Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 16-28

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• BitDefender (and Bitdefender could then be redirected to the new page). Trebor 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion as advertising bordering on spam, but without objection to the creation of a new, neutral article. Subject definitely seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice to recreation. Notable software, but even a stub would be preferable to an advertisement. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is a PROD review available, as well as its last revision before deletion? I do not believe that, at the point of last working on it, it was advertising beyond what is allowable on Wikipedia (in the sense that the "advertising" is effectively restricted to talking about the existence of the product and its notable aspects). Besides, I had severely worked on the fact that BitDefender is currently the only non-Mac antivirus program that is bundled with a Mac antivirus program (VirusBarrier X4 DP), which was keep-worthy. I think this is good enough to challenge the prod and put it in a formal AFD review. kelvSYC 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The article was speedy deleted as spam, not via the PROD process.

  GRBerry 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion This article was pure advertising, but this subject is notable. A new, rewritten article should be created. -- Wenli 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wouldn't mind if a new article is created, nor am I advocating the restoration of the original (although it would make a good starting point). However, the article had many editors working on nontrivial portions of it, and to simply dismiss their work as spam does not seem right. I question whether the original CSD nomination was in bad faith. kelvSYC 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion, and should be restored or unprotected. h2g2bob 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Conservapedia is already being discussed, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25#Conservapedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, very sorry --h2g2bob 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Findamob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

i have changed the original artical so that it comlplies with wiki Tommyisnice 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - I saw this before it was deleted. In process speedy of blatant advertising - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - If the revised version didn't qualify as spam, and I believe it still did, then it still would have been a {{db-web}} candidate. A single page 3 newspaper article, no rank on Alexa, 13 google hits for findamob, with a couple concerning EverQuest all adds up to not yet notable. --Onorem 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Onorem; if not spam, then not notable. Trebor 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I'm nominating this article for a deletion review. It was nominated for deletion just some few days after its creation. i believe improvability of the article can not be questioned. please review comments by those who wanted to keep this article. the comments of those who wanted to keep the series of Miss Venezuela articles has much bearing against those who wanted to delete it. RebSkii 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - main arguments for keeping look to be "it's useful" and "it's new." Deletion arguments were stronger. Otto4711 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The deleted article consisted of only--and I do mean only--a contestant list and an external link to a site with the same contestant list. I don't know if an encyclopedia article can be written about this topic (my gut instincts say no but I'd be happy to be proved wrong). I'd suggest rewriting the article in user space before nominating it here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Starblind, but, as I said on the AFD, without prejudice against an article about the contest. A national championship like this is indeed notable, but a list of contestants and nothing else is unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the "keep" reasons were not compelling. Trebor 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There was no procedural error that I can see, even as a raw vote count the Deletes had it, the year-by-year articles seem way excessive, and the nominator doesn't describe the improvements he could do if only more time were provided. If policy is allowed to weigh in the balance, the lack of sources in the surviving Miss Venezuela certainly argues against keeping the articles for the individual years. EdJohnston 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I weakly supported keeping at the AfD (just as a stay of execution in the hope the articles could and would be improved), but the discussion was properly closed as "delete". I do not oppose proper recreation of the articles that provides more context rather than just a list of the contestants. -- Black Falcon 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ormus matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was speedily deleted because another (much shorter) article written by somebody else had been found unsatisfactory. Can a topic from the natural sciences really be banned in the same rapid scanning process used for weeding out pranks, descriptions of unimportant persons/bands and such? Should its validity be determined by the bunch of often unserious users (see their discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMUS) who happened to be present when that other article was discussed? I will say that the reported discovery of a new form of matter is worth a Nobel prize. (Regrettably, the private person who had spent several million dollars on finding and investigating it, didn't also pay the scientists to publish scientific reports.) Documentation and phrasing are debatable, and might be flagged for improvement the wiki way, but a speedy deletion is ridiculous for a science topic. The speedy censor wrote: "the ormus concept is not generally acknowledged by physicists. To put that another way: ORMUS is pseudo science which is not even notable enough to be written up as such or as an hoax." The truth is that this matter is disregarded because its detection requires use of a Russian analysis method. Labelling the topic as a pseudoscience is no basis for speedy deletion, as also pseudoscientific topics are valid in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. In the new version of Ormus matter I have added a paragraph discussing the question whether ormus is scientific, and I conclude it is presently a protoscience. But it is also a practical technology, and as such its notability should be evident. (Ormus has a Yahoo discussion group with 1700 participants, and Hudson got several ormus patents.) The new version of the article Ormus matter can be found here in Wikinfo. nomination was by User:OlavN placed in a comment by mistake, restored by --ais523 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. This is of course completely made up. But I think our convention has been to go ahead and have articles on pseudoscience, so that when some poor fool reads about it on an oh-so-serious website, they can come to Wikipedia and learn that it's fake. That said, we need sources for both the claims and the debunking, and I don't see any sources in that wikinfo article. — coelacan talk — 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete I do not blame anyone who speedied it as nonsense, but it is the sort of N nonsense that WP does include. The fact that it is totally impossible doesn't make it less N. In a way, its good to have a chem one come along considering all the paraphysics we have.DGG 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD debate above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMEs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements. The propsed draft does not make it clear in the first paragraph that this is protoscience and does not demonstrate that it is notable protoscience. -- RHaworth 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had included a paragraph Scientific Status, where the status Protoscience was concluded. So - not stating this in the first paragraph justifies speedy deletion? OlavN 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the touchstone of wikipedia is
  verifiability not truth. If there are third party sources discussing this discovery exist they have not been provided in the article linked or the AfD's mentioned above. Until and unless such sources are produced this article should stay deleted. Eluchil404 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A valid comment, but the wiki way is to tag insufficiently documented articles. How can a nonexistent article be improved? OlavN 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to AfD The prior discussion was in 2005. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per AfD below. ~ trialsanderrors 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

GRBerry 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• comment The relative merits of borderline theories is endlessly debatable, but this one is contradicted by all theories of chemistry and physics. But I am not a RS, and any view I have on the scientific validity is irrelevant. The question is whether this is N, either to established science, or the public. Impossible garbage which gets public coverage is N, and rightly so, because people will come here for information. The N needs open discussion, and I would never judge such a matter on a speedy. DGG 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't speedied as G1 nonsense but rather as a G4 repost. The AfD's age notwithstanding (though the most recent relevant one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements was in November 2006), the same arguments apply: the article doesn't demonstrate notability by citing references in reliable sources. This has nothing to so with the scientific merits of the proposal. Eluchil404 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop the press - heavyweight paper found. I just did a Google Scholar search (for ormus and Hudson) and found: Superfluid Modelling of Atomic Nuclei, which has paragraphs describing (and evidently accepting) ormus, m-state, Cooper pairs... (Also several hits in Google Books.) This is the wiki way: Important information can come only if the article is not speedily deleted. OlavN 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, this looks like an undergrad thesis supervised by someone who's not even on the regular staff of the Cavendish lab. No evidence of publication. If that's the most heavyweight evidence there is, the circular file is over there. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I would accept reliable sources if they were offered by the nominator. I see that the last AfD was in 2005. It is indeed possible that new papers could have appeared since then, but I didn't see any such papers offered for our consideration. I scanned quickly through the online paper found by
  WP:HOAX and we need reliable sources that show that it fooled a lot of people. This is not being offered to us either. EdJohnston 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Esperanza|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Please note: This submission for deletion review involves this version of Wikipedia:Esperanza. Previous discussions include Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza.

(I have two really long arguements for this, so make sure that you have a lot of time and patience!)

The closing comments on

The result of the debate was to decentralize Esperanza. I see this as the only viable way to minimize the pain between all parties involved, and understanding that this MfD will have wider, serious implications for other similiar organisations in future.

What do I mean by decentralization? The one main concern brought up in this MfD is the membership, the structure of this organisation. Its programs are good-intentioned, and they are supposed to be avaliable to any editor on Wikipedia. This is also the cause of the perceived "better than thou" and "cabalism" claimed by members, and the lack of consensus building.

This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza.

All programs will be migrated to its associated projects and shall be open to every editor on Wikipedia. The existing program pages should be redirected to its new project page rather than Esperanza itself. Tentatively, Admin Coaching to

WP:BDC

. They are allowed to survive in their new forms and may be MfD-ed seperately if nessecary.

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder. A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page. Its talkpage and archives should be clearly marked that its subsequent discussion is only about the essay only. I do not expect the organisation to revive, but hopefully this result will be something that is progressive and less controversial.

-

Mailer Diablo

16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reptile Palace Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was speed deleted due to lack of notability. I would assert that it fulfills the criteria for notability of a music related page due to the fact (as was stated on the page) that one of its members is

I'm afraid I can offer no reasoned opinion on the matter as I was the person who deleted it in the first place. Bobo. 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Whether it unquestionably meets
  WP:MUSIC is debatable, but I don't think it's speedy fodder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Since the page was speedied and not
  WP:MUSIC states that a redirect to the notable member's biography is normally most appropriate as opposed to a separate article on the earlier band. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think, in that case, it should have either had a tag put on it or put up for regular deletion so that we would have had a chance to discuss it and/or improve the article. If it can be recreated, thats cool, although I personally don't know how to go about doing that. Acornwithwings 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the material from the original article, it's still in the Google cache. I would expand and source it before posting it again, though, or it will probably get nominated for deletion again. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the speedy deletion. No objection to re-creation if sources are provided. EdJohnston 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete I'm sure I can add some reputable notability sources to this article - but don't know how to undelete it.

