folks simply assume it to be obvious that to be a major league baseball player is 'notable.' There is indeed, I would agree, an act of interpretation here, but I think that's inevitable. Personally, it seems to me to reek of promotionalism when entries begin by asserting notability by making statements that seem to 'reach': 'Bob Smith was the greatest Bozo-the-Clown performer ever, and is famous for the role.' I'm inclined to avoid that. It seems to me that, as with the ball-player example, it ought suffice to say 'X was an agent for Y and Z' [Y and Z being linked as notable, having entries]. AtomikWeasel 20:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speaking as the child of a former literary agent, I think I can say with some authority that being a literary agent, even for someone notable, does not make a person particularly notable. Writers (and baseball players) are notable because they get noted; literary agents are usually behind-the-scenes people who rarely get much coverage by reliable sources. What literary agents do is important, but important is not the same as notable. Xtifr tälk 01:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse BsF's actions were correct. Eusebeus 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion -
    WP:CSD#A7 No assertion of importance/significance. At three valid speedy delete reasons, it's not a speedy delete record holder, but it's enough reasons to not throw it back into the waters of lake Wikipedia. If someone knows the speedy delete reasons record holder, please post on my talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No G4 on prior speedies, and A1 only applies if it also provides little or no context. So I don't think either applies here. -- But|seriously|folks  21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one sentence did not include a set of facts or circumstances that surrounded his representation of Dürrenmatt and others and certainly did not contain enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub. I assumed others would see this on reviewing the one sentence, but I should have posted my thoughts. I still think A1 applies. However, no G4 on prior speedies is correct. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A1 doesn't say anything about requiring more than one sentence. In fact it specifically says it's not about the amount of content, just the amount of context. --W.marsh 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sorry, W.marsh, "This guy was an employee of someone famous" simply does not constitute an assertion of notability. Deor 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you have to make it personal? I take offense to that. --W.marsh 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't trying to be personal; I was responding to your specific remark that "A claim of notability is a claim of working with or for notable people in some meaningful capacity, so there was a claim of notability," with which I disagree as a blanket statement. I'm of the opinion that what constitutes a "meaningful capacity" has to be taken into account when one evaluates whether "X works for Y" is to be construed as an assertion of X's notability, and I think Butseriouslyfolks was well within the bounds of admin discretion in concluding that in this case it didn't. I apologise for offending you. Deor 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe I read it the wrong way. Thanks for understanding and meaning well. --W.marsh 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find the persistent observation that a literary agent is a hireling to be patently absurd, and the fact that it is, indeed, persistent, to be reflective of Wikipedia's limitations. That said, then, I think the overall tenor of the debate here is sufficiently anti-intellectual that I'll not attempt to re-create the entry. Let Wikipedia confine itself to its preferred topics. AtomikWeasel 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a
    WP:BIO terms they are notable because their client relations get written about. There are easily half a dozen agents from the mid-century period with encyclopedic significance. Hellmer may or may not be one of them, but without sources, who can tell? --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
the meaning of that phrase is that to make policy on the basis of accommodating an atypical instance is wrong. As applies here, to ignore the policy on the criteria for CSD on the basis that this article that ordinarily qualifies for a pass at A7 is in fact an inadequate article, is one of the bad cases. The safer course is to follow the good law, and let this be deleted at AfD. DGG (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. G7 does not say not notable in the specialized meaning of having no independent reliable sources, it says: no assertion of importance/significance. Being an agent of a major author is an assertion of significance. It may not be enough, but that is for AfD to decide. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it an assertion of significance? Is being a greeter at Walmart also an assertion of significance? And if not, where do you draw the line? In general, being an associate, employee or business partner of someone or something notable does not by itself constitute an assertion of notability (notability is not contagious). There are exceptions, as with ball players, but those exceptions are generally well-known. In specific, most literary agents, even agents for notable people, are not notable, and do not constitute a reasonable exception. Either we force "greeter at Walmart" to be a sufficient claim to force AfD (an unacceptable choice IMO), or we admit that this was within the bounds of admin discretion and was a reasonable deletion. I see no possible middle ground. Unless you have a bright-line distinction you'd care to proffer? Xtifr tälk 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The line I draw, is as follows. If true and verifiable, would this claim, in and of itself make some one notable? Are there other examples of people who are notable for substantially the same thing. There are undoubtably notable people whose sole claim to fame is that they are agents of famous authors, musicisns, actors, etc. However, there is no one whose sole claim to fame is being a Wal-Mart greeter who is notable. To argue that because one business relationship cna cause notability then all business realtionships must cause notability is a red herring. Dsmdgold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but without prejudice to recreation. An AfD would have been the better choice, but I think the admin was able to choose under the rules. Let's face it, a one line article is not hard to recreate, with proper assertions. I think the notability of literary agents does need asserting; some are, most aren't. Johnbod 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD per DGG. An assertion of notability was made; whether it was sufficient is a question that should be brought to the AfD. — xDanielx T/C 20:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As I understand it, per previous discussion, it is not inappropriate to re-create a more substantial version of the entry without waiting for a conclusion as to this particular debate. I am, therefore, doing so. AtomikWeasel 23:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And nicely written it is! I don't think anybody will challenge it now. This debate should probably be closed as moot. -- But|seriously|folks  01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. It's appreciated. Wikipedia is a difficult process, at times, I think, for all of us, but I've enjoyed working with you, and I'd hope it has indeed resulted in a useful entry. AtomikWeasel 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very pleased you've chosen this route, in which the entire community benefits from an improved article. (I consider
improving articles on the chopping block to be one of the nobler callings on Wikipedia, and practice it often.) Kudos! --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It is because I have no special knowledge in the topic area that I believe articles should explicitly assert their subjects' importance / significance to survive A7. -- But|seriously|folks  02:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, thanks to those who feel that the Kurt Hellmer entry is now satisfactory. Secondly, I have a thought, or a suggestion, but please bear in mind that while I'm not a complete newbie, and have some feel for Wikpedia processes, I wouldn't for even an instant pretend to have a deep or subtle grasp of the intricacies and problems that are intrinsic to this process. As I understand it, a significant number of new entries must be rapidly screened by admins, who are volunteers, providing their time and energy to the project. They are, I believe, in most cases sincerely dedicated to the effort to build a better encyclopedia, but they are also forced to make quick decisions, with little available information. This is, I would think, inherently very difficult. Another element is that new entries, particularly if they are created by newbies, may be imperfect because they are created by newbies, and they may be hurt or offended by rapid deletion in a process that, as newbies, they little comprehend, and which feels to them like a slap in the face. Again, I don't see this as anyone's 'fault', but it's unfortunate, imho. One thought I have, and I frankly don't know if it makes sense or would help in practical terms, is if, perhaps, admins might have available a sort of limbo, an additional option, where in effect they might, by so categorizing an entry, be saying something like 'Look, this seems dubious to me, but on the other hand there might be something I don't know, or which might not be obvious, could the matter be clarified or improved.' In other words, might it make sense for an admin to have the choice of simply speedying in the present form, moving to AfD process, or selecting an intermediate option where, perhaps, bots would notify anyone who had created or contributed to the entry that it had been placed in 'limbo' status, but that they might present their thoughts to the admin who took action. I know that that's more or less possible now, by first speedying, then having dialog go back and forth between user talk and all, but might it make sense to create a structure that would offer admins doing the very difficult work involved in patrol an intermediate option, where, perhaps, they might place an entry in limbo with a sort of note, saying perhaps 'This doesn't look like an assertion of notability to me, but I'm not absolutely certain.' You folks have more experience with these issues than I, so I'm not saying this is the solution or the way to go, but I thought I'd float the thought out for consideration as it seems to me all are struggling mightily with the dilemmas posed by this sort of issue. Any thoughts? (If this suggestion makes no sense in practical terms, feel free to say so, as I say I'm not widely experienced with these considerations and it may be I'm wide of the mark – I'll take no offense, I assure you.) AtomikWeasel 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD forum; the options aren't restricted to those with admin tools. Hope that clears things up, — xDanielx T/C 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Overturn and list as AFD per User:DGG's comments. Probably worth deleting, but not IMO a a speedy. Balancer 05:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

29 August 2007

  • User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense – All deletions endorsed. It is clear from the consensus below that -- process issues aside -- a profound sense of editor-fatigue has created a consensus to keep these items deleted. Given the extensive history of controversy surrounding these pages, arguments in favor of a final disposition of these matters (perhaps at the cost of process) are not without merit. This conclusion would not be possible, had not the community already been given ample opportunity to discuss BJODN in many fora. To the disappointed minority who wished to see discussion of the older user-archives, I offer my personal sympathy, but the community judges otherwise. – Xoloz 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Improper and premature MfD closure by User:Radiant!. I am also nominating these other pages for DRV:

Although I fully acknowledge that Radiant! was acting in good faith, I believe that consensus was determined incorrectly. Firstly, the MfD should have been allowed to run its full course; there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. Secondly, although little can now be done about the outcome of the BJAODN MfD and DRV, I don't think the consensus there was sufficiently strong (if it existed at all) to justify eradication of anything related to BJAODN; there was a substantial body of opinion arguing to Keep. Thirdly, I draw attention to User:TenPoundHammer's comments on the MfD: I created my personal BJAODN just for humor's sake -- I didn't even know until just now that the existing BJAODN had been put up for MfD. These pages are clearly not an attempt to circumvent community consensus; most of them pre-date the BJAODN MfD and are innocent personal collections of humour. Therefore, I disagree with the closing rationale. WaltonOne 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rewrote my nomination statement, as I was informed that the original statement was needlessly inflammatory. It can be found here. WaltonOne 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer A relisted MfD cannot lead to an overturn of Radiant's speedy delete of the pages since only a DRV can do that. Thus, this DRV is a review of Radiant's speedy delete of the pages. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please note that many of the endorsements below state the speedy delete is justified for all pages because all pages are an attempt to circumvent the BJAODN MfD. As most of the pages under discussion predate that MfD by years, that is factually incorrect. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. BJAODN has been discussed to death, several times, and the outcome was the reasonable close by Phil Sandifer,
    Grand Admin Conspiracy is any help. >Radiant< 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Mich is a page from 06 & before, most of the jokes are stupid, but the edits are attributed. Windfish is from 05, not edited since, 2 jokes, both his own. 10PH is from July 07, mainly a list of deleted pages he apparently disliked, some of which were simply lists deleted in the recent list deletion flurry of activity. i do not see how all of this can be decided in a single MfD, especially when most of them were added in the middle. doing it this way was a mistake. Personally, I do not particularly care for such pages, but some are simply unfortunate uses of a now rejected title. DGG (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly that can be seen as a endorse or overturn :) — Moe ε 21:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, for clarity, it's "oh my, I just woke up and the nightmare isn't over after all." Completely wrong forum for this sort of conclusions, I know and I apologise. But since we are here, all I can recommend for DRVery is Do the Right Things. Do we absolutely need any more BJAODN drama? Why has comedy become a nightmare? Why are we being tormented so? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I see many pages being lumped together here with no clear evidence as to what is or isn't duplication of previous BJAODN content. This may mean that some of the content here has nothing to do with any of this, and is merely being deleted because someone is on a misguided crusade to remove all mention of silliness from the project history. Certainly I don't advocate recovering BJAODN itself by posting it to some other page of wikipedia:en: (as that's about as sensible - and as volatile - as backing up key data to a RAMdisk) but the net is being cast far too broadly here. If you must go on a deletion spree, obtain consensus *first*... one page at a time. Sorry. --carlb 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Shemale – Recreation permitted. It appears there is sufficient evidence (and editorial support) below for a new article, which may always be reviewed at AfD after creation. Strictly speaking, because the redirect was not protected, this DRV was unnecessary, but the consensus now exist. The supporting editors may move the information at their convenience, with the expectation that a new AfD is likely. – Xoloz 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shemale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am posting for deletion review under point that new information came to light after deletion. Shemale term has its own meaning and place apart from usage as derogatory. I have added 2 new refs one being from mit.edu which is

editor bias since it is derogatory to some people of a wikiproject. But in an uncensored encyclopedia, shemale deserves seperate article, and valid academic refs can be found by google search (shemale "secondary sex characteristics"). Lara_bran 09:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closer This is a review of the "Merge and redirect" to
Transwoman close of AfD #1 dated April 25, 2007. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Note Some reports on this article include (1)
January 5, 2006 RfI post, and (3) April 16, 2007 AN post -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Without appearing to avoid your request, I've already patiently done so repeatedly (for example in a number of the links provided above, both before and after the deletion review, by jreferee). However, here is but one of those conversations with a series of anons and other single-role accounts pursuing this matter ad nauseam, [23], [24]. I'll include some more as needed. Most importantly,I don't think a pained restatement of the numerous arguments that led to the deletion is called for when an editor is seeking to undo a merge/redirect - especially when the rationale centers around an inability to resolve the issue on the merge target page as it does here. In this case the onus is on the nominator to post the 'new evidence that allegedly came to light since deletion' to this review. I'm looking forward to seeing it because so far, I'm having trouble finding (to say nothing of assessing) this 'new information'.
So far, over the course of months and months of endless repetitive debate, there has not been a single piece of evidence presented that establishes a valid, notable and non-derogatory use of the term 'Shemale'. Given that the overwhelming use is a plainly derogatory term (including in pr0n, where the term refers to a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual, in other words a 'chick with a dick', as the article once clearly stated), these 'manga' and 'gaming' references may command entire chapters for the 'Shemale' article on ED or Uncyclopedia, but they aren't notable or encyclopedic enough to justify a reversion of the merge on WP. The term is plainly derogatory slang as numerous dictionary and glossary cites establish, and is overwhelmingly used in reference to a transwoman who possesses 'male' genitalia. This is also an uncontested fact. These two central facts, the facts that underly the 'merge-redirect' to Transwoman, have not been credibly questioned to date. However, I'm hoping for a presentation of the supposed 'new evidence, since I always try to keep my mind open to new possibilities. -- 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the question and I share your interest in discussing the issue as clearly as possible. Here's my view, as cited by numerous valid, notable sources as provided in prior conversations and repeated in the links above. Wikidictionary lists it as "(pejorative) A male-to-female transsexual or transgender person." [25]. The Webster's New Millenium Online dictionary cites list the term as "derogatory slang for 'a genetic male who has both male and female characteristics; a male who has undergone surgical feminization" [26], and wordweb as 'sometimes offensive, referring to a transsexual in the porn industry'. [27]. There has so far been not a single valid cite to demonstrate when the term is not offensive. I'd love to see one, as I'm open to changing my mind, but none have been presented.
As far as 'who' is objecting, the dictionary links do not specify, nor qualify, 'who' is being offended, but I believe it is not 'original research' to conclude that a derogatory term used to describe 'a transsexual in the porn industry' is offensive to transsexuals. Thankfully, my opinion isn't the only basis for this conclusion - it has been independently cited that the term is "a sexualized term popularized in pornography for a transgendered woman who has not had surgery.", and is "Often considered highly offensive." [28]. In all of the prior article's citations and in the vast preponderance of practice the term is used not to describe 'gamers' but transsexuals (transwomen, specifically). So it's not
WP:OR
, it's been cited and shown that transwomen are the people to whom the word 'Shemale' is 'overwhelmingly derogatory' when used.
As far as 'who' is using it: Using a derogatory term for such a person - ignorantly, knowingly or not, in pron or not - is still derogatory and as unacceptable on WP as any other slur. The number of people who employ slurs (both those aware of and those ignorant of their nature), whether at clubs, in gaming, etc. doesn't alleviate or reduce that term's derogatory nature. Most importantly, in the overwhelmingly common usage (to refer to transwomen with male genitalia), whether used in porn or not, whether self-assigned by porn stars, marketers or not, the term when used to apply to a transwoman is 'incredibly offensive'. [29] One drink or three, big club or small party, sidewalk or runway, referring to ladies like this as 'Shemales' is significantly more derogatory than 'Transsexuals' (or, better yet, 'Ladies')
So if it is demonstrably 'highly offensive' to refer to transwomen as shemales, and if this is the overwhelmingly common use of the term, the information I provided above can be integrated into the 'Transwoman' article to the extent that it explains the predominant, cited view of this term. Maybe a link or two (and perhaps Janice Raymond's popularization of the term in 1979-1984, but probably not the earlier 'masculine lesbian' usage, which is no longer used) would suffice to complete the merge.
At this point don't believe there is a credible controversy about whether the term is derogatory, as I have not seen a single citation establishing an inoffensive use of the word 'Shemale', but I welcome such evidence. I hope I've answered your questions, but if not I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion, dig up the links for discussion (again), etc. Thanks. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And like all the other sources it reads the same:
"shemale: A term, usually derogatory, used most often in the porn industry for a pre-op transsexual who has already developed breasts but still has an intact penis."
Exactly the same as the predominant definition, that you tried to posit as a 'side view' days ago. Besides the fact that it disproves your original argument, I don't see how you justify a characterization of this source as an 'academic', rather than a 'pornorgraphic' reference, given the phrase 'used most often in the porn industry' in that very cite - except if by 'academic' you mean it's on an .edu web site... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:18, 3 September 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.
IfD
)

Blatantly improper deletion, clearly violating policy. There were multiple objections to deletion in IfD and action taken, by way of improvements to article, to further support value of image. There was clearly no consensus to delete as required. The Wikipedia policy for deletion discussions is very clear: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...." The guideline for judging whether the determinitive consensus exists is equally clear and emphatic: "When in doubt, don't delete." In explicit violation of our deletion policy, which calls upon the admin to conclude whether or not consensus to delete was reached in the discussion or not, closing admin imposed his own judgment about the image as rationale for its deletion.—DCGeist 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read the full paragraph you're citing - it clearly explains that consensus is not a headcount. Endorse per NFCC. >Radiant< 09:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it. Now you do the same. You've raised the strawman of "headcount." The term is "consensus." Consensus to delete is arrived at or not via the discussion. Admin by policy examines whether consensus to delete was reached in discussion. If it was, image is deleted. If it wasn't, image is kept. If in doubt, image is kept. That's the policy. It's not terribly ambiguous. Like I say, you read it.—DCGeist 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd just get off your soapbox for a minute and stop attacking people, you could look into how deletion debates (and review thereof) usually work. Policy can and does override opinion. Quite frequently pages are deleted if a majority wanted to keep them (or vice versa), because the minority side had solid arguments and the majority did not. That is precisely what happened here, and it is how Wikipedia works, regardless of how you choose to misinterpret policy. >Radiant< 09:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (From deleting admin) The image violated NFCC #8. The image was insignificant to the article. The caption on the image was "Bill Clinton on The Daily Show, August 9, 2004." The text in the article was "In one notable 2004 interview, former president Bill Clinton appeared on the show to discuss his autobiography, My Life. In the course of the interview, Clinton discussed the attacks on presidential candidate John Kerry's war record and the admissions of fraud by and no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton, the company closely associated with Vice President Dick Cheney." The image is not needed to understand the text and the text nor caption provides any sourced critical commentary as required for screenshots. I had no doubt that the image should be deleted to satisfy Wikipedia policy on images. -
    talk 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion - good policy-based action. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The image did not meet the non-free content criteria, so it was deleted. A deletion solidly based on relevant policy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion image deletion was soundly based on policy.
    Go Red Sox! 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Hmmm...seems to be a mantra here about policy. I'm glad we all agree policy is so important. For those confused or bemused by this discussion, I'll quote the relevant policy in full from the policy page that describes deletion policy:
Deletion discussion
Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion. This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions. Here, editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page.
These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator 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.
And here's the guidelines on how to apply that policy, from the guideline page on deletions:
Deciding whether to delete
  1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below)
  2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
  3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
  4. When in doubt, don't delete.
All clear? Our policy is that the closing admin doesn't decide whether the image adheres to image policy; the discussion decides that. All the admin decides is whether consensus to delete was achieved in the discussion or not. Clearly there are several admins who would like more power than they are entitled to under policy. Clearly there are several admins who have simply arrogated such power to themselves. Clearly there are a substantial number of people, admins and others, who would like policy to be different than it is. Fine. But for now, the policy is clear. It is confirmed by the guideline. In this specific case, I undertook a set of actions directly and explicitly responsive to the image policy concerns raised by the nominator. I expressed my belief that the concerns were thus addressed and the image should not be deleted. The nominator disagreed. The sole other party who weighed in did agree that my actions satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised. Discussion thus clearly did not produce a consensus to delete. The subsequent deletion thus clearly violates our deletion policy, quoted above.—DCGeist 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you don't understand how xfD closures work. It is not the closing admin's job to count heads, they have to weigh the strength of argument. If the vast majority of the arguments are against policy, then they can be rejected, or counted to a lesser weight than those whose arguments are policy-driven. That's what happened here, as has been explained to you. Deletion is not a vote. Endorse deletion as per policy. Corvus cornix 20:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, CC, I understand very well how all consensus-based Wikipedia processes work. Just like FAx processes, for instance, xfD discussion processes are consensus-driven, not admin-driven--even more so, because there is very explicit policy for admins to follow in closing deletion discussions. And once again, the strawman of "count[ing] heads" has been raised. You know as well as I do that the operable term is "consensus." You create more strawmen when you talk about "arguments against policy." We are discussing a case in which the nominator raised concerns based on policy, and I took steps to directly address those concerns, explaining how explicitly. Third participant agreed that my actions addressed the concerns. Fantasies about "arguments against policy" have no place in this debate. My position has been very simple: policy on IfD discussion requires that consensus to delete be reached in discussion for proper deletion to take place. My position is based on the clear language of policy. Jreferee, below, is now only the second participant in this debate to review the matter according to our actual deletion policy.—DCGeist 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The closer interpreted the debate correctly. A first editor argued that the image violated NFCC #8 and should be deleted. A second editor argued that the image did not violated NFCC #8 and should be kept. A third editor offered no argument. The reasoning supporting the deletion seems more sound. It was reasonable to conclude that this was the dominant view of the group so as to be the rough consensus of the group. Thus, the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first endorsement of the deletion that acknowledges and respects the clear language and spirit of the deletion policy. Obviously, I disagree with the conclusion Jreferee reaches, but Jreferee stands out for not relying on a contentless declaration equivalent to "You're wrong!" and for not pretending that our policy is something other than what it is. Thanks. Evidently, there will not be a decision to overturn in this case; in the time remaining before this discussion is closed, I wonder if anyone else will join Jreferee in reviewing this matter according to our actual policy.—DCGeist 02:32, 30 August 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.
IfD
)

Blatantly improper deletion. There were multiple objections to deletion in IfD. There was clearly no consensus to delete as required. One of the editors (

Pulp Fiction (film)) to demonstrate the importance of the image. In arbitrarily overriding the clear rules of procedure here, deleting admin rested his case in part on a couple of highly arguable assertions: (1) "The notion this image is iconic is unsupported by references." No references were asked for; they could have been provided if anyone felt there was an issue. Is is likely no one felt there was an an issue because Eleland included the inarguable fact that well-known artist Banksy created a parody of the image--difficult to imagine if it was not iconic. (2) "The statement that the weaponry in the image is a central aspect of the film is also unsupported." Incorrect. The importance of the weaponry used by the two characters seen in the image weilding their guns is clearly stated in the article. Furthermore, the result of admin violating our rules is that the article now contains no image of its top-billed star, John Travolta.—DCGeist 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below)
  2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
  3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
  4. When in doubt, don't delete.
It is very clear, both in the context of its own page and in relation to the policy page, that in cases of deletion discussion (such as the debates on IfD) the admin is guided to use "common sense" in determining whether a consensus to delete has been reached or not. The admin who closes the discussion is not invited to decide on deletion/retention based on his own assessment of the image's adherence to the image policy. Nowhere. That is what the debate is for. The closing admin's job is to determine whether consensus to delete exists or not and act accordingly. Period. That is policy. Clear?
  • (3) Actually, non-free images can most certainly be edited in certain ways--appropriate cropping is the primary example. However, to focus on the pertinent issues here, in the future, I will quote the relevant policy from the deletion policy page thus: ""The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept...." Good?—DCGeist 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go Red Sox! 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse, deletion debates are not decided by headcount, and whether the image adheres to image policy is very much relevant, and can be an overriding argument even if a hundred people
    like the image. DRV nominator clearly misunderstands deletion policy in this area. >Radiant< 09:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please say you're not claiming authorship of Wikipedia guideline content to make your case about policy. Please.—DCGeist 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather, I am pointing out that your allusion that I might not understand policy, or might not have read it, is absurd. >Radiant< 11:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus does not trump policy.
    ム 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Wrong. Read it again.
    ム 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please read the policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. In this specific case, I directly and explicitly rebutted the policy concerns raised by the nominator. The third participant in the discussion raised other policy concerns. The fourth participant took action to directly address those concerns. The fifth participant also supported retention of the image; admittedly, this participant didn't make much of a case, though the one-word argument is relevant to policy. At any rate, even discounting the fifth participant, the discussion clearly did not produce a consensus to delete. The subsequent deletion thus violated our deletion policy.—DCGeist 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore In this particular case, the admin stated that the policy was that iconic use needed to be proven by references., The relevant WP:NONFREE policy page has no such requirement. Closed wrongly because of mistake in policy--and unsupported by the consensus in the discussion as well. . DGG (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere did I state that the NFCC policy said that iconic use needed to be proven by references. You making an assumption. Also, to state that the image is iconic without references is
    talk 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
unless I misunderstand, you say so right above, that the assertion cant stand because its OR without references. OR applies to article content, not justification for articles or images. DGG (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. If you look at the requirements for
    reliable source commentary, the reasoning supporting the deletion seems more sound. It was reasonable to conclude that this was the dominant view of the group so as to be the rough consensus of the group. Commentary The likely iconic images for Pulp Fiction are at Pulp Fiction movie posters and memorabilia at MovieGoods. In the hard print newspaper article Hagestadt, Emma; Hirst, Christopher. (November 29, 2003) The Independent 50 best books to buy for Christmas Section: Features; Page 4, they discuss "CINEMA TODAY, EDWARD BUSCOMBE" in which they write, "This epic survey of post-1970 cinema is possibly the most addictive film book ever published. Wherever you open it, your eye is struck by an iconic or striking image. Uma Thurman projects a sultry stare from the poster of Pulp Fiction." That image already is in the article so it seems the article already has the iconic image of the movie Pulp Fiction. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Query There's a lot to deal with here, all of value. Let me take it one step at a time. I accept on principle that in the context of Wikipedia images, "iconic" is a term of art and needs support beyond personal opinion. However, the link you provide--Iconic images--does not actually describe any "requirements." Did you mean to link to something else? Assuming there are no specific requirements, the general requirement would be the claim must be verifiable and attributable. Which means that reliable sourcing must be produced if a challenge is made to the claim. Agreed?
  • Turning to this specific case: In the IfD, we find my claim that the image is iconic. Quadell, supporting deletion, counters, "If the image itself were iconic, you would think it would be discussed in the article." Eleland, supporting retention, takes action and adds a mention of the image's iconic status to the article. Now, I concede that it would have been smart for Eleland (or myself) to add a citation to a reliable source at that point. On the other hand, after Eleland's action, no one in discussion challenged the claim of iconicity. I ask you, as a matter of proper process according to policy, should not Nv8200p, in essence challenging the claim, have done so as part of discussion, allowing a response, rather than closing discussion and deleting on the basis that he did?—DCGeist 03:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requirement perhaps is too strong of word since most policies and guidelines are phrased in a kinder way, which is a feature unique to Wikipedia. The IfD could be considered the challenge. A need for reliable sources was more by logic (e.g. who decides something is iconic). A majority would agree that iconic be determined objectively. However, some may feel that Wikipedians should subjectively decide the issue. It can vary from XfD to XfD. The time to close that IfD had passed, it is presumed that everyone who wanted to comment did so, and Nv8200p stepped forward to close the discussion, which was reasonable. XfD's are tricky and to some extent an art form.
    harassment to see whether there was room for improvement. If there was, they would make the change. If not, they would privately chalk it up to a misunderstanding and move on. A trick to all this is not to be caught up in content and to be kind no matter how the other person acts. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Jref, first off, I do admire your kind and thoughtful approach. I'm, however, afraid I believe you are grievously mistaken when you assert that "most experienced Wikipedians" would have responded to WaltCip's special discount offer by expressing their appreciation and reading up on trolls and harassers. Honestly, it's a sweet thought, but I don't believe even you believe it. My response was both temperate and jocular--the best Wiki way. And Li'l Walter can come over to my place for pi any time.
  • Much of your response is focused on winning and losing and currying personal favor in order to achieve certain outcomes even when Wikipedia policy would indicate otherwise. Your concern, in other words, is politics. That's fine; it's a profession that on rare occasions is even honorable (see my heroes William Proxmire, Lowell Weicker, and Ted Weiss). It really does seem as if you're trying to help me in a certain way, and I appreciate the thought, but as it happens I've done a lot of real-life political work and I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia and I do have a sense of how things operate. Back to the present issue, I'll attempt to rephrase my query—not really addressed—for clarity...
  • (1) The admin was under no personal pressure to close the discussion. (2) He could see that there were several people supporting the retention of the image and at least one clearly willing to take active steps to bring the use of the image more into line with policy. (3) Feeling that the claim of iconicity--which was raised after IfD had begun--should be challenged and sourced, should he not have raised that in discussion, rather than raising the absence of a cited source only in the process of deleting? The evidence of what he did suggests that he in fact did not base his decision on a common sense assessment of the consensus in discussion, but on his personal assessment of the image's adherence to NFCC. Politics aside, that is a violation of deletion policy. It could have been entirely avoided if the admin had raised his concern in discussion. While five days had passed, there was on the one hand no emergency here, there was on the other hand an evident readiness to address concerns, and there was on the third hand (ahhh...) nothing at all close to an unmistakable consensus to delete, if anything the contrary.—DCGeist 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discount DCGeist's comments as
    harassment.--WaltCip 00:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Stop harassing the debaters with "Please read this policy" and I'll think about it. You only need to get your message across once.--WaltCip 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WaltCip, no need to make this personal. Please stick to the merits of the arguments, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per
    desat 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

28 August 2007

  • Ronen Segev – Converted into protected redirect, with consent of Jimbo. – Xoloz 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ronen Segev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

This should be fairly straightforward, hopefully. The page was apparently the victim of repeated attempts to insert a barely notable, unflattering incident into the bio. Since the article was a stub there were both WP:UNDUE and BLP issues. It survived

Ronen Segev be a protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics? He seems amenable to the idea (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev), but since I suspect he doesn't do much in the way of sysop housekeeping these days, I said I'd just bring it here. Cheers. --DeLarge 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Speedy close – Restoring talk page since main article is already restored. No DRV is actually necessary here; the nomination was only possible because the article was undeleted with no notification to the deleting admin. – — Carl (
    CBM · talk) 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Neapolitan Wikipedia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The talk page has claimed to be delted for a page that does not exist per

talk to me | my wiki life) 20:28, 28 August 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.
Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Arguments to keep are a stone's throw from

reliable sources. Assuming AfD really is not a vote, arguments to delete that point out the article's failure to meet basic policy/guidelines without sufficient -- in this case, much of any -- refutation should lead to that article's deletion. --EEMeltonIV 19:40, 28 August 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.
Media Publisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wow, what a frustrating process this is! This page was nominated for deletion a month or so ago, I exchanged some messages about it on this board, and an admin ended up closing the debate and reinstating the page. Now I check back and it's gone again! I can't find any more debate, and since the page is gone there's no Talk page. What happened?? EricAlderman 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. This is a review of Media Publisher AfD#1 since it was the last deletion event. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was previously deleted via the
    notability guidelines for inclusion. (For the record, I endorse the deletion as proper. Eluchil404 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse closure - the closer interpreted the Media Publisher AfD#1 discussion correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for explaining the process -- after I posted the above, I did find the page you refer to with the archived discussion. Unfortunately I had not checked the AfD pages during this period and so did not have an opportunity to respond while several people voted for deletion and "consensus" was reached. I have read the
    notability page quite carefully. Can I ask for the basis of the objection of lack of notability? Is it because a) the coverage is not "significant", b) the sources are not "reliable", or c) the sources are not "independant" of the subject? In terms of "significant coverage", the standard is "more than trivial but less than exclusive." Most of the links provided as sources fit that definition just fine. The standard for "reliable sources" are those with editorial integrity. Again, the websites and periodicals quoted met that bar. Finally, none of the articles cited lacked "independance" of the subject; they were articles in magazines, not ads, press releases, etc. Also: what exactly is meant by the comment "another small company", or using 165 as some magic number about Google hits? Is there some set of unwritten rules somewhere the rest of us should know about? EricAlderman 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It actually says "Trivial or incidental coverage", and I think this coverage can be considered incidental as it only has passing mentions of the company. Anyways, the sum of the information of the articles about Media Publisher is...
  • VBrick in the first quarter plans to ship a video encoder appliance with integrated management software from Media Publisher Inc. After it’s been installed centrally and at remote locations, the appliance can digitize, compress and decompress video feeds for WAN transmissions. Media Publisher CEO Rod Bacon says massive video broadcasts of events to PCs will be possible. “We all see that having large-scale events is the golden chalice,” he says. The goal is 100,000-plus seats. “That’s pretty challenging,” admits Howard — especially over a WAN.
  • ...says Steve Pattison, vp of marketing and business development of Media Publisher, a video-on-demand and Web-casting company
  • But now that it has a software platform from Media Publisher to manage the video content and broadcast it over its network, it's looking to do more fast-turnaround video, such as analysts commenting on market events for investment advisers and even VIP customers
  • The university pushed an e-learning initiative based on Media Publisher's video and web conferencing technology to help students with housing and transportation issues.
  • Lamar administrative staff use a number of web conferencing applications, including Media Publisher, whose logging capability can generate reports that show who has looked at an archived video training segment and for how long.
I just don't think anyone can write an article based on a couple short mentions from a few publications. Wickethewok 00:26, 31 August 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.
Reality film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe that the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film misinterpretated the debate as "no consensus." There was a consensus to delete the article because it's about a neologism. Pixelface 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. AFD showed consensus (which would have been 7-4 if someone had told me about the AFD), and the majority's arguments were based on policy. The article's sources are gamed, and no two use the neologism the same way. Endorse closure as no consensus Per Arkyan and to avoid a fuss. The article is as good as it will get, and it can be deleted in a month when it doesn't improve. THF 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (changed 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, I believe that there are no valid reasons to question the actions of the closing admin. If he came to the conclussion that there was no consensus then let it be. Tony the Marine 16:02, 28 August 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.
Within a Deep Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Much more notable now than when deleted. 30,000+ google hits. There are also articles relating to this at Knytt and Nifflas that pass notability guidelines, so this should too. Phyte 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a review of the 21 June 2007 delete +cascading protection. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • biographies of living persons compliance are reasonably in dispute. Per the recommendation of the ArbCom, the article Caitlin Upton (for which this request was brought) will be restored, protected blank with history available, and listed at AfD. Suggestions for potential improving revisions to the article may be made during the AfD at the article's talk page. – Xoloz 02:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Lauren caitlin upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This needs a full discussion. It appears to have been speedy deleted without an AfD. Miss Teen South Carolina, 3rd runner up for 2007 Miss Teen USA and a huge internet sensation (over 2 6 7 9 10 million youtube hits) due to her interesting answer during a Q&A. Was the primary subject of multiple secondary pieces by reliable sources like

People Magazine [33] and a host of other TV and print media (Google news search). This is NOT a private individual, either before or after the speech. An embarrassed one, maybe, but not private. --Oakshade 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closer This is a review of Dweller's 15:19, 26 August 2007 speedy deletion of Caitlin Upton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since Caitlin Upton was the only article posted before the !votes started. The remaining articles above were added to the nomination well after editors !voted. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Today, August 28, 2007, she is in the news "Miss Teen South Carolina makes her mark with flubbed response to geography question." -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD - That would actually seem to be "no, it's not":
  • --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: it's funny how you say that "[w]inning the state title seems in this event seems to be claim of importance accepted at AFD," considering that you participated in the DRV seeking to overturn all of the above. --Calton | Talk 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've participated in hundreds of DRVs... believe it or not I don't really remember how most of them turned out off the top of my head, I don't follow them that closely. As for the AFDs... a lot were closed due to lack of sources, which isn't the case here. I just don't understand this obsession with getting rid of articles where we have plenty of sources... way too anti-content for me. --W.marsh 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really remember how most of them turned out - And yet you felt entirely comfortable making a bald factual assertion not actually based on the facts. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this, court? I don't want to further respond to this kind of abuse. --W.marsh 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out that you were not only wrong but should have known so is "abuse"? Using actual evidence makes this a courtroom? --Calton | Talk 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If this article is going to be deleted, then so does the article about Ghyslain Raza (see
    Star Wars kid). There is not more to discuss other than the fact that he has an article about him, so should she. He is famous because he was was made a fool of. He had no accomplishments prior to this, unlike her who had won the South Carolina Miss Teen USA. The end result, if her article is to be deleted, so should his. Claim that one-idiotic-incident does not viable notability make, but Ghyslain only had one-idiotic-incident. End all arguments Tdwinz711 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Have a read of
    this, Your Lordship, before banging down that gavel. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes Mr. Know-It-All I have, have you read of
      this) I was merely referencing another article that can be used as a comparison. Subjectivity needs reference points, agree? Also, you should read the introduction to that essay as it makes the statement "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." But then again, that is me reading the whole thing and not just the parts that I believe apply... Tdwinz711 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • ...have you read of
    this, or this? - No, M'Lord, I haven't, but since they have no bearing on what passes for your argument nor on your declaration of unconditional victory, I'm not seeing the point here. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - that makes the video/speech notable but not her per se. And that's why we have Miss Teen USA 2007#Final Competition that covers it. It probably should have its own section in that article named accordingly.--Svetovid 09:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that the original deletion of
talk • contribs 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Understood. It had been recreated since then when circumstances very much changed, ie multiple secondary sources about this topic. It's that recent speedy deletion is what's at issue.--Oakshade 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There's at least enough doubt here to knock this out of the speedy realm. Personally, I think her gaffe is embarrassing, but not serious enough for BLP. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Millions of views online, most popular video online for quite a while, multiple TV appearances, and a beauty pageant runner up. She's notable enough. Vptes1 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion,
    desat 09:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"... would not survive AFD'" is a pure WP:CRYSTAL statement. WP:BLP1E applies to "essentially low profile people" in which someone who, as already Miss South Carolina Teen, willingly participates in a nationally televised national beauty contest is not. WP:NOT#NEWS is not criteria to speedy delete an article. --Oakshade 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll withhold my delete argument until this is listed on AFD and deleted like the rest of the beauty pageant contestant articles. --
desat 19:04, 31 August 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 universities that offer the PPE degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

First off, I disagree with the closer of the initial deletion debate who found that "consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory." Review the debate yourself and I think you will find that the comments are rather mixed in their support the of deletion. I also disagree with the deletion itself. While Wikipedia certainly isn't a directory it does contain numerous lists of notable items which pertain to an entry including the List of library and information science programs, which is obviously very similar to the PPE list (disclosure: I did recently update the library programs entry). I would also argue the sheer utility (which several members argued in the initial debate) of the PPE list. PPE is an unusual major and, as such, no list of programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the PPE programs are small, not very well publicized, and, at times go by other names, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a PPE list. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a PPE program will naturally find the PPE entry and list and would likely contribute the programs they know of. Furthermore, the frequent additions of program information to the main PPE entry (which is exactly what I did) indicates there is a definite interest in a PPE list. The deletion of this article has not merely destroyed unique and useful information but has prevented and continues to prevent the creation of such information. -- Patrick Mhnin0 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Croatophobia – Deletion endorsed. – Daniel 02:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

Many will say that this is typical nationalistic story. In the end this is true but my problem is that wikipedia must be neutral because of what it is not possible that she has article

Yugoslav wars. To show examples of Croatophobia I am giving this 2 links which has been in article (I have forget others..): [47] (Croats do not exist but they are catholic Serbs) and [48] (on Croato-Serbian) order to Serbian media for not writing Croat forces but Ustaša hordes. Better sources are in new article deleted yesterday but...Article which is deleted yesterday is similar to article deleted before bit it is different article !! To say simple my position we need to have both articles or both must be deleted. Any other solution is POV.Rjecina 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note This is a review of the 27 August 2007 Speedy Delete.
Note - This newsarticle uses "Croatophobia", as in "None of that has been altered by the fact that in the meantime France, under the leadership of President Chirac, has also distanced itself from the Yugoslav complex, with its pronounced Serbophilia and elements of Croatophobia, which had its roots in the anti-German movement created in 1919 in Versailles." -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Lynette Nusbacher – Deletion endorsed. There is consensus to keep this article deleted, and this decision also comes into effect. – Daniel 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

(debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject)

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

27 August 2007

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

I just realized that you deleted the page "Seth Sieunarine". Though Seth has not done much acting anymore, he did in fact appear on two episodes of "Family Matters" when he was younger, and he continues to advertise for his country of Trinidad and Tobago. I understand that he has not done a whole lot in the acting career but I ask that you please not delete his page from wikipedia as he continues to be a model and icon for his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Thank you! 65.95.76.52 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Regardless of how the folks in T&T respect this fellow, his role as a television actor was trivial, and fails notability criteria. Shalom Hello 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Still no sources. Valid AFD that was closed 2 days ago. Wickethewok 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion subject isn't notable enough for inclusion. Plus, the only participants at the AFD supported deletion.
    Go Red Sox! 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Colemak – Deletion endorsed; however, article unprotected to permit sourced rewrite. – Xoloz 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Colemak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article on a new and increasingly popular keyboard layout, an alternative to

Ubuntu[50]. Usage figures are hard to verify but it has an active user forum with just under 200 members[51] which is pretty popular as far as alternative keyboard layouts go. Qwfpg 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. It seems to me that Colemak's claim to notability rests almost entirely on its inclusion in Ubuntu and X11: practically all other references to it that I can find are personal blogs and self-published articles that do not meet
jammycakes (t)(c) 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I would suggest that this be allowed for re-creation, and see what the requester can do with the article. Worst case, it has to go through articles for deletion. As this is a keyboard format, the inclusion of it into several high profile linux items is notable (in my eyes), and I'm sure that if someone searched the ubuntu formuns and developer lists, one might run across more sorces as to why its notable. (someone had to convince the ubuntu people to include it. Worst case is the article has to be re-deleted, no biggie. ——
Need help? 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • talk) 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tourettes Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The

internet phenomena. Please take the time to review this issue and not take it lightly, a petition with over 11 thousand signitures is more than enough to at the very least unprotect the article for recreation. --Joebengo 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per every one of the many other debates, which were usually unanimous or nearly so. STILL no reliable sources, just like every other time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, still no new information, still no sources. Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion "internet phenomenon" is an arbitrary and meaningless term and it's difficult to imagine a version of this article that wouldn't qualify for
    WP:CSD#G10 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG – Deletion endorsed. Commenters should note that the "deletion instructions" cited by DRV nominator are not policy, and are subservient to WP:NFCC. Fair use is a legal concern, and Wikipedia will not permit a "consensus" that would violate the law. – Xoloz 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IfD
)

I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, two objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was--I believe it's more than safe to say--no consensus to delete. In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Endorse (as deletor). DCGeist brought this to my attention on my talk page before listing this here, and here's a mildly reworded version of what I said there: The image was nominated for deletion for failing NFCC #8. There were "keep" comments that referenced various aspects of the images, but no comments that gave any clear reasoning of why anything shown in the image was (a) important in the article, and (b) depicting information that could not be portrayed by words alone. Several comments defended the use of screenshots in general, and I think a video screenshot could pass NFCC #8 in this article, but the screenshot chosen does not. (Nothing in this screenshot was mentioned in the article.) Of the comments made that adequately considered NFCC #8, none argued in favor of keeping the image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I understand the complaint that editorial usefulness is in the eyes of the beholder, but it seems from the discussion that the relevant article can manage without this NFCC item. Shalom Hello 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is no sourced critical commentary on the image included in the article or real discussion of the screenshot, which causes the image to fail NFCC #8 for lack of significance to the article. The NFCC policy does trump the deletion guidelines. -
    talk 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the
    talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Again, the
talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

OverturnI'm really disturbed to see that contributions to debates in the Image Deletion process may not be taken seriusly. I believe the policy is that an image is not to be deleted unless there's no objection to its deletion or unless there's a consensus to delete based on contributors' judgments as expressed in the debate. That policy seems to have been contradicted here. Pretty clear-cut, I think.DocKino 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. This may just be my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the "no objections" thing refers more to free images, whose retention is solely reliant on editorial discretion. Non-free images have to meet
    WP:NFCC in addition to this. The deleting admin made a good policy-based call. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Bjlata1.jpg – Deletion overturned. There was a remotely reasonable rationale offered for fair use; I don't think I would have accepted it, had I closed, but it was not an absurd argument. Consensus below is that IfD closer, as a participant in the debate, was not in a position to close. – Xoloz 00:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IfD
)

This is a similar case to that above, but even more significant. I believe this image was improperly deleted in contravention of the following primary and emphatic instruction in

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Instructions for administrators: "Before deleting an image, make sure of the following...No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." In fact, many objections to the image's deletion were raised in IfD and there was clearly no consensus to delete. In addition, deleting admin had participated in the discussion and entered a vote; deletion thus contravened the basic deletion guideline
: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