--Bifftar 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Questor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|DRV)

In the interests of disclosure, I need to here point out that I know the creator of this comic. That said, I think that there may be a case for its undeletion. While a google search for the name does lead to a large amount of material not suitable for an encyclopedia (unedited reviews in non-notable blogs, and so on), it has won a major award ([1], coverage, for example, here, and its published volumes received reviews here, which I believe counts as a reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Our article on the Ursa Major Awards was
  WP:COI. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not my comic. I wouldn't dare speak on anything I did. But I figured that it wouldn't be inappropriate to see if I could find evidence that a friend's comic was notable, as long as I stated my interest, and thought, after the research, there might, or, admittedly, might not, be a case. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I misread. It's not your comic. My reading comprehension has been very poor today. Thanks for clarifying that to me! — coelacan talk — 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "major award" does not look that major - any coverage outside the furry community? Are the books self-published or are they published by a reputable publishing house? Guy (Help!) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-published, and I'll admit I know nothing whatsoever about comic-related awards, so I honestly couldn't say beyond that one report of the comic gaining the award I stumbled across and linked above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, as one of those links demonstrates, the Ursa Major Award is recognized outside the Furry community, in the larger SF community. I would also say that third party reliable sources are third party reliable sources regardless of what community affiliation they claim for themselves. I'd like to see more sources, though, the Anthrozine review helps but it's not enough. — coelacan talk — 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I had another quickish look, and... well, you'll have to be the judge of whether they're notable and/or reliable (I don't know enough to be sure, tending to work on articles on old Victorian plays or modern science, in both of which cases a reliable source is unambiguous) but these may be useful: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, those are just blogs and one is a collection of links. Nothing that meets
  WP:RS. My own searches aren't pulling up anything more notable either. I'll have to say I endorse deletion. — coelacan talk — 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Linked the prior deletion review above. I note that this should not be speedy closed, as the nomination does offer new information not present in the AFD or prior DRV (the sources, not the award), but as the likely closer offer no opinion on overturning/endorsing.
  GRBerry 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

GRBerry 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion. This article seems to have had multiple deletion reviews. I limit my review to the immediately prior AfD and what the submitters have said above. Meeting the WP:WEB requirements for web notability listed by User:Francis Tyers at the beginning of the most recent AfD would certainly be sufficient for keeping, if they were met. He argues that this article does not meet them, and the version of Tales of the Questor at answers.com certainly has no reliable sources. So I'll base my answer on whether anything new appears in this DRV, new sources for example. Submitters above point out that Ursa Major is not a major award, and the fact that the print versions are self-published certainly is worth considering. I agree with User:Coelacan that the links provided by User:Adam Cuerden don't appear to be reliable sources. So I'm endorsing the deletion. I don't object to eventual re-creation with sources, though no adequate sources have appeared in any of the debates so far. EdJohnston 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicked! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

There is a legitimate reason to have a page of this title, for it was an episode of ITV's

• Endorse deletion and salting None of the other Police Camera Action! episodes have articles. Why should this one, especially right after a wave of vandalism? Melchoir 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• They will have episodes soon, I've just got to find sources for them. --
  talk 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have actually started creating episodes for them.... see my contributions list. --
  talk 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. It's been unsalted. Unless you actually made the episode page before, there's nothing more to do here. -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• Note from closing admin: To expand on my statement reproduced above, the primary keep argument from Stbalbach (talk · contribs) (and used as the keep per basis of most of the other keep opinions) uses as it's primary argument the following statement:

  No one is going to actively engage in edit disputes on a daily basis trying to keep popular culture junk out of articles, it is not worth the time or effort - in reality, no one does it and so the popular culture sections just keep growing like weeds. The only solution is to segment this stuff out and keep it out of the main articles. IMO the real problem here is people trying to delete the "in popular culture" articles over some idealistic notion of what Wikipedia should be, without taking into account pragmatic realities.

  That rationale is not a basis for keeping the article—it is a basis for deleting it. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete the adaptations page; that is a reasonable topic for a subarticle. The AFD doesn't provide support for deleting that page; indeed basically everyone who commented on the newly scoped page, including delete voters, supported it. The discussion was obviously misread. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Your statement regarding comments on the editted page are misleading as only one person who had previously commented on the AfD commented on the editted version. That person changed from arguing weakly for delete to advocating keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, four people supported removing the pop culture while keeping an article on adaptations -- R. fiend, Otto4711, Hoary, and Walton monarchist89. In any case, the important point is that there is zero support for deleting the adaptations article, either in the AFD debate or in general policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Christopher Parham represents what I said correctly. (Sorry, I'm too busy/lazy to check how he represented the other three people.) -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Otto4711 seemed to support deleting the article and allowing recreation of a sourced list of adaptations, but Mangojuice and I both supported keeping adapations as well. And I really don't see how the "keep per stbalbach" !votes could possibly be interpreted as delete arguments for the list of adaptations.

  Does anyone think that the list of adaptations would not survive AFD if listed on its own? —Celithemis 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't got around to looking at the edited version. OK, I am now looking at it. It needs more work, but it's worthwhile, and I'd unambiguously vote "keep" on it. -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list the adaptations page. If a page is changed like that, it needs a full discussion, free from comments on the earlier version. -Amarkov moo! 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I think from the recent AfDs on this and similar that there is no concensus in general about the handling of the "in popular culture" articles. I have seen perfectly good arguments both ways, and myself am torn between saying that they are generally non-encyclopedic and that they represent an essential safety valve to permit better editing of the main articles. In that situation there will inevitably be contested closings, inconsistent results, abd the opportunity to reverse from repeated AfDs. In this case, I can't see the article, but I accept Hoary's statement that it's now acceptable, and we should overturn the deletion so people can consider it and edit it, though i expect it back on AfD sooner or later. DGG 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - seeing as how my name is being bandied about in this review and since I didn't get a look at the re-done Adaptations article, is there a way for me to see it so that I can make my views clear on it instead of having others try to do it for me? Otto4711 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I added the link above to the renamed article. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Overturn deletion of the Adaptations iteration of the article. Otto4711 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think overturn and relist is the appropriate suggestion given the significant changes to the article that occurred late in the AfD cycle to address concerns. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Query? Since Doug agrees to a relist and there are no otstanding arguments in endorsement, can this be speedy closed and relisted? It seems like further discussion at AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I (admittedly out of process, invoking
  WP:SNOW) undeleted the adaptations page, either before this DRV, or at least before I noticed it. It seemed quite obvious to me. This adaptations page is different from the one nominated, and with it being the only article on most of the film's based on the novel, can we honestly say every film in the universe gets an article except those based on Dorian Gray? Leave everything as it currently is; it's already done. The pop culture crap can stay in deletionville. -R. fiend 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

File:Scrub sponges.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

File:Yarn toilet brush.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

The images are needed for illustrations in an article and there wasn't even a discussion about them. No one informed me of wanting to delete them and I don't know who deleted them. There are needed in the article. Chuck Marean 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Deletion logs show they were deleted as replacable fair use. It shouldn't be hard to visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. The possibility of someone doing so makes these replacable fair use.
  GRBerry 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion Invalid fair use claim; easily replaceable, or just use images from Commons. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Deleted as replacable fair use was the correct result. I agree with GRBerry and ZimZalaBim. Please read
  Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy: Even if the use is fair use, the image still must meet the requirement that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." As GRBerry wrote, just visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. -- Jreferee 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Blue_Eyed_OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was deleted under the misguided notion that vaporware does not merit an article, which is simply untrue in wikipedia, as there are many articles about vaporwares. Taku 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion unless notability is shown with reference to non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just do a bit of google search? I found [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Need more? -- Taku 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. We need multiple reliable sources (meaning that you could write the article from them). Only one of those could actually source any content; the rest are passing mentions, and one is even a forum post, which is certainly not reliable. And my search didn't turn up anything better. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• okay. If this is the way wikipedia is going to be, then I can live with that. But the implication means we have to delete lots of articles like this one. -- Taku 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it does. If you have any in particular to point out, I'll do some research and nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to think of Wikipedia as a compilier of information that already exists in
    published sources. -- Jreferee 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion. There is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:Notability. The deletion was properly closed and I endorse the deletion. -- Jreferee 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (3 articles 3 sub categories) – (CfD)

Category:Cities in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (19 articles 1 sub category)

Category:Villages in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (2 articles)

Ignoring the additional content issues and pov issues completely (which plagued the cfd). I believe these categories fail to meet

--Cat out 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine what falls inside Kurdistan and what doesn't in a reliable and verifiable way? I challenge anyone to provide this information, otherwise I can't see how the inclusion criteria would be inline with

WP:V. --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also I'd like to add: It is not my job to prove that a category lacks an inclusion criteria, its the other way around. The creator (or someone else) is supposed to provide this information. --Cat out 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Renamed to make clear this is multiple categories, and moved within the day's log to put it immediately above the review to undelete the categories that were deleted. This is the review to delete the ones that were kept, down there is the one to get back the ones deleted.
  GRBerry 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Strange, isn't it? --Cat out 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This nomination had been sitting without being closed for over a week after the normal discussion period. I looked over the comments provided and felt that there was not a consensus to support keeping or deleting. So I closed the nomination as no consensus. In removing the nomination templates, I decided to speedy the two that were empty and are now listed below for recreation. I did update my closing comments to reflect this fact. While there was no consensus, I did suggest a possible rename from the discussion that I thought might be able to reach consensus if it was proposed. I still feel my close was proper and that maybe this discussion can move the issue to some form of consensus. Vegaswikian 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and speedy close. Nothing in the nomination concerns to the CFD close, so what, exactly, are we supposed to review? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per Angus. Nom gives no rationale for review.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I respect that you believe they fail
  WP:V, but there was no consensus to that effect. DRV isn't XfD round 2. -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well... I do not know what more to say. I Gave a lengthy rationale and people hesitated to vote. I gave a short one people complained. I am not sure what more to say. I even provided 4 completely different maps of Kurdistan to demonstrate the

  WP:V problem... --Cat out 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I interpret this listing as essentially an opportunity to see the general picture, and can be closed when we have decided the case below. More logically, this question must be decided first, and then the case below. DGG 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure -- except as I comment in section below re the deleted categories. --Diyarbakır 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure and speedy close, no review rationale, and renaming the categories (a better idea, IMO) is an editorial decision. --
  desat 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