In deleting, only a personal opinion about the content of the debate was offered as rationale--"Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone." Deleting on that basis obviously values an administrator's personal opinion about a subjective matter over the clear language of the instruction (and, obviously, over the opinion of most of those involved in the debate). In addition, it was never claimed--neither at the point of nomination nor deletion--that the image failed the sort of objectively testable requirement that might reasonably trump administrators' instruction.—DCGeist 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Admin clearly deleted in contravention of two of our fundamental procedural guidelines and actually voted him/herself in the debate, then offered only a personal opinion in explanation. This sort of behavior should no longer be allowed nor encouraged. Badagnani 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as deletor) - This wasn't an easy decision, but here is my reasoning. Of the people who stated that the image should be deleted, all gave the same reason: the image doesn't pass
    WP:NFCC#8 (i.e. it doesn't give important encyclopedic information beyond what can be portrayed through text alone). Five people stated this, including four who are have dealt extensively with our non-free content policy for at least the last six months. The fifth was a new-ish user who has !voted "keep" on nearly every other image deletion debate he participated in, but stated "I am in favour of interpreting WP:NFCC#8 generously, but I can't stretch it enough to cover this example." Of those who argued that the image should not be deleted, different reasons were proffered. Charcorath said that the way he looked then is different from the way he looks now, and that this is notable. (In response, it was noted that there was no sourced commentary on this difference in appearance in the article.) Cricket, the uploader, explicitly disagreed with the previous "keep" reason, but advocated keeping the image because it showed the subject at a notable concert. Two other users seemed to agree with Cricket in this. (Several users countered that nothing in the image indicates what particular concert was shown.) One user seemed to advocate keeping the image merely because it was used in a featured article, which I deemed irrelevant. Among those advocating "keep", all were relative newcomers to our policy, and had not dealt extensively with these issues for more than a week or two at most. This doesn't invalidate their opinions at all, but I think it's reasonable to put more weight on comments from those who have shown a long-standing interest in, and understanding of, our policy. In the end, it was a borderline case, but I believe I made the right call. It wasn't my "personal opinion" that the image doesn't show encyclopedic information beyond what can be conveyed by text; it was that no "keep" advocate offered any explanation of what encyclopedic information this picture shows that couldn't be conveyed by words alone. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and let somebody else close. Once one has particpated in a dispute, there is no way to ensure the best of us can always be objective in judging the result. That's why we have the rule, and with 1200 admins, there is no reason to ever have any exceptions. Relist, and let someone else close. DGG (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There is a minimal difference between "voting then closing" and simply "closing". Unconsciously or not, you are inserting your own judgment into the decision (i.e. if it's a close call between "no consensus" and "delete" - which it wasn't in this case, incidentally - someone who would have voted "delete" in the argument will be more likely to delete, and vice versa). Quadell was not highly invested in this argument (he made only 1 comment, the vote to delete), which is what the rule was meant to stop (an admin closing a debate in which he was heavily involved - not the case here). The debate looked relatively straightforward to me, and therefore while this decision might be more "controversial", it wasn't a "wrong" decision. And finally, this looks like a case of sour grapes on the part of the nominator - would he have been so keen to point out this technical policy violation had Quadell closed the debate with "no consensus"? ugen64 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howzat? "Sour grapes"? Sweet! Great job making this debate personal, Ugenny ol' sport! I took this to deletion review because (a) I believe the image serves/served a valuable purpose on Wikipedia and (b) I believe it was improperly deleted per our rules. If I believed only (a), I would not have brought this matter here because I would be flouting the clearly stated rules of this review process. If I believed only (b), I would not have brought this matter here because I would be flouting the spirit of
WP:POINT
. Clear enough for ya there, buddy? Great.
Now, as for your other observations: You've focused on the guideline, when the primary issue here is the clear and emphatic language of the administrators' instruction. Next: If you're going to tote up the deleting admin's contribution to the argument to make a point, please do take the effort to make a correct count--there was not "only 1" such "investment", but 2: [53] and [54]. (Yes, I know the admin forgot to sign the second one--but then I didn't try to score points off the number of his comments. That's your game.) Moving on: As you examined this debate that looked so "straightforward" to you, did it or did it not look very straightforward to you that there were multiple objections to deletion and no consensus to delete? Finally: "Technical policy violation"? Ahhhh. As opposed to what other sort of "policy violation"? How about a "substantive policy violation"? That's what I'd call this one. But I gather you don't believe any policy violations are substantive, just li'l ol' technical hiccups. God forgive you if you ever dare quote policy to anyone when it happens to suit you, chuckles.—DCGeist 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's keep this friendly as long as possible, please. I have no doubt that this DRV request was made in good faith, and I think this would all go smoother if we don't take these comments personally. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The DRV nominator is placing a guideline over policy. -
    talk 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

OverturnAgain, how to interpret this policy of image value is open to interpretation. That's why we have a debate on it. And that's why we don't delete unless there's a consensus to delete. if the admin's opinion was all that counted, we wouldn't need a process at all.DocKino 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. This may just be my interpretation, but I'm pretty sure the "no objections" thing refers more to free images, whose retention is solely reliant on editorial discretion. Non-free images have to meet
    WP:NFCC in addition to this. The deleting admin made a good policy-based call in regards to NFCC#1 and #8; I don't see any problem in his having commented in the discussion. His opinion on the image would presumably have been the same whether or not he had commented on the image prior to deciding in favor of its deletion. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse - Quadell's analysis of the given arguments is convincing, and I am reassured that, though he participated in the debate, he was able to critically analyze the debate. I may or may not disagree with his decision, but I do not think it would be appropriate to overturn. --Iamunknown 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - this is part of a pattern of behaviour on Quadell's to delete images after participating in the discussion. Guettarda 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide links to several other IFD discussions that Quadell has participated in and closed to support your statement of a pattern. -
    talk 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Need help? 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
RSC Equipment Rental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to correct it Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic deleted the article suggesting it was "blatant advertising". This was not my intent. I've not been able to reach Cryptic, and I'd at least like the chance to update the content to steer it away from an "advertising" feel. Thanks, Areesssea 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation and possibly provide the previous article to the requester above as the starting point for a rewrite. RSC is a large player in the equipment rental industry, with more than 500 outlets in North America; it's listed on the NYSE (had an IPO earlier this year) and had revenues of upwards of $1.6 billion last year. I'm fairly sure it's notable enough for an article. I can't see the previous version, but it sounds like this may have been deleted quickly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Any company on the NYSE is notable; certainly this one (NYSE code: RRR). Here's the proof. Shalom Hello 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This deletion was done back in october 2006. Of course if you can write a better article you are more then allowed to do so, you are encouraged! I will undelete the page to your subspace if you would like to have it. The article will need some
    Need help? 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

26 August 2007

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

On 22:07, 28 May 2007,

Phil Sandifer deleted all existing revisions of this article and restarted it as a stub, allegedly because "months of edits... contained a keyword used to search for child pornography, labeled as such". Sandifer asserts that "Because of the GFDL's requirement for article history" he "could not keep a current version with that line deleted..." Talk:Child_pornography#Restarted. However, instead of deleting all revisions of the article, Phil Sandifer should have only deleted the first revision containing the offending keyword, and all versions subsequent to it, preserving all previous revisions, and their GFDL-required attribution. The hard work of the numerous users researching and writing this article should not be gratuitiously destroyed. KevinJames9872 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Overturn looks like a very stupid thing to do. But is DRV the right forum for this?  Grue  18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD), are far less important than the substantive question of whether all revisions of the article prior to 22:07, 28 May 2007 should remain deleted. KevinJames9872 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I think anyone with a bit of common sense will agree that it is inappropriate to nuke the article because of the single word contained within it. What was wrong with having it in deleted revisions? The mind boggles.  Grue  18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom. ugen64 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, every revision including and before 23:56 25 January 2006 should be restored. ugen64 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is correct that only revisions subsequent to this time contained the keyword, I would not oppose undeleting the history prior to that point and merging it into the current article. WjBscribe 19:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: Per [55], further dispute of this deletion should be addressed to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored. WjBscribe 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:ILIKEIT aren't going to gather enough consensus to overturn this deletion. The deletion, was to say the least, a very tough decision by the closing administator. In addition, the issue of the page title can be settled elsewhere. — Moe ε 01:38, 27 August 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 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD
)

This is not to rehash the arguments over whether BJAODN should exist or not, but a very specific question about whether the MfD closure was proper and in accordance with consensus. I believe it was not - firstly, it is very clear on reading that there was no consensus of any kind, even those that agreed on one position or another weren't agreeing with each other. Furthermore, the unilateral decision to move the main page to "Silly Things" by the closing admin not only did not have any consensus, but wasn't discussed or even raised, and smells somewhat of ruling from above. I would not have acted had this not become the basis of a potential move war, using the MfD closure as a basis to proceed in a direction which the community would not have even anticipated. I think everyone said what they had to about BJAODN in the original MfD, so there is no need for this to become yet another debate about it, and once debate is concluded here, that matter can hopefully be put to rest. Orderinchaos 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should surprise nobody that this was one of the hardest closes I've ever done as an administrator. And, as Orderinchaos points out, there were elements of the close that did not come up in the MfD - the list of pages spared was entirely my own, and the moving of the page in order to forcibly deprecate and make the point that BJAODN as we know it ought not return was not proposed by anyone. However, as I said in the close, there was no possibility of a close that would satisfy everybody, or even necessarily satisfy most people. I do believe that I closed the MfD in a way that gave proper respect to all factions of the community on this issue. In a case as vexed as this, that is as close to consensus as can be hoped for.
    Phil Sandifer 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse close. Seeing as that seems the easy way out of more drama. Moreschi Talk 15:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN this deletion review — oh, wait ... Cyde Weys 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dis-Endorse Close - Overturn and Relist Twenty Years 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any reasons for wanting this? --Cyde Weys 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from the fact that i think without it, wikipedia is losing all sense of charm, no, not a single reason. Twenty Years 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia though, not a charmpedia. I don't see what a sense of charm has to do with it. It was established during the MFD that the existence of BJAODN was having negative repercussions on vandalism. Anyway, the "best of" subpages are still around, and those are much higher quality than the original spread out subpages anyway. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Encyclopedia" is a one-word descriptor. Let's not give too much weight to a single word, which cannot possibly facilitate the retention of 2 million very different articles. BJAODL was the only page of its kind, and policies, mission statements, etc. generally are not modified to account for single pages; making the occasional exception makes much more sense. The page was also located in Wikipedia-space, and you will find close to zero articles in Wikipedia-space which would be found in an encyclopedia. — xDanielx T/C 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, close this Ah, the inevitable has come but there is no way this will turn into anything other than a nasty, ugly mess of no consensus. GDonato (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. For the record, Sandifer scooped me on closing that MfD by just a few minutes. My close would have been similar: I would have acknowledged that the community expressed very significant concern over the copyright issue (which Sandifer dismissed) but otherwise, action-wise, I agree with Sandifer on all the important points... and we have to realize that, as he said, no close was going to satisfy everyone. Mangojuicetalk 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure GFDL violations and
    talk) 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse BJAODN is an oasis for GFDL vios, and seems to be something of an apex for vandals if they are included. It needs to go. –Animum 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Whoever closed it knew full well that whoever closed the MFD would be immediately reviewed here on DRV. Phil's closure while not 100% what I wanted, does do the job.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we doing this again?? --ST47Talk·Desk 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I presented my reasons for believing that whilst GFDL was not a concern, BJAODN was sadly, best let go of. I felt that
    User:Phil Sandifer
    's closing statement was a good reflection of the matter, and acknowledge many liked those pages, and community fun is a Good Thing. This review is not about BJAODN but about the process though. There are only two issues here at DRV that I'm aware of:
  1. First DRV concern: The purpose of process is to ensure matters have a good hearing, and that the community has at least spoken enough to have some representative sense of the views. With some 8 or 10 discussions, and much activity over the last 2 weeks, there can be little doubt that the majority of those who track BJAODN or are interested in expressing an opinion have had good chances to do so, and those who wished to have spoken. If not all, then surely enough to be taken as reasonably representative of the community in their views. This was after all the 2nd listing in that short time after the mass deletion and 1st DRV of 14th August. So the first thought is, the community (or a large part of those who wish to) has stated its views and had fair chance to do so. The raw views posted at MFD are probably fairly comprehensive and representative, and the views listed there probably do represent the range and the balance of views in the community. So my first thought is, I don't think another xFD is needed to obtain more or different views. I think it's likely we have successfully obtained wide and representative consultation.
  2. Second DRV concern: is the close a fair one that is based upon and takes into account the full range of MFD comments left by these editors? And here I think it is. The close is a good one; the issues in discussion do come down to personal like on one side, and consistency with Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on the other. It's a tough call but concerns over possible negative impacts of BJAODN on the project (glorification of vandalism etc) sadly probably do override the keep views of the humor pages, as the closer says. If there was a strong majority of keep/like at MFD, then I would say there was a doubt - but in fact upon checking I find there isn't. For whatever reason the (slightly stronger? much stronger? stronger either way) view on the MFD seems to also be leaning towards deletion, and these often cite and reflect editors' concerns of genuine issues - GFDL, promotion of vandalism, etc, as well as a fair number of IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly a number see them as non funny and a problem/embarrassment/policy issue for the wiki.
Conclusion: the MFD has surely been seen by enough of the community for the views stated to represent communal views. Those views lead to the closer's accurate comment: ILIKEIT vs. concerns over impact on the the project (whether vandalism incitement, policy/gfdl issues, or poor/embarrassing reflection on the site). The closer has (probably wisely) set aside GFDL !delete concerns as being outside the community's expertize, and instead balances concerns over possible negative impact on the encyclopedia against humor value... and there is no strong majority of KEEPers to set against this, as might be relevant to (what is at the end of the day) basically a set of community humor pages. In fact there seems to be a majority for deletion. Probably poorly worded here, but that's the view I obtain of this close. BJAODN has borderlined it a few times; the consensus seems to be based of good quality wide consultation, and a conclusion that in the eyes of the community the concerns are real, significant, and enduring. To close on a basis that "it's good humor" doesn't outweigh that, seems a reasonable view. So for me, I endorse. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Empornium – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably sourced, NPOV rewrite. – Xoloz 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Empornium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1|AfD 2|AfD 3)

I realize there was probably consensus to delete the article, but here some sources giving significant coverage - Link1, Link2, Link3, Link4 Corpx 05:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As deleted, the article contained no sources. A rewrite with sources might fare better, and the addition of sources to address the cause for deletion should exempt it from CSD G4. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources brought up in the latest AfD were thin; Corpx's are slightly better. However, since it seems there is no coverage of Empornium not related to the Targetpoint takeover/controversy, I'm dubious that there will be enough to really write an article. That said, if someone wants to try, I would suggest trying in userspace first, and starting from scratch to ensure verifiability (the former version seems to have included lots of stuff not in the sources). Mangojuicetalk 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it seems clear that this article was deleted simply by attrition (3rd time lucky). Several sources were presented over the course of 3 AfDs, so there's no point in keeping it deleted.  Grue  18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, consensus at AfD was clear, and at least three of the "sources" brought up are from p2pnet. I see no indication that p2pnet undergoes fact-checking or editorial control, or meets any other standards of a
    reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion - no reliable sources, no article. Moreschi Talk 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate the article for which the deletion arguments are not valid without having a deletion review.
    Atropos 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Edison Medal – Restored by deleting admin – Joe 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

Appears to have been deleted with zero discussion. There were over 50 incoming links. I only discovered it when a redirect I created to the article was being deleted. Speedy deletion is becoming a back door way to delete articles without any oversight or consensus at all. No discussion is required, and no oversight is in place. There needs to be some sort of review or you need to have at least three admin people vote to have a speedy. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as moot. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs), the deleting administrator, has restored the article, and his comment at Talk:Edison medal implies he is content for the article to remain. Speedies are tolerated, in part, because they are easy to reverse. Richard should comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if he is not happy with the current deletion process. EdJohnston 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's true, but it should be said that in this case deletion was plainly inconsistent with
      A7able. Joe 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:AFD as those two places are where non-speedies are re-considered. – Splash - tk 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Splash - tk 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:

Current Opinion in Biotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

Current Opinion in Cell Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Current Opinion in Chemical Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)
Current Opinion in Pharmacology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)
Current Opinion in Neurobiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)
Current Opinion in Plant Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)
Current Opinion in Structural Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

Reasons for deleting it were completely ignored--all were created as ads by single purpose accounts over a period of two days, main article listing all exists. KP Botany 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't decide to "Keep" I decided not to speedy delete. There is a world of difference. Yes the sub articles were created by the company, but note that the main article was not. Even though a spammer created the page i felt that they might still be useful to the encylopedia. It seems silly to speedy delete pages a year after they were created. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing deletions. There has been no dleletion or even a deletion debate. All that happened was that I renmoved some speedy tags you added. And quite frankly you constant statement that I want ot give a spammer a break is bloody rude. I've blocked more spammers than you've ad 'ot dinners.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your only evidence that you offer that these are not spammers is the length of time they have been up on Wikipedia. But there is no criterion on Wikipedia anywhere that something that should never have been on Wikipedia in the first place (generally candidates for speedy deletion) should be kept because it has been there for a long time. It didn't gain anything by being here for longer than it should have been, except for possibly more free adverisements for the spammers. KP Botany 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the reason you didn't send it to AFD is you can't work out how to do it. If you weren't being to nasty to me I'd help you do it, but I'm not going to discuss it here at deletion review. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You told me "If you feel that strongly about it ask another admin for a review."[56] And now you're insulting me here and on AN/I for not being able to do an AfD. I know that AfD is NOT where I get "another admin for a review," this is where I get another administrator to review a deletion. You misdirected me and are now mocking me for following your misdirection, so to come up now and tell me that if I had been nicer you would have helped me is not something I choose to believe. KP Botany 01:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

25 August 2007

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

Work_In_Progress PatA51 19:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Carlossuarez46 (Talk . Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PatA51 19:52, 25 August 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.
Original IfD proceeding
)
(1) This image has been in the public domain in the United States since 1962-63 because its copyright expired 28 years after its original publication date (1934), and thus is available for use by anyone including Wikipedia.

(2) This image has been in the public domain in the European Union since 2004, because the copyright expired 70 years after its original publication date (1934).

(3) The virtually unanimous consensus was to KEEP this image, and it was arbitrarily deleted by the closing administrator without regard to any evidence presented supporting its public domain status. The

Image-for-deletion proceeding was closed with the words "Deleted, evidently not a free image." It is not a "free-licensed" image, but rather, a public domain image, to which no person or organization presently holds rights to control under copyright law in the US and the EU. Kenosis 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm afraid not. Even if 70yrs.p.m.a. were the correct standard, this image is public domain in the US for over 40 years now. But, photographer's actual identity must be publicly disclosed according to EU law, otherwise it's 70 years after publication. You can't keep an "author", the natural person who took the photo, secret from the public, but rather it must be disclosed, so it's 70 yrs. after publication. The source of the now-deleted images, with the long obsolete copyright in the USA and recently obsolete copyright in the European Union, is: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1936/oneill-autobio.html ... Kenosis 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It' a shame that the comprehension of copyright law and the capacity for logical deduction are so scarce on WP. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's unfortunate there are so many misconceptions and myths about the basics of copyright and public domain, etc., that work their way around the wiki. But this can change quite readily, given adequate focus and some additional time. At present, public-domain material (read that: "free material available for use by anybody who wants to in whatever way they want") is often squeezed out quite unnecessarily, while "free-license" is oft-mistaken and oft-misrepresented, and also very commonly has more restrictions on it than either public domain material or "fair-use" of copyrighted material. IMO that's the shame at present. Logical deduction, on the other hand, depends on the information input (I'm reminded of the old saw about "garbage in -- garbage out" that was oft-quoted in information technology circles for quite a number of years). Here, I think it's mainly only a matter of straightening out the facts and copyright rules so more WP users are aware, especially as regards the requirement that US copyright renewals of the 1923-1963 publications be registered in order to extend copyright beyond 28 years from date of original publication -- today those records are online for most everything important to us in WP for that time period as regards still-photography images. And, as a practical matter, virtually no one renewed copyright to individual photographs back in those days, because the emphasis was more on who owned the photographic "negative", unlike today. As to the 70yrs.p.m.a. mistake w.r.t. non-attributed and corporate works-for-hire where there's no publicly disclosed natural person as the author, I suppose I'd say "D'oh"-- I'll readily admit I've been at least equally well fooled many times in the past, at least until I was familiar with the appropriate information in order to correct the situation. Myself, helping to correct the situation is about all I aim to do here. ... Kenosis 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as obviously in the public domain unless credible evidence of renewal can be found, and flagrant disregard for consensus by the closing admin. Evouga 18:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Per EU regulations, as a pseudonymous or anonymous work (i.e., a work of what in the U.S. is called "corporate authorship," in which the actual individual executor of the work was not disclosed), prima facie the work has been public domain in the EU since January 2007. More significant, given the location of Wikipedia servers, is its status in the U.S. Per the evidence of the Nobel organization's own site, as confirmed by a search of copyright renewal records (see original IfD proceeding), the weight of evidence clearly indicates that the original 1936 copyright was not renewed, meaning the work has been in the public domain in the U.S. since January 1965.—DCGeist 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This is clearly in the public domain under both US and EU law. JoshuaZ
  • Overturn As I've pointed out elsewhere there is absolutely no evidence (as in none, nada, zilch) that the image is not PD; in fact all evidence supports the fact that it is PD. There is clearly a need on WP for some training in copyright law. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There's something to be said for assuming the worst case scenario in matters of copyright law, but if nobody can find evidence that copyright was renewed... -Amarkov moo! 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, as nominator. The standard of proof being asked, in order to satisfy at least some WP users that it is in the public domain, is stricter than the standard that applies to convicting and executing an accused murderer. Plenty of evidence was offered in support of its public domain status, and no evidence was offered in support of a continued copyright beyond 28-years in the United States (i.e., 1963 expiration of copyright in the US) or beyond 70-years in the European Union (late-2006 expiration of copyright in the EU). ... Kenosis 21:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you correctly recognised the beyond an unreasonable doubt mentality. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both on procedural grounds (although involved in the deletion debate, Quadell closed the debate and deleted the image despite there being a clear consensus to keep) and on the factual grounds raised by Kenosis and others - we don't use "absolute and complete certainty" as grounds for any decision (certainly not in the case of allegedly GFDL images uploaded by pseudonymous editors). An excellent case has been made that this image (and others like it) are PD. Guettarda 06:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow, I hadn't noticed that Quadell had been involved in the discussion. Sigh. JoshuaZ 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Inkulab – Deletion overturned. The first AfD (in which commenters admitted confusion) based its decision on a mistaken assumption regarding the author's alternative names; therefore, this is a case of clear error. Relisting at AfD is by editorial option. – Xoloz 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Inkulab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Misunderstanding of the alternate spelling of this Tamil writer's name. The article itself said that his name is also spelt as Inquilab and Ingulab, but the people who discussed on it seemed to be missed this point. The references contained published journal article and many news articles. Unfortunately I am not able to get into the article to get the sources and list it here. But what is heartachening is that if a journal can accept a paper on commentary of Inkulab's play how come he be considered as not so notable? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 13:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion That's just one link and I do not think it gives "significant coverage" to give notability to undelete this article. While it does review his play, I just dont feel like that's giving "significant coverage" to him Corpx 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the links. The original entry had a few news articles too. I do not have access to view them. Moreover in the discussion page it was indeed mentioned by someone that Tamil language is not well represented in the English media. When Inkulab/Inquilab is mentioned in the English news, he is never given an introduction on who he is or anything and JUST GETS mentioned. It is pretty obvious given that he needs no introduction that he is well known. His works often make to the English media too[57], [58] and a few more mentioned in the earlier wikipedia entry. I would ask for reasoning here that if he is not prominent would his opinion actually matter in showing clemency to assasins of a
former Prime Minister of India. His opinions are often mentioned in the English media without being introduced formally on who he is. [59]. Cheers! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I think your position is already clear as the nominator :) Corpx 14:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the reasons mentioned above are legitimate.Wiki Raja 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Propellerhead Software – Overturned, rewritten articles that address the original reason for deletion are ineligible for CSD G4 – Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

I am placing this here because I am getting nowhere with it, and wanted to bring it to the attention of a larger group of people.

Over the past week or so I have been working on

Propellerhead Software
. This page has repeatedly been created and deleted, but as far as I can tell, in the past it HAS been a rather poor article.

However, on August 12th I recreated this article and worked hard on it over the next few days. I created what I believed was a relatively good article. However, on 23rd August it was speedily deleted, which I believe was unfair, because this could only happen because it had been speedily deleted before. Reason G4 was given, but this states that articles which are substantially identical to the original can be considered for speedy deletion. I requested that the page be restored to give me a chance to add some references. It was and I did this, making what I thought was an excellent article.

The reasons given for the deletion were lack of notability, lack of sources, and advertising. However, I addressed all of these points:

  • Notability - the company is very well respected and their software won a major award as I referenced in the article. The company developed software with Abbey Road studios, and this was also referenced in the article. Their software features a regular user technique section in Sound on Sound magazine, and again, I referenced this in the article. One user said "check Google" on the deletion log, and when doing so, Propellerhead Software come up in the first six searches, and in nine out of the first ten.
  • No sources - as mentioned, I thoroughly referenced the article.
  • Advertising - I do not work for or have any association with Propellerhead software, other than I buy their products and enjoy using them. I considered the article to be well written, non biased and informative.