Improper deletion. Category was depopulated during a no consensus CFD. --Diyarbakır 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not, strictly speaking, a
  WP:CSD C1 candidate, but what is DRV expected to achieve here? You may recreate the category if you wish as CSD G4 does not apply to speedy deletions. However, dispute resolution would be a more appropriate way to resolve the underlying conflict. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  A dispute resolution was attempted but was ignored: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan --Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment merged both categories, identical nominations and commentary to date.
  GRBerry 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. -
  · 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted. Still fails to meet
  WP:V. This is not how we categories elsewhere. --Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Other similar noms: #Category:Airlines_of_Kurdistan_and_Sub-category_Airlines_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan, #Category:Current_governments_in_Kurdistan --Cat out 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 This is the review to get back the categories deleted as empty that were mentioned in a CFD. Immediately above is the review to delete the ones that were kept from that CFD.
  GRBerry 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I was the administrator who closed the main discussion as no consensus. When doing that these two categories were empty and apparently had been for a while. As a result, they meet the C1 criteria for speedy deletion. That is what I did instead of removing the CfD notices and leaving the empty categories around. Since they were speedy deleted as empty, anyone should be able to recreate them if there are valid entries for those categories. But as I suggested to the editor who first discussed this with me, it might be better to get a new name resolved before doing a recreate. Vegaswikian 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I've seen this issue being debated in a number of places, but can't remember all of them. I'd argue that 'in Kurdistan' needs to go, but 'in Kurdish areas' would be acceptable. Somewhere I thought there was a proposal to rename the categories. Can anyone who has been following the issue add some information about the debates elsewhere? EdJohnston 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There was some debate here on this Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_9#Category:Settlements_in_Kurdistan
  I do not think cat:"kurdish areas" also meets verifiability. We lack a census to determine what area is kurdish. Also even with a census US states and cities are not categorized in the proposed manner. --Cat out 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I admit the verifiability problem with 'Kurdish areas'. I withdraw my suggestion that the categories be renamed. EdJohnston 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since they are not verifiable, shouldn't they be deleted. --Cat out 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, since they were only speedied as unpopulated. But it really would be best to address the issues first. -Amarkov moo! 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - These may have been legitimately deleted due to being empty, but my purpose in bringing this here is to review the fact that the categories were improperly emptied during the CFD (and was discussed there) and thus their empty state was the problem; deleting them after such poor conduct encourages the tactic of depopulating categories during CFD. --Diyarbakır 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That'll be our famous "verifiability, not truth". If there's a plausible source that says X is in Kurdistan, then X is in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any verifiable source that declares kurdistan as a country? Are there any verifiable borders for kurdistan? Since no one answered to either of these questions, the categories are NOT verifiable. --Cat out 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Subcategories of

  Arbil, or Diyarbakır, were not cities in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If you look in our

  Diyarbakir article, you see its attribution as the 'unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan', but the reference for that consists of two blog postings, neither of which is a reliable source. Even if that city is correctly placed in Kurdistan (which can't be shown currently), Wikipedia is unlikely to be able to provide that information based on reliable sources for all the cities that people want to put in this category. So they will probably just put them in anyway, based on 'personal knowledge'. By vetoing recreation of these categories, we are sensibly anticipating the fact that any actual attributions to the category are most unlikely to be based on reliable sources. Lack of a census (that would record people's national origins) is certainly a major part of this problem. EdJohnston 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Angusmclellan on the contrary, I would expect unbiased observers to think the contrary. This map redraws borders of Greece and removes Turkey from existence. Are you proposing that we should retag all Turkish cities accordingly? How about

  Wikipedia:Categories#Some_general_guidelines #8: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
  --Cat out 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, it took all of fifteen seconds to find references to Diyarbakir being the "the so-called capital of Turkey's Kurdistan", and "the politico-cultural capital of Turkish Kurdistan", and "the capital of what Kurdish clandestine nationalists call Kurdistan", and simply "the capital of Turkish Kurdistan", using Google books. Any editor who was interested could have done the same as I did: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I could hypothesise why there might be a problem, but that would soon head into

  WP:ABF territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The politico-cultural capital? That doesn't even make sense and is probably a controversial definiton. A non-contraversial way to reference to Diyarbakir is that it is the largest city of Eastern Turkey or that it is the Capital of Diyarbakir province.
  Based on the search you provided... there are a number of false positives with "Persian Capitals" and "Diyarbakir being province capital". In addition scholar and news returned no matches. I fail to see a widespread acceptance of Diyarbakir as the capital of Kurdistan. diyarbakir+capital+"turkish kurdistan" returned no matches. Some Kurdish groups claim Arbil and Kirkuk as their 'capitals'
  --Cat out 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion of categories emptied out of process. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Ivies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

At the time this article was deleted, it was a freshly coined term that had not yet taken off. Yet, it is clear that this term has been since adopted by the universities described as well as the education community. A simple Google search for "new ivies" or "new ivy" reveals coverage in sources like college newspapers, blogs, etc. I think it has entered the cultural lexicon and probably merits an explanation. Andre (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Are there any sources for the term (as opposed to just usages)? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. A quick search reveals one source and evidence that another exists (evidence for even a third source, but rather garbled, is also available). --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy: allow re-creation This term was becoming N at the time of the last Afd. as a result of a Newsweek article that included a rating of those schools.

"25 New Ivies; The nation's elite colleges these days include more than Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Why? It's the tough competition for all the top students. That means a range of schools are getting fresh bragging rights.; [U.S. Edition], Barbara Kantrowitz, Karen Springen. Newsweek. Aug 21, 2006. Vol. 148, Iss. 7; p. 66,"

In addition,many schools which came out well have put it on their official web sites, egg. stories/082106TuftsNamedANewIvy.htm Tufts, RPI, as well as local newspapers, such as [www.rnews.com/Story_2004. cfm?ID=40983&rnews_story_type=7 Rochester], Pittsburgh, and " Weekend Journal; Taste -- de gustibus: Rejecting the Ivies Before They Reject You--Peter Schroeder. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 25, 2006. p. W.11"

Perhaps we are interpreting WP:NEW a little too rigorously. DGG 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion.
  WP:NEO is appropriately strict. As the term 'new ivies' spreads around, will it continue to refer to the same group of colleges, or will it be a constantly fluctuating group? How would a college substantiate that it was a New Ivy? Would Newsweek continue to be the owner of the term? Why keep this article unless multiple reliable sources recognize this as a term that has entered the common vocabulary? EdJohnston 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per EdJohnston. This term still lacks firm definition. This should wait a while longer. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion' - As background, Wikipedia has the following articles on ivies:
  new money vs. old money). However, there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:Notability. This appears to be the consensus in the AfD, which was closed properly. -- Jreferee 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

ASCII comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

Seems like outlandish deletion to me. Overwhelming consensus to keep during AfD (remember, Merge is basically keep). The closing admin claims that "no reliable sources provided", which is completely false if he had bothered to read either AfD or the article itself. Totally pissed off,  Grue  07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • For those who think it was "within admin's discretion" to close like Samuel did, I have to tell you about 3 factors that closing admin usually considers when closing AfDs (from my experience):
    1. Sheer numbers: 8 keeps, 4 deletes -> clear consensus to keep
    2. Tendency: After the article was expanded, almost everyone was for keeping. Therefore there's tendency to keep.
    3. Quality of argument: the argument for deleting the article is not of any quality, all we have are some cliches like "fancruft" without any links to policies that this article fails at.
  • Basically, what we have here is a consensus to keep. No way in hell the closing admin can disregard these 3 factors and delete the article. What we have here is a clear closing error, and I fail to see how it can be otherwise.  Grue  08:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. -
  · 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • May I ask why?  Grue  14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the content wasn't merged, it should have been. But I understand the content was merged. This topic does not have enough reliable sources to stand alone as an article, it is better placed in

· 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It wasn't merged, and afaik GFDL requires that merged content is not deleted from history. So, undeletion is needed regardless of whether the article was merged or not.  Grue  20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Actually, it should simply redirect to ASCII art, as that's what it is basically. bogdan 11:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of people who participiated in this AfD seem to think otherwise...  Grue  14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I'd say to merge, because I believe that is a different, and valid, outcome. With so many people saying to merge it, it shouldn't have just been deleted. The issue is, nobody gave any reason why it should be merged. So relist and tell people to actually say why. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn From the discussion, I see it as no consensus, just as the previous AfD. It was not a correct closure. Then, if people want to debate the merge, they don't need to do it on AfD. DGG 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Wikipedia is not a democracy. While there was not an expressed consensus to delete, the nomination raised issues of verifiability, and keep commenters mainly argued on issues of notability. It was within admin discretion to delete. I would recommend a rewrite of this article using reliable sources, which would then address the concerns of the original nominator as well as the closing admin. I see no error in process in this close, however. GassyGuy 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I would recommend a rewrite of this article using reliable sources". Uh, that's what I already did during the course of AfD. And with so many keep !votes, it wasn't within one particular admin's discretion to override community consensus.  Grue  07:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already said as much. I gave my opinion. Please do not repeat yours as if mine is inherently flawed, especially in a rather condescending manner. There's really little to gain by commenting on every dissenting opinion. You've brought it up for a review - let it run its course. GassyGuy 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The discussion ended in a consensus for preserving the content, either by keeping the article or merging it. As I did not participate in the AfD, I cannot say with certainty whether the merge was or was not performed. However, the fact that the article was deleted instead of redirected with a {{
  mergeto}}. Please note: I think a merge should be suggested/recommended, but not necessarily enforced. -- Black Falcon 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn as closed against consensus. Bucketsofg 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Within admin discretion to delete. Merging relevant material from the former article in ASCII art is, of course, perfectly reasonable. Nandesuka 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when 4 deletes against 8 keeps is within admin's discretion to delete? Especially when every reason for deletion was adressed during AfD? For the article to be deleted, there's got to be consensus to delete. There's no consensus, simple as that.  Grue  15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since AfD is not about vote-counting. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's about consensus. There was no consensus to delete AND there was no reason to delete which was valid at the time the article was deleted. Hope that helps.  Grue  22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hengband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

User:Luigi30 deleted this article on an open source video game (a popular Angband variant) citing only 'spam' and further explaining himself that 'it read like an ad'. Is this guy for real? Anyway, it was a genuine article on a notable subject, it was not spam, it was by no means an ad, and the delete was completely uncalled for and the work of this man alone. Call it abuse of rights or whatever, this article needs an undelete, and then, perhaps if one finds it necessary a minor rewrite. IDX 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Judging solely by the cached version on Google: This looks borderline for a speedy, but there were no sources and no assertion of notability. I don't think it would've survived an AFD, and a casual search didn't turn up any news coverage that could be used to improve it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shan't be too difficult to cite sources. I admit this was a failing of mine. However, I still assert that Luigi's decision was misguided. If it were undeleted I'd find sources myself (there are plenty). There is an article on
    ZAngband - which going by this website [11] is now less popular than Heng/Entroband. There are articles on the most minor of open source games on Wikipedia. I don't see why this is not notable - and if properly sourced, can't be an article. And there are still broken likes around [12] IDX 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Bear in mind that some of those open-source game articles might exist simply because nobody's noticed them and had them deleted yet. It's always better to make a case for an article on its own merits than to base that case on other articles. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: The claim to notability is that it is based on something else. There is nothing that establishes that this game is downloaded/played, and the list of "roguelike" computer games is enormous. What sets this one apart from the mass? Well, the article gives the update list. It lists the features. It doesn't read like an ad so much as it does the version history from the download. Geogre 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a roguelike aficianado. I'm aware of Hengband's existence, but not of any evidence that it is "popular" (and, popular compared to what?). If you can find reliable sources demonstrating that, an article might make sense. But there, are as [13] notes somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, "1001 Angband Variants!", and being one doesn't automatically make one worthy of an article. Nandesuka 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Angband, problem solved. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. If it redirects anywhere, it should go to
    List of Angband variants (AfD discussion), if that survives. —Cryptic 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion, no evidence that this is more notable than any other freeware game. No opinion on redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article was deleted in December 2006 because it failed to meet

• Comment. The article wasn't deleted for want of google hits, but due to a lack of
  notability. Are there now multiple (or sufficient) independent, non-trivial reports with which to write an article? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Some information I found (i) Gibson, Charles (February 23, 2007)
    Kansas City Star (February 27, 2007) Blog bits. Section: B; Page B8 (writing, "In the Wikipedia, there is an extensive and well-written entry on the term African-American, which serves as anchor pages for many other related topics on our history, culture, religions, political movements, civic organizations and more. In the Conservapedia, I could find no entry for African-American, Black or even Negro. There is however, a page there for "Mulatto." Just in time for Barack Obama's presidential campaign!"). (already cited by JoshuaZ below (see [6])-- Jreferee 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion and continued protection from re-creation. This website still does not satisfy
  WP:WEB calls for sourcing from multiple non-trivial independent works, and that does not exist as of right now. If in a couple months months the website has gained recognition in sufficiently indepedent and reliable sources, then perhaps it can come back here.--RWR8189 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Based on new sources I think the protection can be removed, no judgement on whether the article would definitively satisfy
    WP:WEB.--RWR8189 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Endorse deletion. Nothing has changed here significantly enough for this article to come back. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion absent evidence of non-trivial reliable sources from which a proper article could be written. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Still no reliable sources. Wickethewok 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I was considering saying to overturn, but I missed the word "blog". Blogs are almost never reliable, and being well known does not make them such. As mentioned above, Wonkette doesn't really give it non-trivial coverage anyway. -Amarkov moo! 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to overturn. Really, if sources like that have been found, I don't mind if you
  strike my comment out for me. -Amarkov moo! 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted There are still no reliable sources citing Conservapedia yet. BTW, I link to some Conservapedia criticisms on my user page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn per Joshua. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why not incubate the article at Eagle Forum, using reliable sources, until it becomes large enough for its own article? Andjam 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because if there were enough reliable sources to write about it at Eagle Forum then there'd be enough to write at least a short article about it at Conservapedia. There aren't, so here we are. — coelacan talk — 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really associated with Eagle Forum is it, other than that both have overlapping people working on them? Corvus cornix 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - There are no non-trivial reliable sources currently that mean this article has a chance of coming back. Of course, I don't mind it if the nominator creates a version in his userspace, and brings the issue up next time at DRV. But for now, it's endorsed. --
  talk 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources => no article, regardless of Google hits. If this station web site is truly famous, it's bound to get coverage in the mainstream media eventually. When that happens, the article might be restored. EdJohnston 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion. --h2g2bob 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation/Undelete per H2, additional reliable sources include [16], [17], [18]. There are more than enough sources now to write a decent stub, and
  WP:WEB is easily satisfied. JoshuaZ 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Anyway. The result of all this is that literally within the twelve hours or so, Conservapedia has gotten itself noticed. As I write this, a search on Google News now returns twelve hits including Carlisle Sentinel (PA), Guardian Unlimited, Information World Review, Wired New (quite a good article), and, believe it or not (and I do find it hard to believe) CBS News. These are just blogs-are-talking articles, don't expect Katie Couric to lead with it. Not a big deal. CBS News!

Oh, and Wikimedia asked me if I'd be willing to answer questions from a Congressional Quarterly reporter who apparently contacted them with questions about Conservapedia.

As I write this, Alexa rank is about 600,000, so I don't want to press the point too hard. But I'd suggest keeping an eye on Google News and on Alexa to see whether this is a seven day's wonderflash in the pan or whether Conservapedia actually ends up getting some traction. Of course there's absolutely no rush to have an article on Conservapedia in Wikipedia. If it fails deletion review someone can always try again if and when it's more-than-borderline notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait a month than a week; internet phenomena usually turn out to be rather ephemeral, and I'm interested to see just what sort of staying power Conservapedia has. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to use the idiom "nine days' wonder" and got it wrong. And I didn't mean for it to be taken literally. And as I said, there's no rush. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:JoshuaZ asked me to take a second look at this issue, since he has offered some better sources (see his entry two comments above). The first one in his list is a column at cbsnews.com called 'Blogophile'. From reading that one, it's clear that the author looked at Conservapedia and then looked at a few blogs. No interviews were done, and no other news outlets were cited. The last one in his list is one from the Kansas City News, but it seems it is not an item that actually appeared in the newspaper, it's a posting in an associated blog. I still think we need to wait for more media coverage. By not reporting on Conservapedia in their regular printed news pages, editors are expressing a judgment on its importance. Perhaps another DRV in three months can be considered. EdJohnston 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll take a look at JoshuaZ's sources, this is interesting. --
  talk 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • To clarify, there are other editors other than just me who have given new sources. Those sources are highly relevant as well. JoshuaZ 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for clarifying this, JoshuaZ. What are the sources?? --
      talk 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • If you look above, more sources are given by h2g2bob and Dpbsmith. These include articles in the Guardian and Wired. JoshuaZ 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the deletion. There are enough third-party sources now. I agree that the Wonkette reference is trivial, but the article at the Huffington Post shouldn't be discounted merely because it's labeled a "blog". The author's bio shows serious journalistic credentials. The article in Wired News is particularly valuable. Caution: If the article is undeleted, nothing in it should be flatly asserted as fact based solely on what the self-admitted ideologues at Conservapedia say. Acceptable: "The site reports that it has x number of registered users." Unacceptable: "The site has x number of registered users." JamesMLane t c 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Josh and James. Guettarda 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per JoshuaZ, h2g2bob, Dpbsmith. --
  talk 09:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please don't say "per dpbsmith." I did not say the closing should be overturned. My comment was exactly that: a comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The site is attracting considerable attention and even Jimmy Wales has commented on it.[19] The current arrangement, with a redirect to Eagle Forum but ever increasing Conservapedia-related information there, is unsatisfactory. Bondegezou 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Possibly Weak?) Allow recreation (or Undelete, if all the previous version lacked was sourcing) based on the sources. Personally (read: not based on Wiki Policy), I'd wait at least until the project has proven that it has come out of its childhood state and that it doesn't collapse under the weight of its sudden quasi-notability (especially in regard to bandwidth and stability). However, those are personal issues, and judging by the policies/guidelines, the sources should be good enough to write an article. --Sid 3050 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak recreate. Conservapedia is now attracting a large amount of attention. (Which might backfire...the project seems like a little bit of a mess, since there isn't just one kind of "conservative" out there.) Thunderbunny 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The site is referenced at New Scientist and Wired News and is being referenced (mostly made fun of) all over the internet. People will be searching for information about it and it needs an entry other than a redirect that is just confusing.Tmtoulouse 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn They have risen to nearly 10,000 in traffic rank. This means either a tremendous increase in interest, or a concerted DOS attack. In either case it would seem to me to be notable. Paul Studier 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've started working on a draft using the above sources for a new article at User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia. Feel free to help out. JoshuaZ 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not that it means much, but a plausible possibility of the jump in traffic is due to the fact that Conservapedia was linked to on 4chan's /b/.
    ...But that would be giving 4chan too much credit, I suppose. --Kenjoki 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the original delete decision. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion as set out in this deletion review by h2g2bob, JoshuaZ, and Dpbsmith so that the topic now meets
  WP:N. Please use the source material to add content to the article. Please do not write the article and then add the sources. At least one source per sentence would be great! -- Jreferee 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Since February 28th, it seems to me that the Internet's interest in Conservapedia has faded. A Google News search shows the most recent article to be dated March 1st, and the list of hits in an ordinary Google Web search hasn't changed much in the last few days. Conservapedia has apparently done some major beefing up of its server and bandwidth, and as I write this the site is alive and well. I'm not sure what they're doing about registering new users—I don't want to try registering as a sockpuppet just to see whether registration is enabled—but vandalism, which was wildly out of control, has now died down and the pranks have mostly cleaned out. (Yes, there are still some silly real articles, but it no longer says that Jesus has announced that he is God's nephew rather than his son, etc). I said before I thought Conservapedia might be borderline-notable. Well, I'm less sure now. (OTOH, Alexa's curves are still rising. By the way... does anyone here use the Alexa toolbar? Has anyone here ever seen anyone using it? Just wondering.) In any case, there's no reason to rush at all on having an article on Conservapedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we shouldn't care if anyone "scoops" us. I wouldn't be surprised if Conservapedia was clearly notable in a couple of months, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't.
• Comment Also, as I note on the Talk page of JoshuaZ's draft, it seems to me that there is a lot of stuff I'd like to know about Conservapedia, and would want to see in an article, for which no sources are currently available. Andrew Schlafly is obviously associated with it. One article calls him "the" founder, but only in one place; the rest of the article uses the phrase "founders." Is he "the" founder or not? If not, do we really know who the other "founders" are? It's dangerously tempting to make assumptions about this and other things. Who funds it? One guesses it's Schlafly personally, but does anyone know? Many obvious questions, currently few sourced answers. I think JoshuaZ's draft is a good idea, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palindromic words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Palindromic phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Palindromic phrases (English) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Query whether decision to delete reflects the majority view in deletion debate. Matt 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The three pages Palindromic words, Palindromic phrases and Palindromic Phrases (English) were all included in the same deletion proposal. Before the deletion discussion was moved or removed (I can no longer find it to verify), I counted 9 votes to keep, 10 votes to transwiki (which I understand to mean move to Wiktionary) and only then delete from Wikipedia, and 8 straight deletes. Contrary to the majority opinion that the content should not be lost, the pages and links thereto appear to have been summarily deleted with no indication that the content has been moved elsewhere. I propose that the pages and links should be restored. Matt 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse. Afd seems proper.
  List of palindromic phrases in English patently don't meet wikt:WS:CFI to my eye, so no point in transwikiing, but if Wiktionary wants them (and I'll point this drv out to some active Wiktionarians to be sure), there's no harm in a temporary undelete. —Cryptic 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I already pointed it out over a week ago at wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Do we want an appendix of palindromic phrases?. The ensuing discussion noted the existence of wikt:Category:English palindromes for which such lists should be considered a to-do list — lists of words being categories of words at Wiktionary. Uncle G 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about the phrases? Is the view that they are or aren't suitable for Wiktionary? If not then the Wikipedia deletion debate needs to be reopened as a "Wikipedia or nothing" question since many people originally voted for deletion from Wikipedia on the understanding that the phrases would be "transwikied". Matt 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. I am pretty sure that
    List of palindromic phrases in English. Now that I can see the deletion log again, I am reminded that Palindromic words
    was indeed put into some sort of "holding area" at Wiktionary. As far as I see the process was never properly completed: the list is effectively unfindable at Wiktionary, and all the links from the Wikipedia article were deleted rather than changed to point to Wiktionary. However, fixing this does not require undeletion. I would like to see the palindromic phrases treated similarly so that the content is not lost. Matt 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Either no article ever existed at Palindromic phrases (English) or the database is screwed. I suspect the former. Maybe a different title? Guy (Help!) 13:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was
        List of palindromic phrases in English, though. —Cryptic 13:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Oh for goodness' sake. Sorry, but this ridiculous case sensitivity is one of my favourite pet hates. Matt 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Deletion discussions are not closed on vote counts alone. Policies such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary govern the process.