However, on 24th August the article was deleted again and salted - despite adding these references. I just now found a second deletion nomination (which was cleverly hidden from the article and therefore I couldn't see it). The references I had cited were, apparantly, trivial and not reliable. I do not understand how references from: a major award[60]; arguably the world's most famous recording studio[61]; and Europe's largest selling music recording magazine[62] can be classed as trivial and non reliable.

I have tried to get the article restored but nobody seems to be listening to me (not even taking notice, let alone arguing with me).

What really makes me upset is that this article has only been deleted because it was deleted BEFORE. If an article of this standard which hadn't been deleted before was created now it would simply not be deleted. There are thousands of articles on here that do not cite references and are left well alone. The

Digidesign articles are poor and have no references, and Ableton
only references offical website and even forums. There has never been any question that these articles be deleted.

The article I made was well referenced and well written, the company are well respected and make excellent software. I believe the article deserves a place on Wikipedia.

I request that a few admin look at the article I made just before it was deleted, check its quality and references and restore it, and tag it so it cannot be speedily deleted again. At the very least, I would appreciate an admin copying the article code into my userpage so I can work on the article until it's agreed it can go back on.

Thanks--Mrtombullen 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • List of British Chinese people – Both closures overturned; resubmitted to AfD. Personally, I commend Sandstein for his boldness, but it is not clear that admin-overturning of non-admin closures once they have come to DRV is something contemplated by deletion policy. As it is, this has created a little confusion, and neither closure is endorsed by consensus below. More discussion is the best option, for the sake of clarity. All non-admins are reminded to make only simple, non-controversial keep closures. – Xoloz 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of British Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was closed by a non-admin, essentially citing WP is not paper, while I believe the consensus was to delete this list Corpx 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate why it was improper? Thanks!--Cerejota 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, non-admin closures should only take place when there is an overwhelming and clear consensus to Keep, or when one of the
speedy keep criteria applies. This AfD did not have a clear consensus - far from it - and should have been left to an admin. Having said that, there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so Sandstein's speedy reversal of the decision was equally inappropriate IMO. WaltonOne 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate that I will have it in mind in the future, and apologize. However, I must strongly agree the deletion was very bad, as seems to be the opinion of a number of editors. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion There was clearly no consensus to delete, nor is there any consensus that this list violates
    Wikipedia is not paper" means that an article must be kept). DHowell 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Tdimm2.JPG – Deletion endorsed. The deletion guidelines for administrators are guidelines, meaning that they are -- in fact -- subservient to policies, like WP:NFCC. This DRV nomination fails both on strength of numbers, and of argument. – Xoloz 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IfD
)

Did not reach consensus, the image was listed for deletion here and three users clearly said to keep, while only one was for deleting it, yet it was still deleted. A featured article on another pop song ("

Thankyoubaby 05:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • It shows the desert and her costume, which is being discussed, "Hollaback Girl"'s is Gwen Stefani in a car, I can't see how that is more "supportive".
    Thankyoubaby 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The non-free content criteria policy has to be given priority over the deletion guidelines. -
talk 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And, if you'll excuse the inevitable humor of the phrasing, the policy for determining whether the policy has been satisifed is expressed in the administrators' instructions, which have a weight beyond those of guidelines.—DCGeist 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page you are quoting from was a feeble attempt to condense the
talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I did look at the instructions' edit history. Even more significantly, I looked at the prominent manner in which the primary IfD page links to the instructions:
Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Instructions_for_administrators. Not so feeble.—DCGeist 17:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, the
talk 20:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Overturn deletion per consensus in IfD. — xDanielx T/C 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No consensus for such and this represents another example of improper admin behavior and flouting of our own policies. When is this going to end? Badagnani 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will never end, admins will always make mistakes, admins are human too. Of course assuming that all admins are maliciously ignoring our own community set policies is going a bit overboard. Most likely the admin who did the close thought he/she was doing it per our policies, and doing the action in
      Need help? 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I'm going to note that I do endorse this deletion, policy trumps, want the policy changed, go to the policy's talk page. ——
      Need help? 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Correction Neither I nor anyone elsewho has voted to overturn has called for a change in policy. We want the policy enforced. Here's the policy, once again, for your benefit straight from the deletion policy page: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator 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."—DCGeist 04:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you are referring to applies in the case of deletions based on discussions of notability, etc. If the article or image violates U. S. Law or Wikipedia policy, the admin will delete it even if there is no consensus. Based on numerous previous discussions and DRVs, the image failed the current WP:NFCC policy as currently written and also the screenshot tag requirement for critical commentary. -
          talk 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • No, Nv8200p, that's simply wrong. That's not policy. I really have to ask you as an admin who wants to participate in closing deletion discussions and deleting images to refamiliarize yourself with the deletion policy. Please reread in particular Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. There is absolutely no distinction drawn between "deletions based on discussions of notability" vs. those based on "Wikipedia policy"; admins are not directed to abide by consensus in one case, but essentially make the determination themselves in others. You may have been led to believe it's true; several admins have been acting as if it's true--but it's not. It is quite evidently not part of our deletion policy. (Remember, for the extreme legal case of blatant copyright violations, policy provides for a special process.) Consensus is determinitive in all deletion discussions.
          • Here is the deletion policy: The discussion determines by consensus whether the image adheres to Wikipedia image policy--the discussion may center on an image's notability, on whether an image is obsolete, on whether it has been legitimately tagged, on whether it is of sufficiently high visual quality, or anything else covered in Wikipedia image policy. If no consensus to delete is arrived at in that discussion, the image is not deleted. The admin who chooses to close does not get to determine on his or her own whether the consensus or lack thereof is wise or correct, simply whether consensus to delete exists or not--not by "headcount," not by "vote," but by a common sense reckoning of consensus just like anywhere else on Wikipedia. If there is a discussion and consensus is to keep, obviously the image is kept. If there is a discussion and no consensus, the image is kept. If there is a discussion and there is doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete or not, the image is kept. That is the deletion policy as expressed on the policy page and underscored by the guideline. That a culture of violating the policy has emerged does not legitimate such violations.—DCGeist 15:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Nv8200p's rationale and comments here. The use of non-free content is constrained by policy, and IfD cannot override that. The only way to have non-free content kept is to demonstrate that it is being used in accordance with policy. No such case was or has been made for this image. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you've written is (like the previous defense statement) simply not true. A case was made in IfD that this image was being used in accordance with policy, clearly responding to nominator's NFCC#8 concern.
    User:Thankyoubaby also voted to keep, clearly agreeing with the case made by Knulclunk. You may not be impressed by the cases made that the image was being used in accordance in policy; you may disagree with them. But please don't misrepresent the facts by saying they weren't made. The consensus, based on the arguments made in discussion, was clearly to keep the image. Closing admin thus violated Wikipedia policy by deleting.—DCGeist 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • We'll, it's better, but you can throw in as many "significants" as you want, but that don't make it so. Look at
    talk 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, the "iconic" image of Anthony Perkins should go to IFD. Please nominate if you want to, I did not take the time yet. -
    talk 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

24 August 2007

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

UNDELETE_REASON Joseane 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseane, take a look at the help pages. If there is substantial discussion of this artist in national press, then get the citations to it. You can always create the article as a draft on your user talk page (user talk:Joseane) until you believe it passes the deletion guidelines and then move it to article space and come to DRV with your reasoning on why this is a new article that has none of the faults of the deleted ones. Geogre 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The entire page was blank when this was created. There was nothing on the page whatsoever aside from an attempt at a hangon tag and the user's name. Smashville 16:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (That was just the latest one. It appears that the contributor really is floundering when it comes to creating a page and isn't quite getting the hang of the standards. There were multiple attempts before. Hence my attempt at being nice.) Geogre 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, per this argument. Also, the user requesting undeletion is rather new (yes, Joseane has been editing since 2006, but the user only has 100 edits) and so I would encourage a more experienced editor, i.e. even more experienced than I and who better knows all the policies, to perhaps help provide this new user some mentorship on AfDs and deletion reviews as well as article creation. Joseane seems motivated and I think additional, constructive guidance will be helpful to that user. If anyone does decide to do so,
    Tally-ho! 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. Sorry, a user being new doesn't overrule a
    desat 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion: I had thought it unnecessary to formally state this, but I guess not. Obviously, the user can get a mentor and craft the article in user space, but the deletions were just. Geogre 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The people who wish for this to be deleted, should leave a note on the user's talk page as to why (not a boiler plate message). It might give us another constructive user if you are able to explain what is and is not acceptable into this encyclopaedia. ——
    Need help? 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Need help? 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nextgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The creator of the article left this message at my talk page:

Hello, I was just curious as to why my article NextGen was deleted. This article was a start to the Next Generation Air Traffic control system being implemented within the United States currently. It is a multi-billion dollar project underway transitioning the current ground based radar system into a high tech satellite controlled system. It was not spam, unless it was hijacked without my knowledge, and should have offered no conflict of interest.

The article should perhaps be restored as not intended as spam. JIP | Talk 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks real, substantial, and unlikely to be spammed. [63] --SmokeyJoe 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore as deleted on incorrect grounds. Golfcam 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Definitely not spam. Abberley2 21:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, unlikely to fit spam criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above, but rename to NextGen. While I know this currently goes to a dab, that dab doesn't disambiguate between anything actually called "NextGen" (so, perhaps a "for other uses" message on top of the NextGen article leading to the dab would suffice). -- Kicking222 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per unanimous opinion above. JIP | Talk 12:54, 25 August 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.
Ken_Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

invalid speedy deletion - The exact reason for deletion was "00:03, 24 August 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ken Stein" (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)"

The article was about an American actor with five feature films (plus one in production), one major music video, and 20 stage productions in their career. If they're significant enough to be listed on IMDB and have newspaper articles written about them, why are they not significant enough for wikipedia?? I would have used the "hangon" tag to argue the point, but Jaranda kept prematurely deleting the article without giving me the opportunity. KennethStein 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion
    WP:BIO requires entertainers to have major roles and a fan base. You have neither. Sasha Callahan 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I must dispute that. What you are stating is factually incorrect. The "Criteria for notability of people" (
      WP:BIO) require a "significant" (not as you state "major") role OR "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" they are two separate criteria. They are not both required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethStein (talk • contribs
      )
      • Okay, you don't have either a significant role or a large fan base. I still endorse deletion Sasha Callahan 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly, you are uninformed with regard to cinema if you would state "you don't have either a significant role...". You're making an arbitrary judgement based on your opinion, without having seen any of the films in question. (One could theoretically argue that, by definition, any credited role is "significant" - thus the reason is that it's a credited role). Others would argue that any character that has a unique impact on the storyline would be considered significant. But, by the very nature of opinions, what one person considers "significant", another might not. KennethStein 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you feel your so important to the world of film, go start a Ken SteinPedia. Sasha Callahan 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you are incapable of rationally debating a point of contention without making sacrastic personal attacks, then perhaps your opinion shouldn't be voiced in a public forum where it is subject to a counter-argument.KennethStein 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps we shouldn't call a user "uninformed" because she disagrees with you. You need to realize that you do not meet this projects criteria for notability. You've played yourself, a courtroom observer/bar patron, and dancing/laughing student. You're a glorified extra. Bye-Bye Ken Stein on wikipedia. Sasha Callahan 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Uninformed" was a statement of fact. The comments you made clearly demonstrate an unfamiliarity with regard to the entertainment industry. You're no more qualified to be debating cinema than I would be debating the historical significance of the Crimean War or particle physics. You might have a leg to stand on if you could refrain from personalizing the debate and keeping the debate professional and polite. The thinly veiled and openly sarcastic insults have no place in a debate. I could refer to you as a "glorfied housewife," but that really would just be mudslinging. You want to debate rationally, I'm all over that, but I have more respect for others who might read this than to resort to your (obviously limited) level of discussion. KennethStein 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Only after looking at your profile, did I realize you were 16, which explains your immaturity. Perhaps my time would be better spent debating someone who [I don't know...] has a drivers license, or has actaully graduated high school, or for that matter, can simply vote... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethStein (talk • contribs) 02:11, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
                • I suggest you both please mind the civility rules. Ken - people of all ages are welcome to participate; Sasha - chill out, no need to personalize this debate. I think you guys both need to ease up on the ad hominems. Wickethewok 14:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suggest both of you read
      WP:NPA in its entirety, and follow it. Thanks. —Kurykh 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Strong Endorse - In addition to complete lack of notability, article is autobiographical Smashville 02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - There's 4 "Ken Stein" listings at the imdb, I assume this is Ken Stein (IV), since I is a director, II is a crewman, and III is dead? If so, minor billing in a porn film, 2 uncredited roles, and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability. Tarc 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I do not believe speedy would have been a mistake or error of process. The subject's IMDB credits state the case clearly. An actor of genuine stature would be able to assert notability amply in the opening paragraph, and not simply reposting a deleted bio, nor try to build a
    Walled garden of films he's appeared in in unnamed roles. Even if the films he's appeared in were notable, he may still not be. And I don't think he is notable. Ohconfucius 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment - The trouble I have with defining "significance" is that is is largely based on opinion, and often by people the least qualified to determine it. For example: Tarc states (incorrectly) "...and 11th billing as a ghoul in an indie silent film is pretty insignificant in terms of notability...". If he knew how to read IMDB, he'd realize that "ghoul" is the second of two roles in the film, with "Minister's Henchman" being the bigger of the two. Not having seen the film, it's easy to assume that with a non-descript name like "Minister's Henchman" that the role is not "significant". But would one say the same of "Number Two" (Dr. Evil's henchman) in Austin Powers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. One could reasonably argue that Robert Wagner's role was significant, while another could probably argue the opposite. Some people would define "significant" as any character that has a unique impact on the storyline. That's the trouble when people start opining, especially regarding a subject about which they have limited or no knowledge, you often get lost in the "my opinion is right and yours isn't" debate, which is, of course, unwinnable. Another issue is then the dozens or hundreds of articles regarding people (for example: Michael Paré), whose "notabilty" is debatable. Why does he get a page, and someone else not. Of 100 people on the street, how many would recognize the name? I suspect not very many. But when you say "the guy from Eddie and the Cruisers" or Hope Floats, then they go "Oh yea..." does that make him "notable" or the role "significant"? KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can read just fine good sir, but can you answer a question? This is what appears to be the official movie poster. Which one are you? Tarc 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to Tarc - To my knowledge, that's not the official movie poster, that has yet to be released. I am not pictured there, although I can be seen briefly in the teaser-trailer. Perhaps ironically enough, while the four actors in the middle are lead/suporting actors, the ones on each end of the photo are extras (possibly "featured extras"). (Perhaps I should have stated "interpreted IMDB", I was not attempting to impugn your reading ability).
  • On another note - Because the film is still classified as "in production" the credits are subject to change. I may wind up 3rd or even 33rd in credits order. My understanding is that I'll actually have 3 seperate acting credits in the film (because I have 3 different roles - two of which are in heavy makeup/prosthetics as ghouls). There are several methods for determining the credtits order for a film: 1. In order of prominence in the film; 2. In order of appearance in the film; 3. Alphabetical order; 4. (I've even seen) Indeterminate or random order.208.101.170.165 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a poster hosted by the production company used to advertise the film, that if pretty much what I'd call "official", and if you aren't even in that.... it seems like you're a minor character in a movie that itself is having questions of notability over in its own AfD. Maybe someday this'll come out different, but for now I gotta go with an endorse delete. Sorry. Tarc 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to
    WP:BIO), which reads: "Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.". It doesn't say "Lead Role" or "Top Billing" or "in the 1st ten credits listed" nor does it define "major" or "minor" characters - it says the role must be "significant". By definition, a suopporting role is considered significant. 208.101.170.165 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse Clearly not notable and COI issues to boot. Sasha Callahan should take it easy though. These COI posters will get pissed a lot but antagonizing them just makes it worse. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - an "interest" is not the same as a "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests.
    • It should also be noted, that there is no rule against someone creating their own page or editing their own article. It is only advisable to use caution when doing so. The idea is to maintain a tone of neutrality or impartiality. Which is why it a simple statement of verifiable historical fact should be OK, while critical praise or salutations would not be...KennethStein 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user is refering to the
    Atropos 05:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2007

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

Also

At Last (band). Same reasons as for my DRV request yesterday on The Duttons and some other America's Got Talent Season 2 top ten competitors, except I had missed that these two top ten from season 1 had also been speedy deleted. Invalid speedy deletion. Making the top ten on America's Got Talent gives at *least* an assertion of notability. Whether that is enough notability for the article to remain is an issue for AFD, but IMHO it is definitely enough to invalidate speedy deletion. The Millers survived one AFD already as a Keep, further invalidating speedy deletion. The deletion of At Last mentioned it being advertising SPAM, which I fully dispute. It was a fairly typical stub article on a reality TV show participant group, assembled by a number of editors over the course of a year. If POV stuff had crept in, that is reason for cleaning it up, not for speedy deletion. It simply is not SPAM. The remaining reasons given for speedy of them both, lack of references and lack of secondary sources, are both once again issues for AFD, not valid criteria for speedy deletion. TexasAndroid 16:20, 23 August 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.
Permanent_North_American_Gaeltacht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

sources Danjdoyle 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Now home from university, I have access to my sources on this. The letter recieved from Éamonn Ó Cuív, Irish minister for Rural and Gaeltacht affairs states: "29 May 2007 Dear Friends, I would like to congratulate the Canadian people for establishing a Gaeltacht in Canada, the first outside of Ireland. I wish every success to your work and I hope that it will grow and develop." (found in "Searmanas Oscáilte Cumann na Gaeltachta" page 7, given out on the official opening). I feel this is all the confirmation needed, as he is the person in charge of Irish Gaeltachts, and even he states firstly that the Canadian one is a Gaeltacht, and secondly, that it is the first of its kind outside of Ireland. I move to have this page re-instated.[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • EasyProjectPlan – undeleted and listed at
    Need help? 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
EasyProjectPlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Angellp, as you are the one creating the article, and presumably know about this product, you are the best person to find
secondary sources
, that are not related to the company website.
Another note: CAPS AND BOLD do not make a good argument either ;). I have no real opinion on the value of the software, but by whats up now, it does not seem to be all that important. (I'm judging by information that has been
reliable sources
.
To whoever closes this, I understand the arguments I'm making here are not really fit for DRV, but if the improvement to the page can be made now, rather then waiting for us all to take it to
Need help? 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, sure, but you have no sources asserting that its notable or that those facts are true. Look at your second fact, how many companys are recognized by the US government? Do you even have proof somewhere that this is true, or do I have to trust the company website? The third fact is also unsourced, though I'm sure its very easy to look up. In any case just because someone took a copyright on something does note make it encyclopaedic. Do you have any clue how many copyrights are granted by the US government yearly, if we had an article on every copyrighted product we would have 10 times the size of the current encyclopedia, and the vast majority would not even be that
Need help? 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
note to author: discussion has moved to
Need help? 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

AngellpPezzullo 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, there is no reference to anything but the company site and that is not a sufficient
WP:V. Fifth, there is no argument that the software is trivial and I never said as much; only the sources that seem to exist on Google are trivial. Sixth, a mere listing on Amazon does not make the product notable. Seventh, a copyright has nothing to do with notability. If the author had provided even a claim (assertion) of notability I would not have deleted in the first place. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse my deletion. This article was tagged by another editor and I speedied it. It was then recreated in essentially the same condition by User:AngellpPezzullo. Another user tagged it again and I deleted it again and this time salted it. The article bears no resemblance to Microsoft Project. I am unsure what he means by it being in the exact format. The listings on Google were all trivial additions at shareware sites. This article had no assertion of any notability and possessed only one reference which was a link to the company website. I stand by my decision that this is nothing but a spam entry. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overthrow and list at AfD The full content was "'EasyProjectPlan (or EPP) is an Excel based project management software program developed and sold by EasyProjectPlan LLC which is designed to assist project managers in developing plans, assigning resources to tasks, and tracking progress. EasyProjectPlan v1.0 was released and copyrighted in 2006." The reasons given was only db-corp. This is a clear error, as A7 does not apply to computer programs, & this is an article for the product not the company. As for G11, it seems to be s straightforward listing, without any of the praise of the product that characterises spam. I don't think it fits. I don;t think the product is notable on the information given, but Speedy does not mean "non-notable" it's time my colleague admins learned to use correct reasons. If it is suggested that the scope of speedy should be expanded, that's another matter but i expect us all to follow the existing rules. DGG (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: It's quite a technical reading to say that programs are not including in A7. The point to A7 was anything, biography, song, etc., with no assertion of notability, but computer programs were not explicitly mentioned. This is the "WPNOT Freshmeat.org" principle. Think of all those game mods and shareware programs that are routinely deleted at birth. Surely all of those do not need to go to AfD? The article conveys little information, and the fact that a company made their HelloWorld front end with Excel is really not close to a questionable case, unless we have some indication that this is the first, the most popular, or infamous ... something than merely being for sale. Geogre 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explanation It is not by accident that software isn't included--the proposal has been made several times and always rejected by the community. The reason is that the notability or non-notability of software is often not at all evident to non-specialists, and it is therefore not safe in having a single admin delete it--even with the best will in the world. In this case it seems obvious to anyone who has worked with project software or Excel that this product is highly unlikely to be notable, but if we made a general rule for programs, it would be applied wrongly as well. On the other hand, for people there are about 100 articles a day saying things like "Kristina is the most beautiful girl in the whole world. Period." (real instance from today's list)--and there can be no doubt at all about deleting something like that.DGG (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my practice, I believe that discretion is necessary in these cases and DRV is the appeal. With this one, the fact that it was an LLC's front end to Excel was a pretty clear giveaway that this is not actually an application but rather an adaptation. It is like creating a db off Access and selling it -- there are tens of thousands -- because Access allows you to do that. A first order versus second order software is an easy distinction in the absence of an assertion of notability. Thus, if any of the popular (?!?) roll outs were listed, the article would surely say something like "most popular back office in the financial industry" or something else that would be an assertion of notability. Thus, if I see "modification of an application" and "no assertion of notability," I don't think it's a stretch at all to say, "Not much different from Kyle is the Greatest." Geogre 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, I've used such software & developed such macros myself, & I agree with your evaluation. But that's not the point. DGG (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AFD. Software isn't covered under A7 and it is not an advert, therefore there hasn't been a valid deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List view - I think that it is fully correct to take make a "technical reading" of the A7 criteria. Speedies are deletion without consensus and therefore should be confined to pages that clearly fall within the criteria that the Community have decided upon. Bridgeplayer 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. CSD A7 only has consensus in its strict form. Evouga 05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Question Since the general consensus here and at this point is that it should not have been deleted as A7, is there any reason why I cannot un-delete now and list at AfD? --JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:MargaretWilson.jpg – Image undeleted; listed at IfD to address whether portrayal of all three women while in office constitutes a claim of being irreplaceable, a matter the deleting admin apparently failed to address. IfD will also allow more eyes to examine the question, but it is the new argument that provides grounds for reconsideration. – Xoloz 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:MargaretWilson.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted while a discussion on whether it met fair use criteria was ongoing on the talk page. gadfium 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • fring – Speedy deletion overturned; listed at AfD. – Xoloz 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

new article - Have been editing an article for the fring page on my user page, please provide help getting it listed. Let me know what I need to add or remove so the page is useful for users. Goplett 09:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Actually, it's been deleted 8 times in the past although I am not sure they were all identical. This one was deleted in March and is just now coming here? The deletion was appropriate as it was spam.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD the first paragraph of content was:" "fring" is a native mVoIP (mobile VoIP) network founded by veterans from the mobile and internet industries. It is the first peer-to-peer voice over Internet Protocol solution specifically conceived and designed for the mobile domain "Mobile VoIP means business". ZDNet. Retrieved 2007-03-12.. fring provides peer-to-peer mVoIP allowing users to make free calls over mobile and cellular networks." The rest of the article contains some spam but it could easily have been truncated, and thus not a valid G11. DGG (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD: Yet another program, but it makes claims for being important, and it has references to discussion, although that discussion doesn't seem very substantial. I wouldn't take a bet on the AfD outcome, but it's not a CSD. Geogre 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD, per Geogre. Doesn't seem to meet A7 or G11, which are the only two obvious CSDs (CsSD?) relevant here. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: My suggestion here is to simply restore and remove the content considered spam. If someone really wishes to AFD the page they can do it themselves. ——
    Need help? 21:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • List at AfD G11 is used for articles which are used to exclusively promote an entity (ie it is ad copy); having a neutral third-party reference, IMO, disqualifies it. The spam can be cut from the article. ColourBurst 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