      As for the list being unfindable: That's because no editor such as you has stepped forward to do the work to put the information into proper Wiktionary format. Wiktionary is a wiki. There's nothing stopping you from doing the work yourself. Go and ensure that all of the actual word articles for the words on the transwikified list of palindromic words are properly categorized into wikt:Category:English palindromes and the other subcategories of wikt:Category:Palindromes — which are the already existent categories of words in the dictionary that encyclopaedia articles should point to for lists of palindromic words in various languages. Uncle G 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am aware of this, but the person who deleted the list from Wikipedia should not have left things in a state where it appears to someone unfamiliar with these minutiae that the information in the list has been lost. Even I thought it had been lost, and I participated in the original debate where, I am now reminded, it was noted that the single words at least had been "transwikied". I am also not a fan of the category method. It is too stark, and gives no opportunity for additional comments such as were present in the list, or for mini-definitions in an easily accessible form (without having to click on every single link). The list currently at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words is a far better format IMO. Matt 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse List of palindrones in one particular language? No. WP:NOT --
  Doc^g 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse "votes" to transwiki are properly counted as supporting the deletion of the content from wikipedia. If the suggested target can't or won't accept the material a simple delete is the necessary and correct outcome unless people explicitly say otherwise. That it certainly how I understood my own "vote" in the debate. Eluchil404 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse First is a interesting topic, and it doesnt harm anyone being here or be transwikied. This wikipedia is in English, and a list of palindromes in english is a great idea. Second, it surely have encyclopedic value. People are arguing that Wikipedia is a dictionary, but when a palindrome has been in a dictionary? A dictionary is a book of meanings for words, and as far as I know, anitalavalatina (the only one I know, nd its in spanish) doesn´t have any meaning. This articles doesn´t harm anyone, and as Jimbo said once: hard drives are cheap.--ometzit<col> 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of confused by your "endorse" vote. Other people are using "endorse" to indicate support for deletion, but judging by your comments you seem to be against deletion? I guess "endorse" is just an unfortunate choice of word. It could be understood to mean either endorsal of the original deletion, or endorsal of the proposal here to reverse the deletion. Matt 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I might have screwed something but i`m too lazy to corrected so im plain words: I want the list back, whatever that mean here. I`m against the deletion, endorsing reverting the deletion.--ometzit<col> 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse,
  WP:WINAD. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Per Radiant, Eluchil and Doc. This is unmaintenable, hard to source and unclear what the inclusion criterion are (for example if I have any palindrome P should we include "Racecar" + P + "Racecar"?. If someone wants to have a list of notable palindromes (with sourcing for the fame of the palindromes) that would be ok. Roughly speaking, an list of all articles which are palindromes (and are important for being palindromes would be a fine list). So for example it might include Madam, I'm Adam or A man, a plan, a canal, Panama or others where there is enough sourcing to write something nontrival (I'm presuming there would be enough in these two cases). JoshuaZ 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just do not understand why people feel the need to delete perfectly reasonable content that many people have contributed to, put effort into, and no doubt find interesting. And for the sake of what? Saving a few bytes on a server somewhere? I am extremely disappointed by this outcome. Matt 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Jeffree Star is a celebrity who is well known for his controversial music. His fame started mainly from sites like

Category:Mega Man antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

No consensus was reached here. The same is true of all the similar categories also dicussed RobbieG 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: You are claiming that User:Mike Selinker closed the CfD incorrectly? If so please spell out your objection. I can see that summarizing the different votes could have been challenge. All I can find is your message to Mike [20] where you argue there was no consensus. I hope we will see Mike's opinion here also. EdJohnston 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to clarify: many people put forward their opinions on the CfD, and their were (IMHO) strong arguments delivered by both sides (I personally feel that one side was stronger, but I can understand the concern expressed by those supporting the other POV). User:Mike Selinker closed the discussion, as I understand it, on the grounds that it had been going on too long. He then proceeded to follow the suggestion he himself made during the debate, with no apparent reference to anyone else's suggestions. I believe that to have been an incorrect closing of the CfD; if I'm wrong, then I'm sorry and please forgive me, as I'm rather unfamiliar with this aspect of Wikipedia (I normally just edit the articles themselves). RobbieG 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking back the suggestion was not his originally, so he was taking other people's suggestions into account after all. However, the fact remains that the disputes were never truly resolved, and both viewpoints had a similar degree of support. I do not consider that to constitute "a consensus." RobbieG 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to give my perspective, and I thank RobbieG for alerting me to his concern. I closed it because it had been 15 days since the nomination, so it seemed like it should be closed. When there is a contentious debate like this one, I look at three things: 1) Is there an overall consensus to delete? In this case, no. 2) Is there a majority opinion to do something? In this case, I believe that there was at least a tie considering votes in favor of either deleting or merging. 3) Is there clear precedent to make a certain type of change? In this case, absolutely. All POV terms for characters--heroes, villains, protagonists, and antagonists--the latter very clearly at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Fictional_antagonists, which had unanimous consent--had been merged to "characters". It seemed that all that added up to a case for merging (not deleting), and so I did it. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is precedence addressed by any Wikipedia guideline or policy? I'm not sure what the advised practice is in such circumstances. Several people - for example, I think User:Cosmetor, argued that video games were exceptional circumstances and fundamentally different from the other fictional antagonists. I stress that that is not my viewpoint, but it was a concern that was not addressed. If Cosmetor was correct, then precedent was, in this instance, irrelevant. RobbieG 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. It's governed by

WP:CCC, meaning that consensus can change and that precedence does not tend to hold over the long term. ColourBurst 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, but that precedent was three weeks earlier, not the long term.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. As "substantially similar" recreations,
  WP:CCC isn't relevant over such a short timescale. In my opinion the debate should have been closed as a speedy delete, not a delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, reasonable closing according to guideline and precedent. >Radiant< 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as nominator. Closing admin has explained his reasoning very clearly here and acted on a large number of precedents regarding POV-named fictional character categories. Otto4711 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as a sensible streamlining of fictional character categories. I agree with the reasoning of User:Otto4711 who was the nominator of the original CfD. EdJohnston 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Who in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

As background, there has been a "drive" lately by a number of users to delete "in popular culture" articles. For example the nominator Otto4711 has nominated 24 articles in the past 2 days and dozens more over the past few weeks, along with a few other users. The arguments are mostly the same, citing

• Endorse deletion — this article is in the same boat as Rush in popular culture, which was deleted with overwhelming consensus. I feel that overall, consensus is to delete these types of articles. — Deckiller 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many pop culture articles are surviving AfD, there is not "overwhelming consensus", in fact it is very controversial. Anyway, I thought we are reviewing the AfD decision based on the strength of the extant votes. Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy against in popular culture articles. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion in popular culture. Almost every "in popular culture" section or article fails the ten year test. Most fail the ten minute test. A few fail the ten second test. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "However WP:NOT says nothing specific about 'in popular culture' articles" isn't really a good argument that it doesn't satisfy WP:NOT. It doesn't say anything specific about game guides either, but the consensus seems to be to delete most of them. The main problem I have with these types of articles is that they're places for rampant
  original research as people say "well this might be related to X so I'll add it in X in popular culture just in case", and then try to defend it by saying that these things don't need sources because it's obvious to everybody. ColourBurst 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• the consensus seems to be to delete most of them - that is inaccurate, 50% or more survive AfD. Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy or consensus about popular culture articles, so why were these arguments counted in the closing decision? -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Looks like the closing admin made a reasonable judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion your disagreement with the editors on their interpretation of WP:NOT does not constitute an error in judgement on the part of the closing admin. I suggest take the argument to Village Pump, and get the policy about 'in pop culture' changed, if you believe that concensus can be arried at for that outcome. But in this case, the closing admin made an impartial and reasonable assessment of the editors input to the deletion debate.
  Jerry lavoie 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What "policy about in pop culture"? Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy or consensus about popular culture articles, so why were these arguments counted in the closing decision? -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I could not see an error in the AfD process for this article. It's fair to raise general arguments here about a class of articles, like 'in popular culture', but it's not clear what criterion that DRV reviewers should apply when they hear such claims. Since I'm at a loss for a criterion, I'm going to just accept the AfD as being correctly decided, and give my support to the idea of
  User:Jerry lavoie that you take the general issue to the Village Pump. EdJohnston 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The problem is as mentioned above, credence was given by the closing admin to the notion that there is consensus and/or policy about 'in pop culture' articles - which is not the case. If you remove that from the vote, there was really only one or two delete votes and everything else was keep. And the delete votes didn't make a strong case IMO compared to the keep votes. -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question So your request is that we should overturn and relist the AfD and tell the next closer to disregard all votes in which 'in popular culture' is cited as the reason for deletion? EdJohnston 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is serious business deleting an article, it requires a compelling and clear argument, in particular when there are many keep votes. I just don't see in this AfD, the deletes were mostly general non-specific arguments about pop culture lists. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Many of these articles end up being deleted, but many of those arguments appear to be mere opinions and not very convincing. Calling verifiable facts "insignificant" or "unencyclopedic" is subjective. The closer "felt" that the delete arguments were stronger.
  Pomte 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - can't recall if I nominated this one or not, but regardless I still endorse it. Wikipedia may have a "tradition" of this sort of articles, but
  loosely-associated topics already speak strongly against these "...IPC" articles. Otto4711 05:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Spacepotato 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neverball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• The game is pretty well known in open source circles, see for example http://happypenguin.org/show?Neverball which has almost 200 comments for Neverball;
• It's included in almost all linux distros; —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Paxed (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• There is an active community for it at www.nevercorner.net;
• Several other open source games have just as "bad" articles on wikipedia, if Neverball article is deleted, then those should be deleted too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Bubble and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLTron for example, I can list more with a bit of searching, if needed...) --Paxed 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist -- the article might not have been the most well written article on Wikipedia, but it appears the editor who deleted the article didn't take the tiniest bit of time to investigate the matter. A simple search on Google shows that speedy deletion is clearly unacceptable in this case. -- parasti ^(talk) 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to creation of a sourced article (content will be userfied on request). A free download game with no secondary sources is a valid A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with no predudice against recreation. Your argument "if X is deleted, then so must Y and Z" is a clear example of fallacious logic. The representations made above about supposed notability are contraary to WP:NOT... blog and forum comments do not constitute sources. The fact that the program is distributed with Linus does nothing to establish notability. Closing admin made the correct decision.
  Jerry lavoie 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist The article on
  unsigned comment was added by 165.228.231.40 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • To that I can add that, contrary to a comment above, the Linux Game Tome isn't a "blog" or a "forum" and is in fact one of the most prominent game sites of its kind; Neverball scores 9th by rating (3rd by the old ratings) and has been among the top 10 games for a couple of years now. -- parasti ^(talk) 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Relist I enjoy playing Neverball. It is a super
  Macintosh distributions. There are over 200'000 Google references. Even if there are a great many duplicates and blog-type mentions, I'm sure this shows notability. It seems the article itself needs work, but for this it should be relisted. --Theosch
  07:55, 1 March 2007
• Endorse No evidence that this is notable, no claim of notability in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(software) says: "... the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable: 1. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor. 2. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution. Statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution."

I went over to this suggested site [21] and found that Neverball seems to rank 1290th of 12170 packages, i.e. almost in the top 10%. Now I call that notable! --Theosch 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Relist Neverball is matured and well-known game that should be on Wikipedia. I agree that the article needs work, but it should not be deleted. -- Wenli 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouThink.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I-Am-Bored.com, a less significant site was not deleted. either I-Am-Bored should be deleted or both should be merged onto Youthink.com.Electricbassguy 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion.
  Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Also, the other article mentioned should disappear in a short while or five days. MER-C 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Someone already removed Speedy and Prod on the other article. People seem to be defending it do to the no consensus. I think it's only fair if that is kept, Youthink and IAB should share one article, preferably YouThink.com. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Endorse valid AfD. To show notability you have to have non-trivial 3rd party sources. None have been produced.
  notable. Eluchil404 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I-am-bored is actually Youthink, however. the whole site is a copy of the "Links" from Youthink.com. Also, I could find 3rd party reviews of YouThink as well. There are several online. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Endorse - and I-Am-Bored has disappeared (well, when I hit ALT-D) -- Tawker 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion "If X is Deleted, so must Y and Z" is fallacious logic.
  Jerry lavoie 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

MY HUSBAND, THE PIG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

VERY USEFUL 128.187.0.178 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I use Wikipedia all the time to look at information about my favorite T.V. shows, and as I was looking at the next episode of Desperate Housewives, I noticed this comment in the VERY USEFUL Episode Guide Template: ‹The template Desperate Housewives episode has been proposed for deletion here.› I am not impressed, because I and my friends find it very useful. There should be no reason that it need be deleted. So, although the deletion has been proposed, I urge you not to ratify it. Thank-you.[reply]

Hamilton Stands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

My article on the Hamilton Stands company was deleted under

• Endorse simply being used by a notable professional or being sold over the internet does not confer notability. See also
  WP:INN it is quite likely that there are articles on wikipedia on companies even less notable than this one, but that doesn't mean they won't be held to the same high standards just that they haven't been yet. Eluchil404 10:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Will this work, as an article asserting notability? Bill Carpenter acquires Hamilton Stands This article states that Hamilton originated the folding music stand. I'd call that notable. Zephyrad 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out

WP:CORP. If Hamilton originated the folding music stand but there are no sources about the company itself, then that invention should be mentioned in some article about music stands or music history, but it does not warrant a separate article about the company itself. —Centrx→talk • 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The source appears to be reliable, independent, and non-trivial. If another one can be found I will strike my Endorse opinion. Eluchil404 15:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The comment by User:Centrx that you found to be ridiculous is just standard Wikipedia policy: insisting that "reliable third-party sources, such as books and magazines, that cover the company as their main subject", be cited before he will restore the article. If you believe this is an important article subject, then it's reasonable for you to find the needed references and add them. Having the sources means that future readers will be benefitted. In that way you will have shared your knowledge. EdJohnston 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already listed one news article about the company above, and have also contacted the company itself for information about possible news stories. Are you (collectively) saying there needs to be a whole book or magazine devoted to the company's history, or will an article in a magazine or book be sufficient? I have to wonder which among you are musicians; any musician who has bought or used a Hamilton product would shake their heads (at least) at the idea that the company isn't "notable"... and I have already "shared my knowledge", in the deleted article. Zephyrad 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion The "rediculous" statement by the closing admin is actually a longstanding fundamental policy
  Jerry lavoie 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am prone to disagree. This is not some tinpot company a guy runs out of the back of his garage; this is an American manufacturer that has supplied equipment to musicians and music students (particularly public school music programs) around the world, for over a hundred years. Have you considered that the reason there may be little current press coverage is because musicians already know about the company and its long history? My questions about what would suffice for "notable" coverage, and are any of you who have weighed in against it musicians, have not been answered. (I will look for printed press coverage about the company, but I am concerned that a trade-paper article about the company wouldn't be good enough for you all, since the Net article I already cited above apparently is not.) I do not find the statement itself to be ridiculous; I find the usage of it to be so, and I think you're setting the bar too high for "notability" in this case. Zephyrad 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Hamilton Stands is an actual company that actually exists and actually produces something. A lack of sources doesn't take away from the fact that the company exists and contributes something to the world. If 'Hamilton Stands' were actually the name of an obscure bit-part character from a Star Wars spin-off novel, would it then warrant an entry? armanddeplessis 17:05, 26 February 2007.

• • I believe that you ment overturn the speedy deletion and restore the deleted article, as you appear to be arguing for its retention. Endorse in this case, means "I endorse the deletion of the article as proper". Eluchil404 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, as I believe armanddeplessis intended to vote. Does it help that it's mentioned in the Middletown, Ohio article? --Lukobe 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, list at AfD Company exists since 1883, that's enough of a claim to notability to run it through AfD, especially if it's a specialized equipment manufacturer. AND "Unimproved for months" is certainly no speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

The hip hop group of Binary Star (comprised of emcee's Sennim Silla and One Be Lo (OneManArmy)) is very important to the underground hip hop community, their first LP sold over 20,000 copies, a lot for an underground independant group. Many groups nowadays cite Binar Star as an influence, also their first album Masters of the Universe has a page, as well as One Be Lo a previous member of the group. It seems weird that Binary Star is unimportant but their album and one of its emcee's deserve a page. Anyways if the previous page does not cite its importance I will be willing to add information that will stress this groups importance. Many other, less popular groups have pages, some that are even longer, yet Binary Star's page is deleted. I am for reinstatement of this page, or if everyone pleases I will edit the original page. Either way the original page was very good and shouldn't have to be completely redone. All underground hip-hop heads please consider this. --HiphopisNOTdead 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If you can provide evidence that this group meets the
  notability criteria for musical acts right here in this deletion review, that would be very helpful. For example, what kind of media coverage have they received? Have they gone on a national tour? Have they released at least two albums on a significant independent label? Have they hit any of the music charts? If you can provide us right here with links to reliable sources to back up any of this, you will probably manage to have the original page restored or at least allowed to be recreated. --Metropolitan90 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Response. Various online coverage on Binary Star: http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2001_01_masters.html rap reviews coverage right here. http://www.onebelo.com/ , One Be Lo's (former Binary Star member) website citing several positive comments from people from the Onion, XXL and Scratch Magazine. Also check out the press page on his website citing several more articles on Binary Star/One Be Lo. http://www.chopsuey.com/dec06.shtml Seattle, WA venue showing the Binary Star show on December 2nd (Binary Star is from Pontiac, MI) Sold out show (I was there, front row AMAZING!), one of the many out of state shows that Binary Star has done since they broke up. Binary Star and One Be Lo have toured with MF Doom also of underground hip hop fame, playing at least two shows in Seattle. This should be enough proof that Binary Star is notable. There album and One Be Lo have pages, why not the original group? Whoever deleted this page did not do enough research on Wikipedia about related articles, or any research at all regarding the group. --HiphopisNOTdead 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would also like to add that the user who deleted this page has a strong bias against any form of hip hop, please scroll down this page to the section on "Go Too Far" and read Guy's comment on rap music. Guy or JzG is the user who filed this page for A7 speedy deletion. Someone who has an obvious bias against rap music deleting an article about a notable hip hop group, seem a little wrong? It does to me, as well as the fact he obviously did absolutely no research to back up his deletion, all of this shows to me that this deletion was based on a personal bias which is absolutely no grounds for deletion. --HiphopisNOTdead 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ZOMG!
  Criterion 7 for speedy deletion). The supposedly notable former member One Be Lo has two releases with articles, which sold 4,000 and 14,000 copies respectively. No independent non-trivial sources were cited. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice for re-creation if verifiable, reliable sources can be found.
  chat} 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per
  User:Howcheng. No procedural error in the speedy deletion. Assertion of notability backed up by reliable sources would be welcome. EdJohnston 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Institute of Brand Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The Institute of Brand Science was previously named the Zyman Institute of Brand Science. At first I made a simple mistake. I tried changing the name by creating a new article with the new name, as I did not know about the move function in Wikipedia. Subsequently, I significantly updated the entry for The Intitute of Brand Science with completely new content. I am disapointed that this content was deleted, as it contained vital information about the academic research organization. There are many institutes listed in Wikipedia, including those listed in List of Research Institutes. As such, retaining a profile on The Institute of Brand Science will help make Wikipedia an excellent source of information on institutes. I am requesting either a reinstatement of the deleted material, or an official move of the original Zyman Institute of Brand Science to The Institute of Brand Science page. Jambaloop 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Although someone concerned about a deletion has the right to ask for a deletion review, I expect to see evidence of a real problem with the original deletion. I gather that the original article Zyman Institute of Brand Science was claimed to be a copyright violation. That seems to be the only unusual thing about the process thus far. Though I can't read either of the two articles, arguments in both first and second AfDs seem typical of what is often said when an article is too close to advertising, uses promotional language, and lacks outside sources. In User:Jambaloop's request for review I didn't see any acknowledgment of the issue or a proposal for addressing it. And as noted there seem no anomalies or bad process described that would justify overturning this deletion. EdJohnston 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment The above comments are not relevant as they reference an obsolete version of the article on the institute.Vodu 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own closure and deletions, if I'm allowed to do that. Valid AfD, IMO (duh, coming from the closer). Nominator hasn't explained how it was invalid, just that he thinks there should be an article. On a side note, the G4 was valid since the recreation didn't address the issue which led to deletion (lack of multiple external sources). –
  Steel 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment It seems Steel is protesting because lack of sources in the article. That is simple to remedy. Reinstate the article and I will edit that. Jambaloop 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per EdJohnston comments, the copyright issue is not valid the new listing has not taken content from other published documents. The prior article was claimed as a copyright violation, but the institute endorsed the use of the text making that argument pacified. The text was written without promotional language in a neutral tone. EdJohnson is looking for outside sources. Those will be added as soon as the article in resinstated. Or if I can do that prior to reinstatement I am happy to do so. Jambaloop 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (a) You're the nominator. We know you want the deletion overturned, no need to !vote, (b) I don't recall the article being deleted as a copyvio, and (c) you'd be best off providing sources now. –
  Steel 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (a) Pardon my ignorance...where do I find the deleted article so I can add the references.Jambaloop 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Place the references in this thread so we can read them. ColourBurst 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are referencesJambaloop 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar, Christian, The Institute of Brand Science web, retrieved 2007-02-20

Srivastava, Rajendra (2006-11-12). "State of the Institute". Colloquium on Internal Branding. Atlanta, GA.