22 August 2007

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

The original consensus for the deletion review(see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josh_Warner_(second_nomination)) was that there were not enough independent sources to keep the Josh Warner article on WP. Last night, episode 3 of LA Ink aired. In this episode, Kat Von D went to visit "World famous Los Angeles jewelry designer, Josh Warner" to have pendants made for her staff. Josh Warner and his work were then featured on the show. Does anyone think that this is enough to bring the article back? Shaunco 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video at www.tlc.com/fullepisodes Episode 1, Eric Balfour scene was filmed at Josh Warner's studio; Episode 3, Kat asks Josh to make custom LA Ink pendants for her team. Shaunco 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a mere promotional appearance of no real significance, and all on a basic-cable show. I'll betcha that he's listed in the end credits under "Promotional consideration by". So no, not even close. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he was listed in the credits as "Special Thanks To". Shaunco 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Still no sources available from which to write an encyclopedia article. Appearing on a cable TV show does not indicate anything. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention Best thing to come out of Virginia since Washington. 69.143.236.33 07:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AFD and nothing new here that can be considered notability. --
    desat 09:51, 23 August 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.
AfD
)

This article recently survived AFD, in my view on mistaken arguments for notability. The Keep votes, and the closing decision, judged notability based on his appearance in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. A full entry would be undeniably notable: but he only gets four lines in the 90-line article on his son, Alfred James Pearce (which is nothing unusual, as all articles in the ODNB give brief mention of subjects' parents). As

WP:NOTINHERITED says "notability is not inherited up, from notable subordinate to parent", I don't think this small ODNB coverage automatically confers notability. Gordonofcartoon 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

He wasn't tried for his life; and it wasn't in connection with the same controversy (i.e. vaccination). As I said, editors arguing on mistaken information.
Manslaughter wasn't a capital crime in 1849. Working-class people convicted got transportation or a couple of years hard labour; but doctors convicted around that time got very lenient sentences: a year or even only several months in prison, without hard labour. This comes from refs 20 and 23 to Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice, 1795-2005: a literature review. Gordonofcartoon 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! At last, some good information that wasn;t present at teh AFD. Gordonofcartoon 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own keep closure at AfD. As I tried to explain to the DRV nominator, his disagreement with the consensus interpretation of the significance of the ODNB is no reason to overturn the debate. The matter was fully considered, his position was distinct minority, and deletion was in no way compelled by policy. No other reasonable close of the AfD was possible, under the circumstances, and no new arguments are raised in the DRV nomination here. Xoloz 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if you, or any of the others who voted Keep on its signifcance, have actually read the entry. Which bit of what I said did you not understand? Everyone in ODNB's parents are mentioned, whether they're surgeons, seamstresses or streetsweepers. Their notability has to be determined independently, on its own merits.
Yet there was no sign of that happening. The decision was made purely on his presence there (even though you tried to fob me off with some yarn about your closing statement to that effect being
obiter dicta - see User_talk:Gordonofcartoon#Pearce
).
Arguments also were made on the basis of embroidered details, continuing even here, like inflating the coverage (the reality of "four lines" in the ODNB mysteriously grew to "a paragraph") and inflating the seriousness of the offence (as above).
If ultimately you're saying that it doesn't really matter because there was a consensus anyway, it just boils down to majority vote. I wasn't aware that was policy for AFDs. Gordonofcartoon 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If one's arguments are poor enough, majority vote alone is enough to defeat them, yes. Yours are. Xoloz 15:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean majority vote, but consensus is how we decide things. See Deciding whether to delete. For example, This AfD that I nominated is going to be a keep because of consensus, even though policy says it should not be kept. Usually consensus and policy match up, but occasionally they do not. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse retention Given the above information, there isn't any reasonable doubt about his notability, which renders the nominator's point about his son irrelevant. Dominictimms 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep: The people who opposed vaccination are kind of important. The DNB, and I say this as a fan, has a conservative bias from its 1898 positivistic beginnings. For the most part, that conservativism is inherently good and something we should emulate, but History has changed, and cultural history and the discontents of a historical moment are more interesting to us today than they were in 1900. As the article stands now, it's ok. More primary research would be nice, but that's not our job. Geogre 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original closing decision since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. Here's something you may want to ponder. Charles Pearce may not be notable, but the topic is
    Wikipedia:Notable. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:42, 26 August 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.
Doug_Rokke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wrongly Deleted, no reply from deleting admin. If you will not restore, please email me a copy. I believe the discussion about Doug Rokke's background on the page to highly relevant, because Rokke makes some controversial claims about his qualifications and portrays himself as an expert on depleted uranium munitions, which is a controversial subject. Thank you. Jim hoerner 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jredmond ] Jim hoerner 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a speedy delete as I can't find the AfD discussion? If it was a speedy it sounds like it probably should be overturned. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not reconsider, could you please email me the article? Thank you Jim hoerner 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though undocumented, it is simply negative and controversial rather than downright libel, and I do not think it will be misused, so I have emailed the article. Probably it could be used if every statement were sourced & the judgemental aspects removed. DGG (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you DGG. There are many web pages out there that reference this wrongly-deleted wiki page. I have no malicious intent, but I cannot help it if Rokke is controversial. The censors, I mean admins, can do what they want. Best regards, Jim hoerner 03:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • North Carolina Tigers – This DRV isn't the place to request relisting of articles not directly at issue (ie. "all the other teams in the league"); anyone wishing to AfD those may do so editorially at any time. The only relevant issue here is the request to unprotect the NC Tigers redirect. Per Geogre, and bearing in mind the userfy comments also, I would suggest the DRV nominator compose a possible article for the team in his userspace, and return to DRV with it. Only with that evidence in hand could editors truly evaluate the merit of undoing the redirect. Userfication of the deleted history would not be very helpful in composing an encyclopedic article in this case: start afresh please. Endorse status quo without prejudice. – Xoloz 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
North Carolina Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

I would like to have the Protected redirect removed from this project, I am a member of this team and would like to make edits to the project and since other teams in the league have their own project pages, we should have the same ability. SpaceCowboy9 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit re-creation The AfD was over a year ago. It can of course be argued that the other pages should be deleted also,and in fact the deletor proposed "so this may be a litmus-test for similar AFL related teams - WP:AFL". Those other article, however, seem never to have been challenged, and a least a few have been improved beyond the stubs they were at the time. The last version of this article was not a stub . And I am not satisfied by the arguments at the AfD, which do not seem to confirm to the usual highest national level rule , and i think the result might well be different.DGG (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the AFD,
    wat's sup 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relist all teams in league Seems like most of the articles should go. If some of the teams are more notable than others list them separately. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy view. The nominator's AFD rationale was excellent. I am happy for the article to be userfied to enable a sourced version to be created if the appellant considers that he can establish notability but I see no basis to allow recreation at this stage since I am highly sceptical about any notability for Aussie rules football clubs in the US. The concept, suggested by others, of listing all the other teams has much merit. Bridgeplayer 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status quo: I really, really, really, really don't see the advantage to userfication. One of the things we're not is a free web host. I'm not accusing anyone when I say that, but, let's face it, "Because I'm on the team" is more of an Angelfire rationale than a DRV one. I can't see any indication whatsoever that these clubs are doing more than providing an admirable fun and social outlet for their participants and fans. Geogre 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, I don't want to appear argumentative, but I don't see the problem with userfying. As I say above, I very much doubt if a notable article can be produced but if an editor wants to try why not help them, it's not as if we can stop them working an article up from scratch in their sandbox (nor should we IMHO)? If it hangs around in the user space too long and it is thought that it is being used as a free webspace then that can be dealt with at the time. Bridgeplayer 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the appellant's (?) (nominator's?) argument. He essentially said that he wanted to add to it because he's a player. I'm not trying to indict, and I don't want to be mean to anyone who plays Aussie football (obviously tougher than I am, as I find Checkers to be a violent sport), but that reasoning is private reasoning and not article-building. I never have a problem with sandboxing an article before putting it in article space, and I've actually helped someone in the past who was doing a very borderline anti-Zionist Jewish group, but that didn't seem to be the reasoning. Additionally, I cannot imagine, literally, how a passing article could emerge without some really significant change in history. If I were trying to file this information, I'd say it would be a section entitled "In the US" in the Australian rules football article, in a section of that for "leagues in the US." I'd be happy to be wrong, but, in this case, I don't see how I could be. Geogre 12:14, 24 August 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.
IfD
)

Consensus not reached on deletion In the discussion for deletion there were more people wishing to keep the image than to delete it, consensus was not reached. Rugz 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The IfD is
    Not From Space. By the way, IfD is not a vote. Same goes for the next case just below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 22 August 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.

(

IfD
)

consensus not reached on deletion In the discussion for deletion there were more people wishing to keep the image than to delete it, consensus was not reached. Rugz 06:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I'm the admin who closed the case. Actually, two users said that the image should be deleted, and only Rugz said he thought it should be kept. (An anon that made few outside edits also chimed it with a vote and no explanation, but I ignored that.) Rugz' reasoning was that it's a screenshot, so it must be okay. The other commenters reasoned that it's a photo of a living person, that it doesn't show anything that can't be adequately conveyed with text. It was really a pretty obvious decision. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for correcting you, but that was actually not quite what Angr and I argued. Because incidentally he isn't a living person; the whole article is actually about his death. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On today's main page is a featured article about Jake Gyllenhaal which includes a screenshot of Gyllenhaal in the movie Donnie Darko, please explain how this is any different than showing screenshot of James Kim on TV show. The fair use info on the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg should also be in question using your rationale. Rugz 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per my reasoning on the entry above. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no procedural problems with closure. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Image is valuable per NFCC#8. It gives us important information about Kim's appearance on the show, the appearance of the show itself, the style of dress and demeanor of correspondents on such a show at the relevant point in media history. Some of these points are directly relevant to the topic of the article, while others are the sort of supllementary information that can only be conveyed visually and which readers of reference works find valuable for historically and culturally contextualizing specific topics.—DCGeist 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Capital IQ – Article to remain deleted as a copyvio. Despite a faulty rationale at the time of the speedy deletion, evidence contributed late in the debate demonstrates this is a copyvio, meaning its restoration is prohibited by policy. A new sourced, non-copyvio draft is welcome at any time. – Xoloz 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

This article was speedily deleted on August 12th, with an edit summary of "(

the deleting admin
this occured after it was tagged by another user for speedy deletion citing that same criteria. I feel that this deletion was out of process because

1. The speedy deletion criteria referenced states the following: "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The Talk page for Capital IQ contained statements from several users indicating their belief that the company was notable, and I feel that this is sufficient evidence to indicate that deletion of the article would be "controversial" and therefore should have been listed at AfD.

2. The notability guidelines referenced include this step related to dealing with advertising in company articles "Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead." While it does not directly relate to this article I believe that it demonstrates a consensus that, unless articles are blatent advertising, they go to AfD.

I have asked the deleting admin to review their decision but there has been no response to my most recent request (3 days ago), which is why I am raising here. I would ideally like to see this article restored and listed at AfD, as that would at least allow myself and other interested editors to address the notability concerns. If it is then deleted by consensus, I'm willing to accept that decision. My concern here is that an article with some decent content concerning a company with the potential to be notable was deleted without discussion or any attempt to get interested editors to address the concern (such as with a {{Notability}} tag). Richc80 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Overturn Overturn - Significance was clear in the article, speedy delete was too speedy. There is some copyvio, but that can be removed quickly. No need to list at AfD since sufficient
    reliable source material independent of Capital IQ avaialbe to develop the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Further comment - The copyvio could have been removed quickly. Now that the article is deleted, the admin restoring it will be the one posting copyvio material on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn It is doubtful that the deletion was procedurally correct. The subject matter appears to be notable. Dominictimms 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Neutral Without being able to view the deleted article myself, I must default to a view that our rigorously vetted admins will make the right calls on these decisions most of the time. - Crockspot 17:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you can view the article; click on the cache link above. Bridgeplayer 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I didn't realize that. After review, I'm not satisfied with the sourcing, and copyvio may still be an issue, so switching to neutral. - Crockspot 19:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn view - this is a good example of pushing a speedy well beyond the intended boundaries. A7 is intended for vanity articles, obviously NN groups and organisations etc. not for the subsidiaries of highly notable corporations. Bridgeplayer 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion I deleted it maybe the wrong reason, but there is a copyright concern which the whole history has and thus it can't be restored, also it wasn't a contervesal deletion, there was nothing on talk page, no protests etc. A recreation is fine as well.
    wat's sup 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I hate to disagree with you, but there were comments on the Talk page, as shown by this cached version, from users regarding the notability of the company. One user even asked to be notified if the page was to be speedily deleted, which did not appear to happen this time around. Richc80 00:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn You mentioned no copyright concern in the deletion rationale; like everyone else, I can see no other reason for speedy in the article. DGG (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I would have overturned my deletion, I was about to before the DRV (couldn't earlier as I was busy) but the copyright concern Jreferee mentioned is a valid concern though, there is no point in having the article recreated and deleted again, as the whole history is affected.
wat's sup 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
So if I understand correctly the concern with restoring the article now is due to a copyvio. Would it therefore be acceptable to start the article over again using the previous content minus the section that is a copyvio? If so is there a way to get the code from that previous version so that it does not have to be retyped? Richc80 12:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Maybe nn, but doesn't deserve some Speedy Gonzales foolery. I'd prefer to take this through a full VfD (or whatever they call it these days), lest we end up like User: NedScott. 69.143.236.33 07:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion We can't restore a copyvio because the copyvio involves a possibly notable subject. It makes no difference that the deleting admin deleted on an alternate basis: this is not a court of law in which every possible conceivable reason must be raised and articulated or be waived. As we know most articles are speediable on multiple grounds and so a spammy article about a non-notable company that gets a G11 deletion comment needs also to show not subject to A7 otherwise the moment it gets restored it'll get so tagged and deleted and we'll have wasted a lot of effort for nought. Common sense, folks, please. Carlossuarez46 23:45, 24 August 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 Duttons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Sideswipe (performers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
The Glamazons (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Also Sideswipe (performers) and The Glamazons (US). IMHO improper speedy deletions. Making the Top Ten on America's Got Talent is at *least* an assertion of notability, making A7 deletions invalid. The Duttons have already gone through one AFD with a no consensus result. IMHO these should be deleted through AFD or not at all. TexasAndroid 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The initial afd for The Dutton was improperly closed no consensus. Consensus was there to delete at that time. None of these articles had valid references, secondary sources of any kind. None of them had any claim to notability outside of America's Got Talent. The closest claim to notability The Duttons have is a pair of self produced television shows. Self produced tv does not equal notability per WP:BIO guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is not that they would survive AFD. I don't know that they would. My argument is that it only takes an "assertion" of notability to invalidate A7 speedy deletion, and that their appearances on AGT satisfy that assertion. Whether they truly meet the requirements, and all your other points, are issues for AFDs to decide. Once the assertion threshold is past, A7 speedy is no longer valid. All IMHO of course. - TexasAndroid 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD view - each of these articles has at least a slender assertion of notability which is enough to avoid an A7. The lack of sources will, no doubt, be influential at the AFD but is not pertinent to the speedy process. Bridgeplayer 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A7 was not the only deletion criteria of The Glamazons or for Sideswipe, those were primarily deleted as G11 advertising.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    G11 is aimed at quickly getting rid of spam. These pages are not obviously written as adverts so G11 is not applicable. The speedy process, since it allows deletion without consensus, should only be used in obvious and straightforward cases. Where, as here, there is room for doubt as to the appropriateness of speedy deletion then it should be listed. Bridgeplayer 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list - The Duttons had a prior AfD closed in its favor. G11 advertising seems reasonable, but the articles have enought in them to be just above advertising (not by much). -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial AFD was improperly closed as no consensus. There were 4 rationalized deletes, 2 keeps from regular users with valid albeit shaky rationales, and 1 keep/merge from an anon ip. By my count thats 4-2... not a no consensus. Closed by a new admin who'd had the mop less than a month.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but we don't overturn AfD closures with which we disagree or that we think to be plainly wrong (for my part, I'm not certain that I think The Duttons' AfD to have been wrongly closed, and I would observe that closing AfDs is one area, inasmuch as it is not at all technical, in which one's being an inexperienced admin is no grand problem; in fact, I'd suggest that a newly-minted admin, having recently had his sense of judgment and conversance with policy examined at RfA, is more likely than an older admin to command the community's confidence relative to his closing AfDs—one's capacity to close RfAs properly, at the very least, does not necessarily grow as he gains sysop experience) simply by reversing them; that's why we have DRV. Joe 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A claim of notability was implied (the last thing we want is every article to start "X is notable because", which is not how good reference works are written. Dominictimms 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. The assertion to notability may have been slight but it was there. Whether or not they are sufficiently notable should be up to an AfD to determine.
    ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - Survival of a previous AfD discussion precludes an article from being speedy deleted. So the Duttons was an improper speedy. Might as well relist the other two along with it. It gives the community a chance to build consensus. - Crockspot 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

21 August 2007

  • mpet 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bolognaola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

not nonsense Silverbaxent 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion of this nonsense "definition" that does not produce even one google hit! -- But|seriously|folks  21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also,
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. -- But|seriously|folks  21:29, 21 August 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:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image:Hamas of iraq.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Hamas of iraq.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image:Jaish al-Fatiheen.JPG (edit | [[Talk:Image:Jaish al-Fatiheen.JPG|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image:Jaish al-Mujahideen.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Jaish al-Mujahideen.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image:Jaish Al Naqshbandia.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Jaish Al Naqshbandia.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Image:Salah al-Din al-Ayoubi Brigades.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Salah al-Din al-Ayoubi Brigades.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

These Iraqi insurgent group logos were speedily deleted out of process. The deletion reason given was "Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC" which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. The images had been used in

the significance criterion
by allowing people to identify the groups from their logos.

Please note that the `

WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use
policy states that, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable." (emphasis added.) In this case the criterion,

"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

is met, because readers would not be able to identify the groups from their logos if they were not arranged in a group for the purposes of identification (which {{

logo
}} explicitly allows for non-free logos) in the article which describes them.

Furthermore, I have doubts about the neutrality of the deleting admin because he asked on

BenB4 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Note -
images and media speedy delete information. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe I added a valid fair use rationale to that image after it was tagged and before it was deleted. ←
BenB4 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I revised the above DRV note to include your fair use rationale post. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, let's put aside any question about my neutrality. Note that I don't have any prior edits to this article. My comment about the "air of legitimacy" has been taken out of context. The full sentence was: "Second, to those who claim these groups have no rights, why give them an air of legitimacy by including their logos here?" This was in response to the following summary from the last of several edits which reinserted these images into the article: "use of copyrighted material?? terrorists have no coypyright in american law!!". Notice too that I am calling them groups, not terrorists. I am an American, but I think I am being completely neutral.
    As far as the nonfree image issue is concerned, it is my understanding that galleries of nonfree images are almost never acceptable. The fact that an image has been relegated to a gallery is a strong indication that it is not germane to the article. One would expect a significant image to stand alone in an article section surrounded by the text that makes it significant. These images were in a gallery under its own heading containing no discussion whatsoever, just the name of each group. Since the gallery had been deleted by at least two different editors citing
    WP:NFCC, we are also bound here by the Foundation's licensing policy resolution, which requires us to keep nonfree content to a minimum. The proposed usage of these images is contrary to that binding directive.
    I can't imagine anybody saying, "I didn't fully understand this article until they added the group logos, but now it makes more sense to me." Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is clear the images do not increase understanding of the article on the insurgency in any way and cannot be used here in this way. -- But|seriously|folks  15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I should also note that I considered protecting the page to stop the edit warring, but I felt the deletion of these images was a less restrictive course. -- But|seriously|folks  15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the deleting admin fails to respond to the fact that the images were deleted out of process. There is no reason his concerns could not have been raised at IfD. The suggestion that being able to identify an insurgent group from their logo does not increase readers' understanding of the groups is absurd, and the deleting admin's comments to that effect are disingenious becuase I just explained to him that I was recently trying to identify the source of a video posted on the web with a logo and Arabic text which I do not read. ←
    BenB4 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's not disingenious. I just don't agree that that entitles us to include this gallery of nonfree images. The same argument could apply to Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League and Premier League, but those articles don't have galleries of team logos. -- But|seriously|folks  16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How often do readers come across videotape of baseball games with logos but no other indication of who's playing that they are able to read or hear? ←
BenB4 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It probably happens to the insurgents all the time! -- But|seriously|folks  16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that the deleting admin has claimed that he would not be opposed to the use of the logos in individual articles about the groups, which I am willing to create, but his out-of-process deletion has made that an impossibility. ←
BenB4 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I would be more than willing to undelete the logos to be used in individual articles about the groups, as long as we have an understanding that they are not to be used in a gallery in the insurgency article. -- But|seriously|folks  16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - Per
    WP:NFC has a similar procedure. The image was deleted 48 1/2 hours after notification. Although there is a 7-day exception where fair use is claimed, the added statement "To be used for identification and/or critical commentary in articles such as, but not limited to, Iraqi insurgency, Mujahideen, Islamic Army in Iraq, etc." appears to be insufficient as a fair use claim so that the 7-day exception does not seem to apply. The speedy delete after 48-hours notice appears justified. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The images were used in an article, even if they were the subject of an edit war, just today. And why is my fair use claim insufficient? ←
BenB4 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Ironton Tanks – Copyvio deletion overturned, after copyvio text (only a small part of the article) was removed. – Xoloz 00:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ironton Tanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am interested in your reasoning behind deleting my page on the Ironton tanks. You first deleted the page as being insignificant. This is a team which has great historical significance in the heartland of pro-football befoer the NFL. The team beat NFL teams over and over and can easily be called the best team to not convert from Ohio football to the NFL. The hall of fame is in Canton, a team they played many times. Then you state it reads like a copyright violation. This page is solely my camera work with only the words from the historical marker, a referenced (maybe not properly) piece on the coach who beat the bears and giants, and another referenced piece on the best player Glen Presnell. You also state it is not an article. I read the help file, looked at many expamples including you pages. It seems to fit any definition of article on the wiki help page or examples thereof. Can you explain your objections and how to fix them? Thanks BMcC333

I sent this to the admin responsible for deletion as an email, after posting it on his talk page. The Ironton Tanks are one of the most legendary teams in football history and this is my 1st attempt at an article. I am happy to take any criticism to improve the page, but there is no doubt they deserve entry in any encyclopedia or reference work. Thanks for your help. BMcC333 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda, I'm much less experienced than you here, but I do think admins have the obligation to respond to good faith emails about wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check my email in about a week as well, I read it yesterday as it gave a clear reason in the email topic (most of the emails from wikipedia I get are vandalism, and I also gotten viruses from it, so I don't really check them because of that).
wat's sup 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Thanks again for the advice. As I did not save a copy which will reload, can it be restored? It seems overturn has won the debate here. I am glad everyone agrees they are significant, and this is an article, so the issues of the sign and catch line are things I would like to satisfy everyone on, even of the page is restored as it was. My comment on the sign issue is that they did not invent that data, nor reference it. I am sure they would argue it was common knowledge, at least in Ohio. The sign picture tells that the town has invested recently (2003) in preserving the tank legend. I could easily rewrite it and reference one of the tanks books or just reference the Ohio historical page where they print the text. I also think my version of the book title when the tanks were tops makes the article more lively. Perhaps a question mark would make the statement "The best there ever was" ? not appear that I am trying to sneak an unsupported claim into an encyclopedia. (BMcC333)

Ok, I think we can put this case to bed. I referenced every detail in the article and went and hunted down references for things I knew as common knowledge. I references the Ohio Historical society for the sign, the same as the public TV station in the link above. I changed the best there ever was to a question instead of a declarative statement. Please message me with any suggestions or criticisms if my newbie status let me down again. I think the article is much improved due to the initial criticism. Best regards to all! (BMcC333 8/24/07) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironton_Tanks

  • Restore as requested. It was a misjudgment to deem this non-notable.