Schultz, Don (September–October 2006). "Trash Trove". Marketing Management. 15. American Marketing Association: 10–11.

Thomas Jr., Greg (November–December 2006). "Suite Talk". Marketing Management. 15. American Marketing Association: 48–54. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Endorse. All seem pretty small beer, and the AfD alsthough it notes the invalid page move does not rest on it, deletion is based on the unanimous opinion that notability is not established. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• make the articles visible for the purpose of this discussion so we don't have to go by partial guess-work or memory.DGG 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The first article, 'Zyman Institute of Brand Science', is still visible at http://www.answers.com/topic/zyman-institute-of-brand-science. Unfortunately by current Wikipedia standards it would be tagged by some editors for speedy deletion. It lacks references except to its own web site, and seems to consist entirely of promotional language. In fact it did receive a full AfD, and was finally deleted on the basis of the copyright violation. EdJohnston 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment above comment is not relevant as it references an obsolete version of the article in review.Vodu 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse deletion Thanks, one look made it obvious. Apart from other considerations, we do not usually enter research intitutes which are ppart of individual university departments.DGG 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment above comment is not relevant as it references an obsolete version of the article in review.Vodu 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• contest of above comments

The original article (the one still viewable on answers.com) is not the article under consideration. The new article is the one that is under consideration. Can someone make that one visable? Please do not make a ruling based on obsolete information.

EdJohnson is mistaken thinking the only references are to the EmoryBI website.

Regarding the comment "we do not usually enter research intitutes which are ppart of individual university departments." Universities are departmentalize into their various disciplines. We list Haas Business School, which is a department of UC Berkeley, SRI (Stanford Research Institute) which is a department of Stanford Unversity, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing which is a department of Mysore University. We post information on departments like City University's Journalism Department We even allow the posting of information on individuals who are in sub-departments of Universities, such as Michael Porter. If there is a rule against posting information about departments of organizations, please reference that rule.

Regarding notability, Don Schultz has written about the organization. He is one of the most famous professors in communications, and is affiliated with Northwestern University. The institute is credited with the development of high level research that is publised in peer reviewed academic journals like the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, etc. This makes it notable as well.

24.98.156.245 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please don't put strikeouts through other people's comments. The new references you have provided are not too impressive. (1) seems to be yet another reference to the university's own website. (2) 'Colloquium on Internal Branding' does not appear to be a book or a refereed journal, it appears to be a fragmentary reference, and the author, Prof. Srivastava, is a staff member of the Institute itself so clearly not a third party, (3) the citation to Don Shultz's article in 'Marketing Management' includes about 150 words of comment on the Zyman Institute, asserting that it will provide 'a truly holistic approach to brand comprehension', mostly discussing what the Institute will do in the future and not what it has accomplished thus far, (4) the article by Thomas and Parkhurst in Marketing Management is, in fact, a substantive 8-page article, but it is co-authored by Greg Thomas, who is a staff member of the Institute, so he is hardly an outside party who can comment on the notability of the Institute. If the Institute was only founded in 2004 it may have existed too briefly to have received substantive comment by outsiders, so it may not qualify for
  WP:N. EdJohnston 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• endorse deletion I said in the AfD it should be deleted on the basis that institutes as part of a university were N only in exceptional cases. SRI is an excellent example of what counts as an exceptional case--it might be almost as well known as the parent. City U. may conceivably also be an exception, but the present article in my opinion does not show N, has no 3rd party refs. & should be deleted. Alll India " is located in Manasagangotri (Mysore University Campus), Mysore, India. It is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare" --my emphasis. DGG 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  bolding on duplicate opinion struck

  GRBerry 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion. I concur with EdJohnston's analysis of the citations. There are still not enough third party reliable soures to justify an article separate from Goizueta Business School. — coelacan talk — 06:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLAYSTATION® Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I do not think it fit the criteria for a speedy deletion. There are articles for similar virtual markets and this one is just as big, such as the

The existence of similar articles should not be interpreted to justify the existence of a particular article. Since it was speedied as NN, that suggests the previous article had no assertion of notability. Can you provide

notability of this website/business? —Dgies^t c 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Notability can come from the Official PS Store site, content can come from a reliable source demonstrated here. Another example is here here which is content the PS3 will get via the PS Store. DanB91 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough justification for me. I see no good reason not to have this article! --24.154.173.243 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to

WP:RS test. Can you find some examples of the mainstream press writing about this? —Dgies^t c 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's a Joystiq site, and here's a site that references the PS Store. Most sites that have anything to do with video games are blog like sites. If these sites are not good enough, can u give me video game sites that are not blogs? DanB91 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• IGN, Gamespot, any of the magazines in Category:Video game magazines. Blogs tend to have very little fact-checking and content control (I think Joystiq may be an exception to this, but I forget whether it's actually been used as a source), which is why they tend not to be reliable. ColourBurst 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ENDORSE® deletion of distinctly spammy article with no credible assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response: I still see no reason to delete it. If this is deleted then the
  Wii Channels pages. Same should apply to the PlayStation Network and the PLAYSTATION® Store. I know other sites should not justify another but my response is only to User:Guy. DanB91 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That would be covered under
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn - It's a major software component of the PS3 and I don't see the need to delete. If it was badly written, it should have just been tagged as such. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn so it can be properly rediscussed. Going by the limited information available, there's possible case.DGG 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The Playstation store is a major part of the PlayStation Network, and the PS Store should have its own page.Cjcamilla 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to write an endorsement of my own deletion as I think it's for others to decide, but I've restored a copy of the deleted article to User:Enochlau/Temp, and you might all understand why it looked like something that should be zapped straight away. enochlau (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion either way as to whether it's salvageable, but if it's restored, dear Zog don't leave so much as a redirect behind at this abominable title. —Cryptic 11:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion It is a central concept and substansive knowledge that obvious should be shared. However remove the ® from the article's name! No one can search for the article with and ® in the name. Lord Metroid 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally like the ® in the name, because thats the true name. I had "ps store" and "playstation store" redirect to it so it shouldn't be a problem.DanB91 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do please see
    WP:MOS-TM. Neither the all-caps type nor the registered-trademark symbol are (remotely) acceptable. —Cryptic 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I guess it should be changed to the PlayStation Store, if (when) it is restored. DanB91 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, seems like a notable topic. Andre (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I see no independent sourcing provided despite a request. If this can be changed, allow recreation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It can be reliably sourced. I know it's been discussed in the magazine GameInformer, at least, and I'd imagine other magazines and the larger gaming sites have written about it. Shimeru 08:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How long does a review last? It seems that most of the users are in a consensus of overturning the deletion, and plus sources have been posted. DanB91 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. In the copy of the article at User:Enochlau/Temp there are literally still no sources. The article as a whole has an amazing resemblance to a typical candidate for speedy deletion. Previous !voters seem to imply that its importance should override its resemblance to a speedy deletion candidate. I'd consider changing my vote if a participant in this DRV could offer any reliable sources. Is there not even a weekly printed computer-industry trade publication that has said anything about this? Nothing at all in the Wall Street Journal? If you have a source to offer, please spell it out here completely in the review, in good enough form that it could be added to the article without further discussion. EdJohnston 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response: I can give you a bunch of sources from IGN, Gamespot, Joystic, QJ.net, there are probably articles in the Playstation Magazine, probably Game Informer, etc. I listed a bunch of sources at the top. Here is a link that references the PlayStation Store at the bottom. I don't know if anyone saw but it was listed as a stub before it was deleted, and I was hoping that someone would expand it more. I will look into more sources if the 5 or so sources weren't good enough. And again I ask is there any video game site that is considered "reliable"? DanB91 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link you provided is to a blog posting. That would not be a reliable source anyway (per

Xbox Live Marketplace article is considerably better than this one. Note that it includes some critical comments about the store. EdJohnston 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Here is an article (video rather) all about the PlayStation Store DanB91 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Stabby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brian Peppers (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