Jaranda, why did you mark the page in need of wikify? I moved the historical markers to the picture gallery and kept the word History as a subject title. Shouldn't these type decisions be talked about on the page's talk page? I did just ask to be contacted with any criticisms. When discussing a 75 year old defunt team, everything is "history" and this type of redundancy does not make any sense to me. This paragraph specifically deals with the legitimate claim that the tanks were the best team that did not become an NFL team. There really is not even a close second. Labeling it "History" confuses the specific topic being addressed. It is now well referenced and was only labeled as a question for debate, not an absolute fact. What other non NFL team ever beat the bears and the giants in their history, much less the same year??

I am concerend about any non-standard wiki format, but the only format violation I can see from the help pages is the lack of bold letters to the 1st line, which I corrected. How many pictured to include seems arbitrary and can be debated. Given that I probably took 50 or more. I tried to include unique views, and fits one of the inclusionists favorite phrases, this isn't made of paper.

Abberley2 21:40, 24 August 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.
Camp Washington Chili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted without any notification to me, the creator. I provided a reference by form of the

Houghton Mifflin, in The Taste of American Place: A Reader on Regional and Ethnic Foods by Barbara Shortridge, published by Rowman & Littlefield, in Best Food in Town: The Restaurant Lover's Guide to Comfort Food in the Midwest by Dawn Simonds published by Emmis Books. More can be provided if necessary. (Mind meal 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply
]

  • overturn article asserted importance so A7 didn't apply --W.marsh 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - They won an "American Regional Classic" award, so A7 didn't apply. As for using references, the more you use in the article once it is restored, the more likely the article will stay on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the article appeared to be about a single restaurant, which is obviously normally non-notable. Having seen the refs above, particularly the non-food one, I'm happy to restore pending those refs being added. Jimfbleak 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • GRBerry 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AFD4
)

Subject has been dubbed one of the worlds must trusted information security researchers (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25279/info), has been given awards by the DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com), Eschaton (http://atrios.blogspot.com), and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org). He is on the board of several prominent political action committees, is a known political figure, and routinely gives invited talks on information security and other academic issues. He's published widely online and in print. Just Anoter Fanboy 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion, Salt every iteration of John Bambenek, Ban User, Censor all content. John Bambenek is a (BLP refactored attacks out), the only thing notable is his persistence in this vain attempt to get an article in wikipedia. -- Prairie biker 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. This Log Cabin Republican is non-notable... doesn't merit a wiki entry. I cite WP:BAMBI username BLP refactored 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, somehow, among the three non-blog links provided, none goes to a page mentioning Bambanek. Why I am I not surprised? I see nothing to change the prior discussions, most significantly AFD3 and DRV2.
    GRBerry 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

20 August 2007

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

I've never seen such a disregard to consensus and procedure. This page is currently up for AfD and 7 of the 9 votes are for "keep" with all supporting their reasoning. But somebody came along and speedy deleted this article. I don't even know who deleted it. This needs to be restored and the AfD in progress needs to resume with an existent article. Here is the current AfD. --Oakshade 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Immediate Restoration and Relist at AfD. The deletion was done by Geogre, who was himself discussing in the Afd, and who would have done better to confine his views to the AfD discussion. I suggest he seriously think about reverting himself. I'd simply revert it except I'd been engaged in the discussion also. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as a valid CSD A1 speedy. Geogre's discussion in the AfD was to say "speedy delete" at the same time that he speedy deleted it, which doesn't really seem to me to be inappropriate. In any event, I'm uncertain how an article whose entire content is "The Etuvluk river is a river in Alaska" is not a valid speedy under A1. That's not an article. It's barely even a sentence. Nandesuka 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation as
    WP:V). It's on maps under that name, e.g. here using microsoft VE (labels), and in the USGS system here (if that is a permanent url). I somewhat object to the process here as editors were demonstrating its existence using the other spelling, but it amounts to a fresh article either way, so as long as we can get Geogre or whomever to stand aside things should be fine. --Dhartung | Talk 05:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep this version deleted since the article is so empty that it is virtually a non-article, worse than a redlink since it fools the reader into thinking there is an article when there isn't. Allow recreation by all means since rivers are perfectly notable geographic features. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the person who deleted it: It was a 100% A1 speedy delete. Since there was an ongoing AfD, I went there to explain my rationale. I did not take part in the debate. I hate short circuiting AfD, but there was nothing debatable. I was explaining my action and taking time out to holler a bit at the people at AfD. That might have been impolitic, but people were, again and again, talking "notable!" at AfD and missing the fact that it's not about "notable" in these cases. "Notable" is an assessment of a topic, not an article. A notable topic could have an invalid article, and a non-notable topic could have a gorgeous article (and they often do). The article as it was was a textbook example of an A1 speedy delete: restatement of the title and a link. Did you know that the Etuvluk River is a river? Could there be a valid article? I suppose. Was there one? No. Obviously, I believe in keeping this version deleted and not giving glory to the author of such a semantic nullity, and, as with all other speedy deletes, there is no prejudice against a fully formed article on the same topic. Geogre 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and improve. Mowsbury 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Festoon with persimmons A silly vote for an extremely silly situation. Not one but two lengthy debates over a six-word article. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia look bad. If some of the effort spent debating this was put into actually improving the article, it would probably be in fine shape by now. If nobody is willing or able to improve it, it should remain deleted as inherently unexpandable. In either case, reams of discussion over six short words is ludicrous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. I'd also question the reasons given by the nominator. The action seems to be in accordance with policy, as
    WP:DP clearly states that "Pages on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) are still subject to speedy deletion, which overrides the other process." Per Geogre, Nandesuka, and Sjakkalle, it is difficult to see how the stated criterion could not apply. I see no problem with recreation under the original title (if sufficient material can be found for a proper article), or with a different spelling. Jakew 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note - since most agree this is fairly silly, I've gone ahead and re-created the article (with some more useful information). Sorry if I short-circuited this discussion but .. the correct course of action seemed rather evident.
    ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:20, 20 August 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.
EComXpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

In spite of the majority of editors supporting "keep", this article is in clear violation of the notability criteria required by

WP:CORP notability. --Cerejota 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

BTW, The original, successful, AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo was clear on the lack of notability, and the editors set forth that the criteria.
Since in effect that AfD was overturned (without process), and notability criteria is still not met (there is no secondary source celebrating the passing of this event), I think this "keep" was further in error. If Wikipedia starts reporting every little commercial event in which 8,000 people participate, it will get full pretty quickly. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem Cerejota? The old article did not include the references the new and independently created one does (it could not have, because the conference got only the attention by the larger and more established media after it was deleted the last time). Multiple editors in good standing acknowledged the quality of the sources and the notability of the article. All your arguments made in the AfD discussion were either addressed (you might noticed the addition of more and better reliable sources and the removal of less reliable ones) or proven incorrect (e.g. your statement about the reliability of blogs as sources). After you saw this happen, did you start with your ridicules COI allegations against me. I have to wonder if COI applies to you in a different sense. You seem to want to be "right" at all cost, no matter what that you became unable to see what is actually going on and to stop for a moment to consider the option that you might be wrong this time. I have not looked at the first AfD for the article, which is for me completely irrelevant, because that was over one year ago and I was not involved with it at all. If you were participating in that discussion back then, you might have been right, fine, but that does not mean that things do not change. I find your behavior very disruptive and I would like to spend my time at Wikipedia for more productive and constructive things. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know, why there is no reference to the AfD discussion anywhere in the article or its talk page and why there is a deletion review for an article that was not deleted. That's something new for me, but I guess I will have to spend the time to figure that one out. Use your energy for something good, for example improving the article, change some of the wording you consider "advertising" or create new articles or expand and improve other articles you prefer. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, figured it out with the review. I also checked the old AfD. Thanks for the link. You do not want to compare that previous AfD with the detail and participation of the last one, don't you? If I misunderstood you there, please let me know. Anyhow, I added the "oldafdfull" template to the article's talk page for future reference. I added it for both AfDs. Other editors will might find it helpful in the future. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your long personal attack. I am sure that in your mind it is very helpful. However, I remain convinced that the lack of secondary sources that establish notability as per
WP:CORP requires secondary source verifiability, and none is provided. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I appreciate your understanding of the matter. This is not about the involved editor or the corporation, but about stopping spam. Have any of you actually bothered to read the article? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Admin interpreted the discussion correctly. And I agree with the above. I'm not sure what the vendetta is that Cerejota has here, but s/he is bordering upon
    WP:CHILL. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse close view - the consensus was clear and the admin closed correctly. Bridgeplayer 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Little sign of real-world notice or impact, ludicrously thin sourcing -- despite months of demands -- and overwhelmingly spammy content makes me wonder how this was kept in the first place, especially given how many of the "keep" votes seem to be essentially faith-based or blinded by the pure number of references rather than their actual quality. --Calton | Talk 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the community is endorsing spam if this is not deleted. There are no secondary sources for notability and/or verifiability. And I can't understand how
WP:IAR applies in this case. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry if I am understood as thinking the admin did a closure against policy. I must state that I think he acted entirely within the discretion of an admin to do so, and didn't violate policy himself. However, I fully agree with your comments: the article is a walking policy violation, and is spam. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seraphim, as written there may be some POV issues and promotion, but that is not relevant to the determination of whether or not a topic is notable. Notability is not a judgement as to the quality of the article, but the suitability of the topic for inclusion. Being noticed in mainstream media fits the definition of notability at both WP:CORP and WP:N, which are notability/inclusion guidelines -- not pertiennt to content. Improving the quality of content is another issue not pertinent to AfD, since poor content is not a specific reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep. This is no more "spam" than any of ther other hundreds of articles in Category:Trade shows. The only difference being that unlike the vast majority of all the others, this one actually contains a decent set of reliable third party sources in addition to the primary ones. --Sodium N4 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep This discussion has been brought to the talk page of
    WP:CORP, by the nominator of this review. I looked further into the issues and feel the article meets the standards for CORP, which are not meant to be zealously rigorous. There seems to be a peculiar agenda here making a mountain out of a molehill. --Kevin Murray 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

19 August 2007

  • Julia Earl – Article to remain deleted under CSD G10, at the very least. – Xoloz 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Julia Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A discussion was under way on the talk page of the Julia Earl article, when someone named Phil Sandifer just outright deleted it. Can he do that?-Notfromhereeither 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from yesterday's log.--Chaser - T 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a straightforward BLP case. However well-sourced this article was, it was still a it piece created to pursue a small-town scandal. The subject had no notability beyond a local scandal, and the article existed purely to document that scandal. Deletion was absolutely the right call.
Phil Sandifer 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Deleted -- My conflicts with Sandifer over the wholesale & permanent deletion of relevant, sourced content from
    OTRS request? --Ssbohio 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I make a general habit of not answering that question, simply because answering in some cases makes it so that any time I don't answer due to privacy concerns, my declining to answer is itself an answer.
Phil Sandifer 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Perfectly understandable. It's just that when the article still existed, the PROD tag referenced an OTRS #, if I recall correctly. If I'm right, then the information was already published. Even still, your position makes sense except for its lack of case-by-case judgment. For example, the existence of Justin Berry's OTRS contacts with the Wikimedia Foundation have been disclosed on his user page. --Ssbohio 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's evidently a case of someone wanting to confirm his real-life identity to prevent a Stephen Colbert-like block on his account for impersonating a real-life person. In the case of articles, real life people are trying to stop the dissemination of information about them. The situations are opposite.--Chaser - T 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ssbohio, I did that with that person's full and prior knowledge and consent in order to stop the allegations that he was an impersonator and the suggestion that his account ought to be blocked as a
WP:USERNAME violation. As Chaser points out, there is a big difference between doing this and answering questions about BLPs. Basically, I agree with Phil's position regarding OTRS questions. And I think he should be commended for having the integrity and courage to deal with these articles the way he believes is right and not allow others (usually people with vested interests, from what I have seen) to pressure him or sway him from doing this. Sarah 14:42, 21 August 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.
Bellypunching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While this fetish is not found in any academic journals that study human sexuality, nevertheless I believe a preponderance of evidence, manifested by even a cursory internet search, demonstrates that there is a phenomenon such as this, among hundreds of people all over the world (one of many examples is the entry on the Dutch Wikipedia -- and these are just the people who bother to post to forums, erect websites, and some commercial sellers who sell products catering to this clientèle. I know that sometimes topics relating to alternate practices in human sexuality can evoke an emotional response of bewilderment or repulsion, but in the context of an encyclopedia I assert that one must remain balanced and rational, descriptive, not proscriptive. Previously, this article has been deleted due to moral objections, masquerading as technical violations. One must be anthropological about the gathering of knowledge relating to human practices.
It's ludicrous to ignore a fact because it offends one's taste. The purpose of

WP:VERIFY is to resolve disputes between parties who disagree on the nature of some piece of info, and sometimes whether or not some piece of info actually exists. But we don't need a citation for whether the sun exists; therefore the only rationale for not having this particular article is if people really believe this sexual fetish doesn't exist, or is a hoax; this despite the hundreds of entities mentioned above. If you really believe this fetish doesn't exist, I can only chalk it up to willful ignorance.
The (mis)use of WP:VERIFY here manifests systemic bias (as regards sexual morality), and violates the spirit of gathering human knowledge and experience, the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Brokethebank 17:28, 19 August 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.
Junkyard Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was tagged for deletion on the basis of notability, and deleted when the prompt expired. The original tagging was frivolous as the notability is well established in the article. This article covers a musical group which has achieved national notability for their creative work, and influence on other musicians.Michael J Swassing 17:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • George Griswold Frelinghuysen – Deletion overturned. In light of new evidence produced at the very end of the discussion, I will exercise discretion and suggest relisting at editorial option only. – Xoloz 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Griswold Frelinghuysen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

deleted with just three votes, two to delete, and one to keep Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist in order to generate a consensus. — xDanielx T/C 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The president of the 4th largest brewery in the United States is notable. Carina22 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument belongs in an AfD, not in a DRV discussion. We only discuss procedural issues here. Sandstein 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have seen, that simply isn't true. Mowsbury 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 August 2007

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

According to the original deletion history of this page, the reason the Yiffstar Wikipedia page was deleted the first time was solely due to lack of reference notes within the page. The old page was used for a framework and some of the old information was kept as it had not changed, however, pertaining references were placed accordingly in the new and updated text to correct the original reason for deletion, the old content was updated including corrected statistics, new areas of the site were added to the entery, defunct areas of the site were removed from the entery and some parts of the article (such as the forums section) were completely rewritten. With new content, and the old reason for deletion corrected, the entry should not have been deleted. Also, the entry was deleted within two hours of page creation - this is not substantial enough time for more information to be added by other users ESPECIALLY as there has been an open invitation on Yiffstar for it's users to come help create and update the Yiffstar wikipedia page. If you still refuse to allow the page to stand, can it be left up temporarily for a couple days so the updated statistics and references can used to update another wiki? -- 68.229.113.31 (talk · contribs · logs) 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - The article was deleted eight months ago at
WP:SPEEDY justifies the 18 August 2007 speedy deletion by Splash. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:14, 21 August 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.
WritersUA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

WritersUA (formerly knowns as WinWriters) is part of the technical writing community and provides a unique and valuable service that transcends the for-profit elements of the business. The WritersUA web site is highly regarded within the software user assistance community. References from numerous notable people within the profession can be provided. In addition to a wealth of original content, WritersUA offers industry surveys on skills and salaries and provides a resource directory that is much valued by the UA community. All of that is free to the public and provided without vendor advertising. The single for-profit event is a conference that has been held for fifteen years. In that time it has attracted over 8,000 people from around the world and is one of the very few gatherings of people specifically interested in improving software documentation. Resource Directory, 2007 Salary Survey, 2007 Skills Survey - Contact: Joe Welinske, (email address removed) Joe Welinske 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question, The process does document does not provide us with any guidelines as to where/what/when you needed to have references. In the challenge I said I could provide numerous references. Do you want them now? How many? What types? Where should I deliver them to the reviewers? We can provide references from academics, corporations, professional societies, notable experts, etc. Google has 20,000 references to our organization from sources all around the world. Most of the hits are referencing original articles that have contributed to the knowledge-base of the user assistance community. Over 800 hits reference survey results alone. Most of the hits referencing the annual conference are not advertising - rather they are describing industry news and insights that came out of the technical sessions. Approximately 40-50 industry experts speak at the event each year. With respect to the authority of referencing entities, I would assume the size of the pond should not be as important as an organization's relative size in that pond. User assistance is a relatively small part of the overall IT industry. It does not regularly receive notices on large, mainstream web sites. But it is vital and vibrant. The numerous organizations and individuals that reference WritersUA may not be well known in the mainstream but they are certainly well=respected within our community. Joe Welinske 21:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The material for the article should be from
    reliable sources that are independent of WritersUA. Newspaper articles are good, write ups in magazine such as Time (magazine) and Newsweek are good too. A published book or two on the history of WritersUA would be great, but is not a requirement. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted, valid AFD and article was definitely promotional in tone. Sources provided by nominator are not independent. --
    desat 20:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse No independent sources during the AFD or now, consensus was clearly to delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the review request does not indicate why the AfD was supposedly closed in error. It was a unanimous delete. Sandstein 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:29, 21 August 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.
Igor Vishev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was copied from [forum] with the permission (to place it on Wikipedia under the GFDL licence) of the person who posted it there (Bruce Klein, a director of ImmInst). The statement about the source and the permission was added to the talk page immediately after adding the article itself. User:WWGB marked the page with speedy deletion tag. I further elaborated on the article's talk page that it is copied here with permission. In case of any questions I requested this to be discussed on the talk page. Some time later User:Maxim speedy deleted the page.

All this was done in violation of Wikipedia's critera for speedy deletion, because the parameter 4 of the 12th criteria did not apply. That is, there was already an asserted permission for use of the text.

User:Maxim has ignored my message on his talk page. I am asking any admin to immediately restore the last version of the page, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." Paranoid 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored it. I haven't had time to read it yet, Paranoid. Also, Paranoid posted a rather
uncivil message, starting with "Are you serious?", and ending with "I require that you...". I realise that Paranoid has asked me to take a second look, and I believe this DRV is premature, as I've only seen Paranoid's first and second notice, and I certainly didn't delete the article in question out of process, as Paranoid has implied. I would prefer to have a day or two to look over this, as well. By this, I also ask Paranoid to be a bit more patient, and understand that I'm human, I make mistakes, and most importantly in this context, that admins delete page not by personal likes/dislikes, but by policy, making them more like janitors. Thank you. Maxim 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the reply, Maxim. Sadly, I have become really annoyed by the overall bureacracy at Wikipedia and has simply stopped contributing to it. When people falsely accuse me of copyvios, arguing I copied a photo to Wikipedia from another website, when I made the photo myself and the website in question is a freaking wikipedia mirror, I get really pissed off. That's my attitude to Wikipedia now.
In this particular case the page was deleted without review, it clearly didn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion, I was not notified by User:WWGB on my talk page about the SD tag (as he is required to do by policy), so I assume "out of process" can be applied to it. If "out of process" is clarified somewhere on WP, please give a link to it.
The civility of my message is not relevant in this context. You clearly didn't check the CSD g12, so I was really surprised by the deletion. Hence my "Are you serious?" comment. Please note that I didn't ask whether you were nuts, on drugs, etc. Furthermore, since you clearly made an error when speedy deleting the page, I required you to undelete it immediately. I should not have to "request" or "kindly ask" Wikipedia users who made an obvious error to fix them, should I? Paranoid 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't check CSD G12, I know it by heart, as I do countless deletions per day. Civility is relevant, as any individual is less likely to act if someone asks them to do it rather uncivilly/rudely. I still believe it's a CSD G12 vio. I realise you are attempting to help, but I don't think it complies with our policies. I think it would be better now for myself, Paranoid, and WWGB to abstain for a bit from this DRV, and let the community seek a solution to this. Maxim 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you should check CSD g12. As I said above, parameter number 4 requires that there be no assertion of permission. In this case there clearly was such assertion. Please answer to this direct complaint before asking the community to "seek a solution". Paranoid 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author (Bruce Klein, director of ImmInst) agrees to license it under GFDL. Paranoid 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)" Though I have much less experience than you,why not simply restore it with the appropriate tag pending the rest of the formalities, instead of debating here?'DGG (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore as permission was clearly asserted and seems like it would be easily verified (or not). G12 does not apply when permission and/or free licensing are asserted. I think we can assume good faith here but backing off of a clear error seems to be the correct course of action here, as the G12 policy advises. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 19 August 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.
Spells in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)
Note This deletion review addresses the Snowball keep, non admin closure of AfD #1, which was open for ten hours. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been put to AfD twice this month (the second debate was closed as it was judged that not enough time had passed since the first debate). The

snowball decidion, during the second
there was an ongoing debate before closure. The admin closing the second debate suggested that it could be taken to Deletion review. Basicly my feeling is that the article goes against several policies and guidelines and essays that are important to Wikipedia in the following ways:

  • WP:NN
    - No secondary sources discussing the subject.
  • WP:FICT
    - No real world material
  • WP:V
    - Can't verify the content as there are no secondary sources
  • WP:RS
    - As there are no secondary sources obviously none are reliable
  • WP:OR
    - If something has no sources it is almost by definition origonal research, the etymologies are really just a case of

editors matching up the names of spells with words in a Latin dictionary

  • WP:NOT#INFO
    - Collection of non-notable information
  • WP:NOT#GUIDE
    - This page and pages like these effectively are a guide to the HArry Potter Universe - not encyclopaedia articles and may be better suited to a Harry Potter wiki or a fansite.
  • WP:NOTINHERITED
    - Harry Potter is notable - this hould not by definition mean that the spells in the Harry Potter books are :notable - they should meet the relavent notability criteria.
  • WP:FAN
    - Could definately be considered as fancruft (in my opinion)

It might also be noted that the AfD for a page on non-canonical spells - with much the same content but refering to the games and movies rather than the books - was deleted using much the same reasoning.

Looking at the first AfD most of the arguements used boiled down to

WP:INTERESTING
or other rationale such as:

  • "it's well written" and
  • "it's a good guide" and
  • "Oh no you didnt! This page is great!" and
  • "I know it's useful, because I just used it to check the spelling of a hex that I just shouted at my friend"

were also given as arguements for keep, I do not these opinions did much to address the issues at hand. I think that there is definately a case to be made for deletion. The first nomination ended in

WP:SNOW but I do not think that should preducjice against opening up a new AfD considering that there was considerable discussion in prehaps a more policy minded way. Guest9999 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

But the debate ran for only 1 night in the US = 1 morning in Europe, and obviously not everyone was heard from. Personally, considering recent AfDs in general, I would have expected that there was more to come, and would have continued the debate. But I do not say relist, because nothing said now is likely to settle the matter: even if it is relisted and ends in a keep, there will be another series of attempts to delete possibly continuing once monthly until by chance it gets deleted, and if it ends in delete at any time there will be another request for review, etc. We have no mechanism for a final determination, which is a disgrace to any pretense at well-considered process.
As for the underlying merits, the spells are collectively a very major plot element, they run through the books, there is already substantial criticism to be added, and it was cited in the debate.--and there is a certainty of more to come. Ilikeit, though a factor, is balanced by idontlike thistypeofcontent. There is no ruling anyway that this sort of material counts as trivia, and not likely to be any consensus on that. There were abundant policy arguments raised for keeping. the possibility of merge remain, as a editing decision--one doesn't need AfD for merge. And, as I said in the discussion of another Potter-related article, this series is important enough to people generally and to wikipedians that any flexibility in interpretation should amount to a keep. deletion review is not AfD round 3. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn closure. While I am absolutely in favour of keeping the page, and will continue arguing that, I believe it was wrong and unnecessary to close the debate while active discussion was underway. There is nothing wrong with letting a nomination run its course, even though it was probably not really smart to start a new AfD just days after the previous one ended.
    saran 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn closure Endorse closure The first AfD was withdrawn by the nominator, not closed, so that's not anyone's fault. I too am in favor of keeping the page, and will also continue to argue its case. The AfD should be allowed to run its course. The second AfD was rather hasty, there should have been a longer waiting period. GlassCobra 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure - This is not a speedy, but Guest has it right. This one partitially or fully violates those policies, and I suggest this to be partially merged with the Harry Potter article, or continue with the Afd. --Hirohisat Talk 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure. While I understand the closing admins rationale for closing the second AfD, if your going to do close an AfD under such circumstances, close it when the AfD is still new, as in less than a day old. This AfD had been open for about 2.5 days, i.e, half the time period for an AfD. Kind of silly at that point to close it. And as far as I know, there is no minimum time period for a person to renominate an article, assuming good faith. And on top of that, there was about 18 days since the closure of the first AfD, and the opening of the second AfD. Also, considering the first AfD didn't even run it's full course, I see no reason to not let this one do so. Pepsidrinka 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure—the first AfD was Snowballed, but the second AfD introduced much more discussion on both sides; an early closure prevented the newly found discussion from continuing. — Deckiller 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the decision to renominate the article for deletion in the first place was out of process, and considering DRV is a place to discuss process (not whether or not the article deserves deletion), the AFD should never have been created in the first place. Specifically - an AFD was closed on 3 August 2007, with the verdict being "snowball keep". Anyone who disagreed with that decision should have put it on DRV, or waited a significant amount of time (I believe the guideline is 1 month but then again I don't visit AFD on a daily basis so maybe that has changed too!) before renominating. But instead, the article was renominated within 2 weeks. I see nothing wrong with the original decision to close as a "snowball keep", and therefore there is nothing wrong with the 2nd decision to close early. Incidentally, I would vote strong keep for this article, so please don't speedy delete it because then I will have to re-nominate it for DRV and it becomes quite a mess ;-) ugen64 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough of the rules lawyering already. What you seem to be saying is that we should close this DRV as endorse, to allow a new DRV to overturn the snowball close, and only then re-open the AfD. Needless waste of time. David Mestel(Talk) 22:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - AfDs of the same article shouldn't occur within weeks of each other, especially when an article doesn't have
    WP:CP issues. Consensus needs to count for something. Wait at least a month. ichor}mosquito{ 19:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • If you look at the page for the the
    "snow ball clause"
    it says that:

"If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause."

The fact that someone later brought up a reasonable objection (in the second AfD) suggests that the use of WP:SNOW was not neccessarily an appropriate way to end the origonal debate. [[Guest9999 19:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

  • Overturn closure- the use of
    WP:SNOW in the second AfD was uncalled for and unnecessary. The admin should have waited at least more than a day to allow discussion. However, the nomination of the article twice in such a short period of time wasn't so good, either. --Boricuaeddie 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn closure and relist, I hate
    desat 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

but the two objections were withdrawn, weren't they? DGG (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but this appears to be your first contribution. Do you have a username? Because right now, you seem like a complete newcomer adding a comment for a process you don't know about. Again, if you just failed to login, I apologise. Therequiembellishere 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; I have my login set to "remember me," but evidently, it did not. Evouga 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist. The first discussion seemed to be lacking in much policy discussion, but the second seems to be generating useful discussion (rather than fan-based keeps that cite no policy). I'd like to see this relisted as it was, so that the good arguments don't go to waste.
  • Overturn and reopen/relist. Needless parliamentary red tape. We should not have to have a debate about whether we're allowed to debate the deletion of an article! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first AfD closure, overturn the second The first AfD was closed quite properly, with the nomination withdrawn and overwhelming consensus to keep, it was perfectly fine to snowball and keep the article. As for the second AfD, since new arguments in favour of deletion have come up, the AfD should not have been closed early. Thus, reopen and let it go the whole five days so as to get a sturdier result. PeaceNT 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure and relist second AfD The reasons for the first AfD closure was because of a withdrawn nomination, and different issues were raised for the second AfD. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist in AfD. I personally think this article should not be deleted, the nominator thinks it should be. Let and AfD finish and we'll (hopefully) have a better consensus. Useight 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse per overwhelming consensus. Let's go through all of Guest9999's points:
— xDanielx T/C 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply J.K. Rowling has had many, many secondary sources write about her - her article is not based on Harry Potter "spillover". The Bridges in list of tallest Bridges show evidence of being notable - they have their own articles - the spells do not. I'm pretty sure that fansites like Mugglenet - which you linked to and the Harry Potter Lexicon do not count as reliable secondary sources.
    WP:FICT does not say real world perspective - it says "contain substantial real-world content". I felt WP:NOT#GUIDE was relevant as if real world places do not merit having every aspect of them explained I do not think that the Harry Potter Universe deserves this treatment. WP:NOT#INFO - applies to putting in information which is not notable for the sake of it - if the arguements above are to be considered then by default it would seem it is a relavent policy. [[Guest9999 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
    ]
True, the
WP:N
does not apply to bits of information within articles and thus does not apply to individual list items.
I agree that Mugglenet is probably not the ideal source, but just as
exceptional claims require exceptional sources
, mediocre sources can suffice for claims which are trivially true, such as "the summoning charm is a spell in the Harry Potter story." There are also multiple sources listed which can be cross-referenced with one another (see the two external links), so the sourcing is more than sufficient in my opinion.
I think
WP:FICT should not be applied here for a couple reasons. First, the article in question is essentially a supplement to Harry Potter and other related articles. If we were to merge all the Harry Potter-based articles together, the result would be too massive, hence the split. We could just repeat the cultural details in Harry Potter
to make the article in question a "proper" article by conventional standards, but that would be redundant since readers who are seeking such details of the story don't need such a general overview. Regardless, though, exceptions can and should be made for books which sell 325+ million copies.
Your comment on
ignored
.
— xDanielx T/C 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to say
WP:FICT doesn't apply to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
]
Especially since
WP:FICT is geared toward fiction subarticles instead of their main works. We must establish balanced, academic articles on fiction—not lengthy subarticles that retell every aspect of a fictional universe (that is not the role of an encyclopedia, obviously). — Deckiller 00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a notability guideline, not a rule. Fictional stories which sell 325+ million books may merit an exception. And I don't understand why you assert that
WP:FICT is geared toward sub-articles; it seems completely general there as far as I can see. — xDanielx T/C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Guest9999, I said that
WP:FICT should not be applied, not that we shouldn't consider it in relation to the article in question. — xDanielx T/C 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry if I misinterpretted you. I would like to restate my point in a more appropriate way. It seems odd to say
WP:FICT shouldn't be applied to an article on fiction. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
]
I think this is only a pseudo-disagreement resulting from a minor ambiguity in my earlier assertion. When I said
ignored as a loose and non-binding guideline. I argue that those conditions should not be applied as reasons to delete the article in question because of the questioned article's supplemental nature, and because the article is closely connected to an extremely notable subject such that it warrants an exception. Hope that clears things up. — xDanielx T/C 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:FICT deals with "topics within a fictional universe"; in other words, the subarticles for the work they appear in. WP:FICT also encourages merging and transwiki over deletion; I'd prefer to see this merged and/or transwikied before deletion (I started a merge discussion, which met stiff resistance, and transwiki to the Harry Potter Wiki is certainly an option if enough people agreed to it). — Deckiller 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse closure - Even notwithstanding the technicality argument that the second AfD was too soon after the first, I think it's still persuasive that the second AfD was once again on its way to snowballing to keep. Overturning the closure and reopening the AfD or relisting it for a third time would seem to be monumental wastes of time -- it doesn't look as though there'd be any real chance of a consensus to delete, so why spin our wheels going through those motions yet again when that effort could instead be applied to simply improving the article? The proper course here would be for the objectors to the article to work with the proponents thereof and just improve it, in my opinion, rather than wasting everyone's time with a perpetual cycle of AfD nominations. Ashdog137 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen many discussions and debates where, in the first day, things are looking to go one way, and then go somewhere else. I've seen RfAs that start out with 100% support from 40 people on their first days, only to fail at the end. That first day, when you see a page without a single oppose, and 40 people supporting the person, it would be easy to come to the conclusion of a snowball keep. But important points were brought to discussion, and the outcome changed in the end. One day's worth of discussion is in no way, whatsoever, a reasonable measure of consensus. -- Ned Scott 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    WP:SNOW is not meant to apply when there is any reasonable dissenting arguement - which there cearly is in this case. [[Guest9999 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of chefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing: This deletion was made based on 3 arguments, one that would successfully apply to all lists of this type, and two others that could be fixed just by editing the page. As such, I'm going to leave the page deleted, but allow for re-creation if whoever recreates the article fixes the two problems. If the resulting list after the fix still should not be there, then a new AFD can be opened. ——

Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

For reference: the two issues that can be fixed are: 1) the list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - In addition to listing chefs, the list also accepts entries for noted gastronomes. There is no distinction for living, dead, nationality, gender, or even "real"; fictional chefs like the Swedish Chef are also on the list. and 2) The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category.

There has been arguments given that note that there are categories by nationality of chefs, so its unreasonable to create a chef category and put the chefs of the various nationalities in that category as well, so given that a list can be made with additional information, and the list's scope is limited, recreation is ok. If someone wishes to do this task, you may contact me to undelete and move the full article history to your userspace. ——

Need help? 18:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The arguments given for deletion included specific, legitimate problems with the list; in particular lack of annotation making it redundant with the category system and the existence of unreferenced red links. I put a considerable amount of time into addressing these problems, and if I think its not going to be a wasted time I will put in a great deal more. Most of the delete !votes were however general arguments which apply to any

Kappa 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Could you please provide some substantiation to your argument? Thanks,
talk•contribs 02:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • proposed deletion policy.--Chaser - T 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CMS_Made_Simple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Expired prod, concern was: Fails WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM Dannewestis 10:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know why this page was deleted. CMS Made Simple is a very active community developing an open-source CMS system with the General Public License. As such there is no commercial interest in this. The community in the forums and on IRC is also very active and thus the CMS is definitely notable, as it is used by thousands of web designers all over the world.

  • Overturn and list Since the prod deletion is being disputed, I believe this is the next step. However, proof of notability will help. But so far, a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything with regards to reliable sources beyond a few security alerts. --Farix (Talk) 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Julia_Earl – Contested prod automatically restored. In my opinion the BLP issues do not rise to the level of deletion in the presence of sources. They or other concerns can be delt with by editing or AfD. Eluchil404 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) – Eluchil404 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Julia_Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|

I hope I'm asking this question correctly. I'm a new editor. What is the reason for the deletion? The reason cited was "hit job" and "messy," but it was neither -- it was neutral in point of view, and well-sourced. I tried to find out more by going to the deleter's page, but he seems to offer just a rant about how he knows the rules and doesn't have time to follow them, or listen to anyone who objects. What to do? Notfromhereeither 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the help desk, Julia Earl was a superintendent of public schools of a small (population-wise) county in New Hampshire. The article made no claim for notability. With the exception of the last paragraph, the article went into great detail about accusations against Julia Earl. All citations were from the local newspaper (again, lacking worldwide or even national notability). The first step in reinstating the article is to show notability. Wikipedia does not contain articles about mere school superintendents (present or past). Wikipedia does not contain articles about people who merely made the local news. Notability is the key. --
(what?) 05:13, 18 August 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.
Norvan_Vogt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability notability with respect to the "Norvan Vogt" Article as per 3rd post deletion "00:00, 18 August 2007 " , last substantial review, in the Wikipedia guidelines is described as;

A person is generally notable if they meet *any* of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included

1.The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Norvan was the Subject of an article in the Youth Volunteers Report of the international Symposium on Volunteering (Geneva, Switzerland - November, 2001). He has also been the subject of an article in the Australian Journal on Volunteering, Volunteering Australia ISSN: 1325-8362, Volume 7 Issue 1 (April 2002)


2.If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.

The 15 that have been supplied with in the article should be sufficient


3.The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.

An independent bio was published on the Youth Action Net website as well as the Department of Education (Australia), witch are independent and widely noted sources.


4.The person has received significant recognized awards or honours.

Both awards noted in the article are not trivial, they are both royal warrants. However I do note that it is not a popular invented award like CLIEO's Batchlor of the year or TIMES person of the year.


5.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Norvan's Contribution to the re-establishment of Scouting in Vanuatu is widely recognized as a significant contribution to youth development their, as noted in several articles in the 'trading post'(Vanuatu's main daily news paper)

  • I feal that there is a double standard being applied to the Norvan Vogt Article as the notability issues are not equally applied across the board.

For example; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Muehlenberg - is about a nice guy that has been involved in a few NGOs and has a Blog that is not even noted as one of Australia's top 100 read blogs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iktimal_Hage-Ali - is just about a sweet girl that has been on a few advisory committees and landed her self in a media frenzy late last year.

I am not saying that these articles should be taken down but if they are allowed to stay I cant see why this one can't. Or is there a rule that the bigger the article the more notable you need to be. If so how many words does Norvan get? Or is a disk space issue?

  • Also, anyone that does work and live in developing countries, as Norvan does, has a natural disadvantage to the notability criteria. There are the Wikipedia is dominated by North American content because the wider media

there can produce more content than any other country.

Now before anyone decides to delete this article I would like to have a decent rational discussion against all 5 of the points I made above. Also I found the paragraph on the " Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" "Much like just a policy or guideline, simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. Therefore, try to explain to other editors why the subject of an article may not be notable. Instead of saying, "Non-notable," consider using "No reliable sources found to establish notability," or "Not enough reliable sources to establish that the subject passes our standards on notability. Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that establish or confirm the subject's notability."

NB. Lastly I should state that I have known Norvan in the past and that there may be a COI issue.

I look forward to your responses.

Delvian

P.s - I would like to politely point out, with respect to Carlossuarez46, that the deletion of the article was not deleted in accordance with the CSD G4 Q:“not provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version” the new article was substantially different and was also pointed out in the article discussion page.

  • Overturn and list at AfD first of all, a clear assertion of importance was made. I have some doubts whether it is adequately supported, but that's a question for AfD. Second, G4 applies only if the previous deletion has been by XfD, not if it has been a speedy (or a prod)DGG (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I think the present version is worth a discussion at AfD, tho I would advise the author to trim it first. DGG (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was deleted as the result of an AfD, page log and the AfD. The two deleted version appear substantially to me, so the deletion that needs to be appealed is therefore the AfD one. That had only one dissenter, the nominator of this DRV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to note that I was also dissenter in the third edit of the article but due to seedy delete that was not noticed. It would seem to me that most of the peole reviewing the article did not see the 2nd or 3rd edits of the article.Johnanderson75
  • Comment Ok so what is correct way of re posting this article?, do you guys restore it and then i cut it down a little or do i just start the article again? Delvian 11:18 August 20 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion the proper way to have dealt with this was to bring it here after the afd was concluded rather than re-create it in defiance of the community consensus. Recreation of material within hours after an afd is closed as delete is the clear reason for having G4, otherwise nothing will ever be accomplished by afd. User:Delvian has few edits outside of this topic and managed with his second edit to find himself at an afd discussion which I find somewhat unlikely. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per Carlossuarez46. Material recreated after AfD speedy deletable per
    WP:CSD#G4. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse both deletions I'm not sure which one is being appealed, but the speedied version was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD. The points raised in the AFD didn't persuade people, so not seeing any problems, I endorse it as well. As to other articles, see
    WP:INN. Wikipedia can be inconsistent. If you really want consistency, you can nominate those other articles for deletion. Kudos to the nominator for his consistent politeness and civility. It is appreciated.--Chaser - T 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

17 August 2007

  • Zeitgeist the Movie – Speedy endorsed; find reliables sources, THEN request a review. – Mangojuicetalk 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zeitgeist the Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD
)

I'm not sure if there are reliable sources. Post reliable sources here.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 22:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Incompetence – The last edit was to PROD this, which process had two days to go. This was an invalid speedy, and an unnecessarily accelerated prod that has effectively now been contested. The deleting admin has not responded, and so I'm going to undelete this on the grounds that the prod was contested. Note that wikt:Transwiki:Incompetence shows that the transwiki was correctly completed. – Splash - tk 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Incompetence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article improperly transwikified with loss of disambig and "See also" info. Prior AFD vote results were disregarded. Azazello 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AfD. I can't see to what degree the deleted article was a trivial dictionary definition, but without further information it seems speedy deletion was misused - speedy deletion only applies to articles that were transwikied as a result of an AfD, not articles that were transwikied on someone's own initiative - see
WP:TRANSWIKI. Evouga 20:24, 17 August 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.
Permanent North American Gaeltacht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Permanent North American Gaeltacht was deleted for verification reasons. Personally I didn't know how to cite myself (I live across the road from the site, speak Irish, and wrote the article. Any information I stated was verifiable, but from non-online sources (such as the letters from Eamonn O Cuiv received on the official opening). This site was endorsed by Uduras na Gaeltachta, and despite what some claim here, is a full gaeltacht not a college. for a complete description see sources such as (http://www.nwipp-newspapers.com/DN/free/324892792346375.php) which gives a detail of the site planned as the learning centre, helping to preserve the culture and language we posess. Also, being rejected because of size (as one claimed, Erinsville is to small) is just ridiculous. UNDELETE_verified by me, and others. -- Danjdoyle 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The history of this article has been restored pending closure of this review. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:46, 17 August 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.
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The intention of this page is to provide a resource for interested parties to obtain information on this State Organization. The copyright violations that were described shall be corrected promptly and we request that the page and it's content will be Temporarily reposted in order that corrections and source sitations can be made. Thank you. Lefirre 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We never restore copyright violations. The risk to whomever actually acts and to Wikipedia are too high. Endorse deletion of acknowledged copyright violation.
    GRBerry 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse speedy. Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations beyond fair use quotes is nonnegotiable. --Farix (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion view but allow clean recreation. Naturally, to safeguard the Project, the article cannot be restored. However, as a state department the subject is eminently notable so there cannot be any objections to a new, clean article being produced. Bridgeplayer 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, not a copyvio State of California web pages created by the State are public domain, except for material that may have been copyright elsewhere: "in general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. " [65] This information is linked from "Conditions of use" at the web site quoted in the article, [66]. Incidentally, the same applies to Texas. I know it may apply to some other states, but I do not know just which ones--it does not apply to all. GRBrry, you have more experience than I at this, could you check? --:the material should be rewritten anyway--it is much too heavily PR for an encyclopedia page, but that's a secondary concern.DGG (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG is correct that http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/conditions.htm says "In general, information presented on this Web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." However, what do they mean by information? That isn't clear to me, and I'm not an expert on copyright law. The page that was the source also explicitly says "© 2004 State of California". Given this, a plausible interpretation is that copyright is at best questionable. I've asked for some assistance. I incline to being conservative and keeping deleted since a complete rewrite is pretty much needed.
      GRBerry 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Endorse speedy delete The source also explicitly stating "© 2004 State of California" is enough to meet speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. – Deletion overturned; relisted at AfD. The DRV consensus is broad and clear: the process irregularities, including failure to list in a daily log, are not "shrubberies" in this case, but real errors affecting fundamental fairness. – Xoloz 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After 5 days, the result was clearly keep. The AfD was not closed. After 10 days, there were a few more delete votes, but there was clearly no consensus. A non-admin closed the AfD in frustration at lack of admin action after the failure to close had been reported on

WP:AN/I. The arguments that these socks presented were for the most part invalid, and based on bald assertions of various writers' membership in the order without any valid citation to a source where the individual self-identified as a member. Due to the argumentation, El C incorrectly deleted the article upon review, apparently w/o taking into account the sockpuppetry and/or single purpose accounts and invalid arguments. IPSOS (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

In addition, it appears that the AfD was never transcluded onto the daily logs or elsewhere, so the consensus was not representative of the entire community. At the very least it should be overturned and properly relisted. IPSOS (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken into account all the factors presented and have nothing to add beyond what I already stated in my closing statement. Thanks. El_C 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected GRBery's request that I overturn my decision. Again, I was aware of the factors. Enough established editors participated. El_C 13:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: there's a whole host of
    assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. I'm not getting in to this debate again, and I have already noted my own suspicions that the AfDs were raised in bad faith in the first place, but that does not mean we're free to cast aspersions against fellow editors with whom we disagree, willy nilly. I am certain that the closing admin took the merits of the article, and the debate, into account when making the decision, rather than the 'who might be a sock of who' tit for tat going on between User:Kephera975 and User:IPSOS. ColdmachineTalk 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This behavioural guideline notes that editors who fail to disclose an interest in a given topic, particularly when making controversial edits (and I would include debate on an AfD as potentially controversial), risk being accused of a
conflict of interest and this template, which might be placed on a users' talk page, makes specific mention to "participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I refer here to the non-admin closing the debate, and to this removal of a clear COI some time ago, but I am assuming good faith and have refrained from templating people. The debate, and the notability of the article in question, speak for themselves. ColdmachineTalk 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Um, an interest in the subject is not the same as a
conflict of interest. But I'm sure you knew that. IPSOS (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse. -- Avi 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone please take a look at the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn page? User:IPSOS has now merged the majority of this deleted article into the main page. In the edit summary he lists it as "including a summary of the most significant contemporary golden dawn order". Isn't this out of line? Kephera975 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think the omission from the log mattered--clearly everyone from both sides saw the debate. DGG (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Clearly there is no consensus in either direction, yet El_C indicated that he was interpreting the consensus to, broadly, indicate a failure to satisfy notability requirements. Notability is a question in this issue, but there are book references that mention the organiazation, so that is still open issue and should be discussed when the AfD is relisted. Most certainly there is no consensus on that AfD page that there is no notability. Out of the 14 editors who listed !votes, only 5 of them were for delete. 2 were for merge, 1 suggested splitting the article and starting over as a stub, and 7 specified keep. That's not a consensus.
If El_C had stated "there is no consensus but I don't think it's notable" that would more accurately reflect the action, though I would still question the decision. It is not fair to declare a consensus where there is none.
Aside from the !votes, that extremely long AfD page is so full of contentious bickering and repeated arguments by the nominator who apparently has a COI, and at least one pair of sockpuppets, that there is nothing even approaching a real consensus and it would be hard to see it even if it was there (I am not accusing the nominator of being related to the sockpuppets, but there are sockpuppets involved).
In Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete it states, and it is written in bold: When in doubt, don't delete.. That is the correct action in this case: restore the article and relist the AfD. In the relisted AfD, use extra vigilance to avoid long rambling arguments by COI accounts and the nominator and let the process proceed as it is intended to work rather than devolving into chaos as it did this time. Choas is not consensus, the AfD should be relisted.
I have written a lengthy response here, but in case anyone is wondering, I have never edited the article or articles related to it so I have no vested interest. --Parsifal Hello 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - as per User:Parsifal's excellent statement above, particularly the quote from the deletion guidelines. John Carter 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Reassess hi just to say that the AfD was listed on the main list of current things at the time, so it was open for the whole community to comment. I thought the result, from all the comments and opinions that were given, would be keep though. There are problems with non-admin closures with a lot of the AfDs (some people are too mad for doing it.) Much as I love Glass-thingy (the bloke who closed it) if he was involved in the debate it's clearly wrong for him to close it. I don't think it needs the whole shebang again though, I'm surprised an admin kept it as delete and think the consensus, arguments should be reassessed by someone else.Merkinsmum 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned by the level of apparent promotional activism. From what I saw, all the established editors who commented opted to delete. AfD is not a vote and the deletion guideline is not intended to be cherry-picked in this way. El_C 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply not true, unless you are defining "established" in an elitist way. Please check again. Use
    WP:COUNT (Interiot's tool) to check the breadth of contributions. I !voted keep, and so did Parsifal, GlassFET, Fuzzypeg, Warlordjohncarter and several others. None of these are single purpose accounts. IPSOS (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • A wonderful sentinment, but in point of fact, no cheering has occurred. If you think it has, please show some diffs. I and other editors have stated that we agree that the non-admins conclusion was the right one. That's entirely different from approving of his action. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are getting overly emotionally involved, and please stop flinging around accusations. I've responded multiple times to accusations of
    conflict of interest which I will repeat here for your benefit. IPSOS (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. "I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you." (diff of full post here) IPSOS (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's untrue; I'm uninvolved and I don't really care. I have gone to the lengths I wish to to illustrate the extent of the disruption. But if you continue to revert war over the restoration of deleted content, be prepared to face further censure. El_C 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • El_C, you wrote: "all" the established editors who commented opted to delete.
Your comment is not only incorrect, it is a basic violation of AGF and disturbing to see that coming from an administrator. In what way am I not an established editor, with over 2800 edits and hundreds of edits helping resolve disputes at
WP:WQA
? And, I've never edited any topics related to that AfD.
That shows you completely discounted valid "keep" !votes by good faith editors without actually checking our contribs. I don't know why you did that, perhaps you were angered that a non-admin closed the discussion. There is no evidence that I or most of the others who added "keep" comments have any vested interest in the article.
By stating that only the "delete" votes were those of established editors, you acknowledge that you did not consider the "keep" votes at all, making your close of the AfD biased and unfair.
Whatever happens with this deletion review, I ask you to withdraw your negative characterization of myself and the other editors who do not deserve to be spoken of in that fashion. --Parsifal Hello 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not acknowledge that; it was a well-rounded decision that took everyone's opinions and all factors into account. El_C 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you took everyone's opinion's into account, why did you say "all" the established editors who commented opted to delete. ?
Please tell me in what way you find that I am not an established editor, or that I have any promotional activism on this topic. My only activisim in the debate was to try and fairly identify SPA accounts that were disrupting the discussion. I've never edited any related articles, and I came to the AfD from a report at
WP:WQA
.
Aside from your decision on the AfD (which I believe was hasty and incorrect), that characterization of me is just plain wrong, and it's unfair. I think you're wrong about several other editors too, but I'll stick to what I know absolutely for sure for now, which is the facts about myself.
You marginalized my comments by stating that I am not an established editor. That's unfair, uncivil, and I ask that you withdraw that statement. You're an administrator. You're supposed to set an example of the best, so please show us that you are. --Parsifal Hello 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist: this should not imply any form of criticism of the closing admin. The lack of transclusion is a severe problem for an article which is already something of a battleground. Hornplease 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This willingness to relive the battle due to an irrelevant technicality is even more concerning than the apparent promotional activism. El_C 19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that its a battleground is precisely why soliciting wider, neutral "oh-I-just-stumbled-across-this" opinion is more, not less important. Hence, not a technicality. I certainly scan the logs. Hornplease 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there are lots of tit for tat sockpuppet pages being filed and absolutely none of them have been proven, as far as I know there's no conclusive decision of anyone being a sockpuppet of User:Kephera975 and so that claim should not be used to decide anything. Not saying it's necessarily untrue, who knows, but it's certainly not proven and for all way know some editors could be sockpuppets of people on other sides of the AfD argument too. i don't get El_C's latest comment either- please explain? Any AfD may get promotion by its fans while established eds disagree. that's not a matter for concern, though with no wiki-able reasons for the args, they can be ignored. but anyway, the vote didn't go their way, so wasn't biased.Merkinsmum 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Ipsos is right too, several established eds voted keep.Merkinsmum 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that care if this notable group makes it? Go ahead, overturn it, "vote stack" the relisted AfD and close as no consensus. El_C 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn on procedural grounds. At least one editor, me, looks at the daily log. Evouga 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the current AfD listings for that day I think, along with all the others Keph listed. I think that's how I saw it, unless I just tracked it down from those other ones. It's not like uninvolved eds didn't contribute. Oh and I agree with Parsifal, I too am an established ish editor having been on wikip for over 2 years, with over 1000 edits. It's a bit rude to say all those who voted keep aren't established. I don't know if I voted keep, as I was a bit turned off by the ravings of the HOGDinc fans. But I'm surprised that the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn got through and this didn't. Because I imagine that there are more sources for HOGD Inc, though they're maybe not as novel.Merkinsmum 21:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No
docboat 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I dont think not deleting is an established recommendation and if it is its one well overdue for review,
SqueakBox 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
"You don't think that ...." is just not good enough. First off, you are wrong. If in doubt, do not delete - that is the current policy. You may not like it, but there it is. Secondly, because you have an opinion does not justify acting to the opposite of established procedure, does it? If you have an issue with Wikipedia policy, then work to get policy changed. Anything else is anarchy, and admins should not support anarchy, nor should supporters of admins, should they? Mind you, I am a middle aged person, so perhaps my views are a bit suspect too, huh? And thirdly, if you are a fan of El C as appears to be the case, I would really advise you to be "on board" with Wiki policy, or risk jeapordizing El C's position - as it is, he is on very shaky ground with his recent decision. But that is just my opinion as a middle-aged established editr with no axe to grind on the recent article debacle - just a very strong sense of "something being very wrong" with recent events. I am calling now for admin review of the whole sorry affair.
docboat 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Squeaky, don't forget anyone can be any age with any qualifications on the internets, not that El_C is like that I'm sure and not to say anything against him in any way, but think of Esjay:)Merkinsmum 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe that closes like this (ie, based on arguments and policy, not head counts) are fine, and I don't think the sockpuppets were a big problem, nor was the lack of listing in the daily log a problem. I just think the arguments here for deletion were refuted in Parsifal's comment and so I don't think the debate can be called on the side of delete. I would recommend not relisting until the sockpuppeteers have been blocked, though. After that a relist might make sense. Mangojuicetalk 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to procedural errors and lack of consensus. When in doubt, the result is no consensus, which means keep. Postlebury 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per failure to include on the daily log. If the result of the discussion had been clear, this error would be harmless, but it wasn't. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice to relisting. The AfD really comes down to notability concerns. The notability was borderline, there was no consensus, and the editors as a whole were leaning to Keep. El_C pushed his own judgment in closing this as Delete. Clearly El_C had an opinion just as GlassFET did. There's no rule that a closer has to be unopinionated, but while the first closure did reflect the outcome of the AfD, the second was rather bold in my opinion. — xDanielx T/C 06:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I am an established editor, have no axe to grind, and have reviewed the material. I am sorry El C - your justifications do not make sense, they are contrary to the AfD discussion, and do a disservice to the wikipedia. I would expect a complete explanation of your decision taking into account the statements expressed on this page - statements you have answered very poorly, IMHO.
    docboat 10:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and relist I hesitate to go through an AfD with all the arguing again (yawn) if the AfD had been closed not long after 5 days there would have been a clearer and less confusing AfD result to read, even if it was 'no concensus'. It's not El_C's fault- I thought of nagging an admin to put us out of our misery when it got to 6 or 7 days, but didn't. Assumed this one would end up a keep to be honest, as it may be more well known/ have more writers members of it than Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn. Some people are more keen to delete articles if they are about occult/new age or paranormal groups or subjects. Not saying El_C is necessarily like this.:)Merkinsmum 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, looks like the AfD was poorly handled at several points. Bryan Derksen 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice to relisting. While notability was borderline, there was no consensus to delete. I would recommend that it not be relisted immediately, simply to give editors an opportunity to correct the weaknessess that were identified by discussion. I am sympathetic to the problem of how to determine what groups are notable, and often would argue for deletion of borderline groups, but this one seemed to have potential to be interesting because it illustrated for me the difficulty of tracking lineage in this tradition. Buddhipriya 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as one of the those whose comments were discounted as being an "involved" party, I just want to let everyone know that I am in fact a member of all the religion projects, and have done several assessments for all of them. I don't think I've yet really really edited a single article related to this subject, though. Actually, my specialty is biographies of Christian figures, and my own personal beliefs are pretty much contrary to those of the adherents of the group in question. John Carter 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment me too, I've flirted with various spooky stuff over the years but never been involved in an order based on the 'Golden Dawn' or any of the related orgs. Nor had I edited any of these articles until a few days ago. If you look at my edit history until a few days ago it was mainly on alt med articles, and reading the AfDs. These golden dawn AfDs have inspired me to try and improve some of the articles.Merkinsmum 22:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist anew - The lack of transclusion on the daily log plus the lack of clear results. The admin closing this DRV should do the listing at AfD to ensure that it is done properly. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Lolcode – Restore since significant new information has come to light since the deletion. – Jreferee (Talk) 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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
)

Was deleted about two months ago due to it's newness and lack of reliable sources or notability. Since then, it has spread surprisingly fast as an esoteric programming languages, including being the subject of a Microsoft joke and Media coverage of that. It was also apparently mentioned at linux.com(another page linking to it, which might be an RS in itself) , although that article seems to have been deleted for some reason. It has been the subject of academic lectures at

del.icio.us. It is clearly 'out there' enough to be notable, if not then, now. Lucid 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

16 August 2007

  • Media Publisher – I see enough in the press coverage to assert notability, which is enough to save this from a proposed deletion. – Chaser - T 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Media Publisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Did not have an opportunity to debate the merits of the deletion reasons EricAlderman 22:37, 16 August 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 Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was closed as a no consensus, even though there was consensus to delete the article (12-6), most of the keep votes were because

wat's sup 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Australian Holographics – Speedy deletion overturned; relisting delayed a few days as a courtesy, per suggestion below. – Xoloz 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Australian Holographics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was incomplete, and now needs to be completed. There may have been some concern over the copyright of certain images, but in fact all images used have been cleared and are free to be used publicly. Also, there was reference to the lack of any assertion of the subjects importance or significance. I think this was an oversight on behalf of the original contributer. The importance of this particular endeavor in large format holographic production is hard to dispute. Many international experts would attest to that fact. Some ground breaking research was conducted by this company, and the various examples of holograms produced fill in an important part of the international holographic story, about which there is precious little information available in Wikipedia. If the Article can be reinstated or re-submitted, I will volunteer to work to link together researches and producers in this field and make sure that the articles are well referenced and thorough in their adherence to Wikipedia's content guidelines.- Perhaps complicating this process is the fact that the person who deleted the article, "Naconkantari" has apparently left the Wikipedia community, so I have not been able to advise them or discuss same. with thanks~User:Receptive Receptive 15:19, 16 August 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:Childhoodsend/Balance check (edit | [[Talk:User:Childhoodsend/Balance check|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

My sandbox was nominated for deletion (?!) on August 14 by interparty, and the debate was closed for "delete" only one day later, August 15, and this despite having only votes for "keep". Debate should at least been open longer (if not by fairness, see policy). Comment on admin's page was left unanswered. Little chance to improve was given. Also, not sure request by nom was even supported by any policy. -- Childhoodsend (talk · contribs · logs) 14:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The user subpage was nominated for MfD deletion at 20:29, 14 August 2007. Two users participated in the
WP:SPEEDY supports the speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: That is not correct. He was made aware of the MfD and commented in it, just as I pointed out
WP:DRV to him as he complained afterwards. --Stephan Schulz 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Relist at MFD. Deleting admin, in their deletion summary and closure summary, cited a thread on
    GRBerry 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relist I advised the user to take it here. DGG (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. No policy clearly demanded deletion, and its early closure appears out of process. OR and objective usefulness don't even apply to user pages as far as I'm aware. This sort of page might in fact poison the community, but it's not clearly a bad thing as DGG's MfD comment shows. It's an important debate that the community should have. I recommend widely publicizing it upon relisting. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as no one who had looked at the page recognized it as an attack page, including at least one person supposedly under attack (see JoshuaZ's thoughts below) I would say that it's the kind of controversial call that policy demands sent to XfD. Cool Hand Luke 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. CE is a known problem user, and Radiant was right on the money when he deleted this as an attack page. Raul654 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Do all listings of a user's purported bias constitute an attack? I seem to recall admins posting lists of non-scientific Global warming editors in various forums. I agree that this might be an attack page, but if it is then we really need to discuss the limits of identifying other user's purported POV. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is Raul654 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment For those not aware, Raul654 is known for such rant against me. We have divergent views about global warming and he takes it quite heartedly. --Childhood's End 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - For those not aware, Childhoodsend is a global warming denier. His edits to that topic have been profoundly negative and waste the time of users interested in making those articles better. [67][68][69] That he should create such a page is not surprising in the least. Raul654 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I see. The non-admins should see the precedents here, here, and here. It should be noted that these pages had headings like "Be wary of the following and monitor their edits closely", whereas this deleted article said, "Administrators known to clearly support the theory of anthropogenic global warming." I think lines could be drawn here; it's not so clearly an attack. Users make these kinds of dirty dozen lists all the time in talk space. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to chime in, you're wrong there. My purported "attack page" was no such thing. One thing it did say was "Be wary of the following" (no "watch monitor their edits closely," as Cool Hand Luke claims), which is not entirely different at all from [70]. So you and Raul654 can keep claiming these things, but they are without substance. ~ UBeR 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • On 04:34, 1 March 2007 you revised "Administrative watchdog" to say "Be wary of the following and monitor their edits closely". I didn't make this up; it's a direct quote. I have no idea who you are, and I have no axe to grind. It should be clear from my comment below that I'm not giving anyone a free pass here. That's just what the deleted page said. Cool Hand Luke 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The last modified version wouldn't have said to monitor their edits closely. Regardless, no different than [71]. ~ UBeR 21:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Users make these kinds of dirty dozen lists all the time in talk space. - Wik is banned for doing it. Uber's 3 previous hit lists were all deleted. Your comment is simply false. Raul654 18:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Oh, Really? When one inserts a list of purported POV warriors into history and refers back to it in the future, it functions like this user page. If naming groups of purported POV editors is an attack, we should not tolerate it anywhere. Don't misunderstand me: I believe that deniers of man-made climate change are simply wrong. I also think I would vote to delete this user page on balance. But DRV is not about the merits of deletion. DRV is about process. The process was short-circuited here. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The deletion process was undermined and ignored by Radiant. Raul654's just got an axe to grind. ~ UBeR 18:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not red herring at all. You were wrong, and just about every admin and every user here agrees. Don't try to game the system. ~ UBeR 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain As the nominator, I obviously think the decision was right. The page was useless POV-pushing propaganda. I would have preferred for community consensus to firmly establish this, on the other hand. On the third hand, zapping this early might have prevented some waste of time, so I appreciate Radiant's attempt. --Stephan Schulz 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There was not even an opinion expressed on this page, so "POV-pushing propaganda" might prove hard to establish. Again, please re-read DGG's MfD comment, which quite accurately described the simple purpose of this page. --Childhood's End 18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. And I am not expessing anything about your ancestry and a donkey with this comment. --Stephan Schulz 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The discussion should have been allowed its full course. To clarify one point. When I expressed an opinion on the MfD discussion, I was not an admin. I was made an admin only yesterday (actually today on UTC time). --Bduke 22:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a red herring. Pages that fall under the speedy deletion criteria (A10, in this case) are not exempt just because they are listed on MFD at the time. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that, upon becoming administrator, your opinion hasn't changed? ~ UBeR 23:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that his comment was meant to clarify the point discussed by GRBerry and Cool Hand Luke above. --Childhood's End 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when does keeping track and labeling contributors cross a line per
    WP:HARRASS or WP:STALK? For what purpose was this list made? I see little valuable reason for its continued existence but there may be a good faith explanation during MFD. Carlossuarez46 22:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • relist Having seen the content, I don't see anything wrong with giving it the full length. I have trouble seeing it constitute an attack, although I would think by now that users would have learned that it is easier to just keep lists off Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 03:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per above. Inappropriate out-of-process deletion. WaltonOne 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Speedy closures are meant for
    WP:OR which doesn't apply to user space. — xDanielx T/C 01:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse, several people here appear to be unaware that
    Speedy Deletion Criteria apply EVEN to pages presently on MFD. >Radiant< 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Actually, several people here believe that the speedy deletion criteria do not apply to this page.
      GRBerry 12:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yes, one or two people have an actual argument, but the rest are throwing the red herring around that pages on MFD may not be speedied. >Radiant< 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See
          petitio principii. It seems that you are trying to defend your decision by throwing everyone's arguments into the red herring basket upon your assumption that speedy deletion automatically applied, while that's what you failed to show. It notably seems that the reviewers above do not feel that the page should have been speedy-deleted, so saying that speedy-deletion applies despite MfD is no answer. I guess you're supporting your decision upon criterion 10 (attack pages), but this criterion is for "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity" and it is far from being clear that my page fell under this, as it shows and as you can see by the comments herein. As Speedy deletion warrants, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.". Thus I dont think that all the reviewers herein are guilty of making red herrings... --Childhood's End 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    • Next time you close a debate as speedy deletion, try to actually mention it, eh? Y'know, on the deletion summary or in the heading or something. Don't use words like "The result of the debate was delete." If you had said it was a speedy to begin with, I could have immediately undeleted it as an invalid speedy and sent it back to MfD. It would have saved everyone a lot of time. Cool Hand Luke 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Strictly speaking, I'd really opt for relist, as incorrect speedy closing of an AfD, followed immediately by speedy deleting of the material. Given that that's clearly a nonsense, I endorse deletion. The material had no place in Wikipedia. For me, this is a classic example of IAR... as it's making a monkey of our rules. --Dweller 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at MfD - Speedy delete may be used at anytime, even when the page is at XfD. However, I think reasonable people could conclude that the speedy deleted page could serve a purpose other than to disparage its subjects, particularly since two users failed to note such disparagement at the
    WP:CSD#G10 appears to have been misapplied and none of the other speedy delete criteria appear to apply. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relist, because an MfD was going on. The speedy here doesn't seem valid: this may be an enemies list as Radiant describes it but it doesn't say anything attackish or otherwise worthy of qualifying as G10. If the user's behavior is an issue, I would much prefer to see warnings and blocks, and behavior-oriented dispute resolution as a way to handle it, and the page is not so incivil that we can't wait for an MfD to take place. Mangojuicetalk 05:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Inappropriate deletion as no criteria applied per Mango. Radiant should have sufficient trust in the community to assume that if his position is correct, he would have received the backing of the community. Instead he short-circuited due process. Brandon97 13:51, 21 August 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.
David Shafer (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In the

WP:BIO states "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" is the criteria for establishing the notability of athletes. The subject of the article plays in a fully professional league. Sasha Callahan 11:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Minor league players are the most borderline cases in
wat's sup 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comparison with the 12th level of English soccer is spurious. It is totally uncontroversial that people who play at the third level of English soccer (
Football League Division One) do merit articles. Postlebury 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse deletion view -
    WP:N, an exception would be made. In this case, no specially significant reliable sources have been produced and I see no reason to go against the position of the baseball guys and gals who know their onions. Bridgeplayer 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree with you, but I wanted it relisted because I wasn't the one who supposed to close it as delete, because of obvious bias.
wat's sup 17:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
specialist knowledge about whether minor league players are likely to be so frequently referred to by RSs that there is a strong or even an compelling presumption of importance. There are many special cases which over-ride the general standard of WP:N--highways, inhabited places, for 2 major examples. This is specifically stated at WP:N-- " A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right." Read WP:N, don't guess at it.DGG (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe
    WP:BIO must control here even if it is imperfect. Allowing individual projects to set the standard is an invitation for confusion and disagreement. Given that many articles are under the umbrella of more than one project, we should consider what would happen if two projects issue contradictory statements of notability. The problem should be addressed at BIO and there the various project people and non-project people can make that decision. In fact, the baseball project could agree on a statement and issue it there. However as for this particular article we should allow the more expansive wikipedia-wide guideline to direct. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and optionally relist.
    WP:BIO. — xDanielx T/C 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just for my info, could you point me to the discussion or commentary indicating that the intent of
 RGTraynor  14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There aren't hundreds of European clubs, I'm taking the issue of minor league players to
wat's sup 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There are hundreds of European clubs. There are about 100 professional football clubs in England alone. Brandon97 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Calton above. Eusebeus 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do not relist - The closer did not seem to interpret the debate correctly since there was no consensus. Do not relist since the AfD lasted 5 days, and enough users participated in the AfD to determine consensus. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. There was no consensus to delete, and
    WP:BIO must take priority over discussion on a project. If general guidelines don't take priority, Wikipedia will become incoherent and unpredictable. Brandon97 13:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Bring radicals cartoon.png – Keep closure overturned; it is worth noting that the cartoon is no longer used in the article. The utility of relisting is uncertain; it will remain at editorial option, given that the previous closure was not supported by DRV. – Xoloz 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_6#Image:Bring_radicals_cartoon.png

I am bringing this issue up for review because the IFD process, as well as the talk page of the sole article this is used on, lack sufficient editor participation to get a meaningful consensus on this image.

This image is a low-quality hand-drawn cartoon used to illustrate a pun in an article about mathematics. It is debatable whether it is actually funny, but it does not add information that could not be covered in the article text. However, the actual issue is whether Wikipedia should use cartoons to illustrate articles and make them funnier. I believe it was established with the

newsletter
rather than to articles).

The main arguments to "keep" so far are (1) that mathematics textbooks also use silly cartoons, which seems to be irrelevant, and (2) that the detractors of the cartoon are ignorant about mathematics, which is only an ad hominem. I suggest that this image has no place in an encyclopedia and should therefore be removed. >Radiant< 09:47, 16 August 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.
ProjectPier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was reposted in a significantly improved manner after an initial deletion. Also, there was a discussion about the deletion criteria on its talk page that resulted in a consensus to keep the page Rcrossvs 03:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but normal time on DRV is 5 days. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Closing_reviews. --Stephan Schulz 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not familiar with some of wikipedia's policies in this arena Rcrossvs 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as explained by GRBerry. -- DS1953 talk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per GRBerry. JoshuaZ 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that someone seems to have restored the page, can the discussion page also be restored so there is a record of the deletion discussion. Rcrossvs 06:52, 20 August 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_August_16-31&oldid=1108884839"