Like many editors, I hope to work on establishing a notable and verifiable entry for internet celebrity Brian Peppers, so now that the Grand High Poobah deigns to let us to write about it again, I was upset to find that admins have deleted and blocked the Brian Peppers talk page. There is no reason why this should be the case - the arbitrary year's embargo has lifted, we should get on with creating a good article on Brian Peppers. If we can't go about this collaborative editing process in the article itself, we at least need a talk page. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion we don't keep talk pages around for deleted articles. Andrew Lenahan 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There is enough rubbish on the wiki without discussing the revival of some of the stuff we've already deleted long ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - we've quite enough of this --
  Doc^g 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - we've been there, seen that, got the T-shirt. Doc said it all. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore talk. Maybe if the talk page is open, people will actually be able to find and discuss the topic and everything won't be WP:SNOWed or otherwise closed early... --Dookama 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even more of a magnet for particularly sick trolls than the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Talk pages of deleted articles are deleted as well. It's pretty simple. --Cyde Weys 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We only keep talk pages of deleted articles around if there's a chance that the article will be re-created. That's not going to happen here, no way no how. —Cryptic 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The only reason that it wouldn't happen would be because of abuse of WP:SNOW (or other methods of closing discussion early) or people not wanting the page to exist due to some vague notion of "unencyclopedic" content. --Dookama 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse deletion "endorse" because of the normal processes per Cyde and Cryptic. "Strong" because it's the humane thing to do and because of BLP concerns. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Talk pages for deleted articles are subject to G8. --
  desat 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted Enough!--MONGO 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per
  WP:AN, etc. there is no realistic chance anything said on a talkpage is going to change that fact.--Isotope23 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well, he's never going to have an article again, so endorse.--Wizardman 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Per G8. But would be acceptable for people to collaborate on a fully-sourced,
  WP:BLP-compliant article in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? At least there it will be a much weaker troll-magnet. —Dgies^t c 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• people hav found about 4 sources and they have looked pretty hard. I doubt there will be many more for the time being.Geni 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I suppose the problem is that though there are good references establishing facts, there are few to no reliable sources establishing notability. —Dgies^t c 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per nom. Khoikhoi 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - per the CSD criteria. -- Tawker 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - Exercise in pointless masturbation. Listen: this article, even if it did exist, would never be longer than four sentences. Everything that could conceivably be discussed about Brian Peppers has already been discussed. Let. It. Go. Thunderbunny 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. We don't keep talk pages without articles. Maybe you should start up WikiProject:Brian Peppers if you really want to spend time on this. Jesus. Time to move on, Chuckles. Herostratus 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion No reason for this to exist. --
  Folantin 08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This has gotten too long for transclusion. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt

World Trade Center in film and media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

While the nominator is under no obligation to notify the article creator, it really would have been helpful if someone notified me about this

• Please restore per my nom. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse since AfD is not a vote™ the addition of another keep argument would have changed the result only if it was persuasive. Instead of restoring the highly problematic old list I would suggest simply recreating a list with clear and exclusive inclusion criteria. The "we don't want this material in our article so we need a place to put it" argument is generally unpersuasive. If it is unencyclopedic it should be excised not quarintined. Eluchil404 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at

featured list. Now, do I have to start from scratch and make up a new list or can I please work with what was there, try to find references, and cut out what's not notable. It would be much easier (a big time saver) for me to do the latter. --Aude (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If that's the case I have no objection to userfication. You can work on the list in your userspace and when it meets minimun standards move it back to the mainspace. It doesn't need to be FL ready but some basic standards on inclusion and some secondary sources would be a big help in convincing people that it has potential. Eluchil404 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The two keep comments didn't provide any arguments to why the list should be kept. So they had almost no weight in the discussion. Also AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore; per Aude above, we need something like this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• YEah the DRV nom is rather vote-ish. The two keep "votes" in this AfD were rather weak ("useful list", "interesting list"... arguments not based in policy but just
  WP:ILIKEITs), if another weak reason for keeping had appeared I probably still would have deleted. All four delete "votes" linked to or at least mentioned policy. But the DRV nom is not all that weak of a reason. I would be okay with restoring it if the people really think it could be improved, but the article does need a huge overhaul... glancing at the deleted version, I can't really imagine who would possibly want to read that entire laundry list of trivia. --W.marsh 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would think/hope the opinion of the subarticle creator and maintainer(s) of the main article who is working to get it to

WP:SUMMARY, there should be a brief summary in the main article (1-2 sentences) and a subarticle. Since pop culture isn't my strength, having something to work from and find references/notability would be much preferrable. --Aude (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well there were certainly a lot of uncited items to work from in the deleted versions of this article. It would take a vast amount of work to get this article to the point where I'd support it as a featured list. Anyway, would you like me to restore this to your user space so you can work on it there? And unless there are any objections we could close the DRV and you could move the list back to the article namespace once you're ready. --W.marsh 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to my userspace is okay. I tend to agree that this stuff isn't really interesting. But it is notable and interesting to some people. Since pop culture is outside my expertise, it will take work to find appropriate references (especially for films from the 1970s). I think Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is the example to follow. The new "sortable" table thing there would be good to use too. --Aude (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's at User:AudeVivere/World Trade Center in film and media now. --W.marsh 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore This is a subarticle of World Trade Center and was created to ensure the main article wasn't overcrowded with peripheral information. I can't now see the deleted article, but I remember it being well referenced and definitely encyclopedic.--MONGO 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were about 200 items listed, and just 2 references, in the last versions of the article. Personally I can't imagine a list of all the video games where the WTC appeared in a background image for a few seconds is all that interesting to anyone except fans of that game maybe. One of those lists where everyone wants to add something, but no one wants to actually read the list. But really that's just my opinion and I wouldn't enforce it to keep the article deleted against consensus, since there's not a serious policy problem with this article. --W.marsh 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per nom. --Tbeatty 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Too Far (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article has been deleted for prevention of recreation. The single has been confirmed. A music video has been released and the single as already started charting. What more is there to say. This page should be unprotected and recreated for the benefit of fans and other artists etc. User:Zz128 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, agreed as per nom Lord Metroid 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PERNOM? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse again, for the same reason as on 11 Feb. What's changed since then? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Opinion on Feb. 11 was "Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)". That DRV closed as request withdrawn.

  GRBerry 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Neutral I would strongly suggest endorse deletion but as my userpage states I'm extremely repulsed by any rap/hiphop song so my endorse vote would border COI. So no opinion here.
  Wooyi 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ahem: rap song is a tautology. Not sure why the C is silent in rap, but a song has a tune. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy, I'm sure you meant oxymoron (or more precisely contradiction in terms) rather than tautology. -- Ben 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did indeed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wooyi, someone I greatly respect, C. S. Lewis, wrote (among other things) book reviews, but declined to review mysteries, saying that because he disliked the genre he could not fairly judge whether any given book was a good or bad example of it, and he wished not to write any unfair reviews. It's nice to see that you share the same scruple. -- Ben 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The video has been released; "Go too far Jibbs" gives you something like 230,000 ghits. And, btw, this is not "gangsta rap" - this features a member of the
  Pussycat Dolls and is strictly tame suburban rap/r&b - this would not sound out of place on a KISS-format station. --Brianyoumans 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ghits? I think you need to look past the google test and find some evidence that proves this is notable. Lots of ghits justify a redirect for reader convenience, not an article. For that, we have
  WP:N and stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:GHITS? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion but leave the redirect I've created.
  Chick Bowen 18:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Ray Regan 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
• Endorse deletion but keep the redirect, per
  User:Chick Bowen. If this song receives specific press coverage that can be added here in the DRV in the form of complete references that are usable in the article I would reconsider my vote. EdJohnston 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:BinSL.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)

Image was deleted for not complying with Fair use, although it did comply, and it is needed as a citation. TheGreenFaerae 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment image can't be used as a citation. If you upload it to wikipedia you'd then be using wikipedia as a source which is circular. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles. (Images can be manipulated so its appearance on wikipedia proves nothing). --pgk 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "Proving existence" is not a valid fair use claim, nor does a picture that could be doctored actually prove existence. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph's authenticity can be proved by logging on to second Life and searching with the same terms i used as typed. the photograph is not the citation, the text in Second Life is the citation. The photograph is simply the only way to transfer it out of the Second Life client and to Wikipedia.TheGreenFaerae 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that was just the reason it was on Wikipedia. It is not the basis of the fair use claim. i had broken down and itemized how the image was fair use on the image page itself before Ryu deleted it.TheGreenFaerae 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in ... would be Original research as for your not the basis of the fairuse claim, reviewing the deleted page under the section entitled fair use rationale " Purpose of Image : This image is used to show that there are groups that call themselves either /b/tards or some derivative of /b/ in second Life." --pgk 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you still feel as if it has no place on WP, I will respect your decision. I am thankful that you took the time to fairly review it however.TheGreenFaerae 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC

It's not my judgment which counts, it's if it is

reliable sources who have covered this in a non-trivial way, it there is it is verifiable and you can cite those as to the significance and existance of this groups, if there isn't then it shouldn't be in the article. --pgk 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well the reference itself isn't the subject, but I think I am beginning to agree with the photo side of things.TheGreenFaerae 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The deletion of this list was discussed with two marginally related pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3. The conclusion "delete all" didn't take in account that some opinions favoring deletion very mainly about Deaths in Final Destination 3 and opinions for keeping specially the above list weren't examined. -- User:Docu

• Overturn as per above. -- User:Docu
• Relist while delete may well be the correct ultimate outcome, the balance of arguments at the AfD suggest that this article needs to be considered seperately. Eluchil404 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist due to the fact that most of the opinions for deletion either didn't take Lists of deaths in the Friday the 13th series into account (for example, they noted the over-the-top plot summary nature of the list--while the Friday the 13th list was very brief and matter-of-fact) or they expressed an opinion to keep the list. I think that this list, being very different from the Final Destination lists should get a chance to be deleted or kept on its own merits. janejellyroll 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist given the comments above, and see what happens.
  (jarbarf) 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I found both this list AND the Final Destination one helpful. It just really boils my blood when I try to relocate a good article and it's magically disappeared because of some random goofs who want to ruin this site for a widespread audience. If people are interested, keep these things and if YOU don't like the article than just ignore it. Gosh! --24.154.173.243 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. It seems proper that the Friday the 13th death list should have its own separate vote. The copy of the list that can still be seen at answers.com does not appear excessive. As User:Janejellyroll says above, it's very brief and matter-of-fact. EdJohnston 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per snowball clause. Yes, we could take the bureaucratic approach and discuss it again, but it will simply yield the same arguments and the same result.
  WP:BURO. >Radiant< 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

List of supercars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Don't bother going to the link, someone has started a new page with the same name. The AfD was a very weak delete with no consensus (5 to 4 by my count) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars My particular objection is that that that article was on my watchlist and yet the AfD notice did not appear in it, which I check every day. Also the deletion summary was not filled in thereby forcing me to do a manual search for the AfD debate, which is a waste of time. Greglocock 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and re-deletion as G4. AfD is not a vote, and the delete arguments pretty clearly demonstrated that the subject inherently requires
  subjective judgment. If we can't possibly write an article without original research, we can't write that article period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• While a vote may not be mandatory, a consensus is, by my reading. I see no consensus. Also I have checked my watchlist for that date, and taken a screenshot of it. No proposal for deletion was posted on that page, so far as I can tell. Greglocock 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD notice would've been posted there, but you'd no longer see that. Since the page was in fact deleted, its history would be gone as well, and not show up on your watchlist. An administrator could look at history of the old page and verify that the AfD notice was posted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. If a magazine or two calls a car a supercar, then add it, otherwise remove it. There are plenty of lists that have subjective inclusion criteria. Placing a movie or band in a certain genre is a judgment call, but we do it based on statements in reliable, published sources. Recury 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (my) deletion. Consensus must always, on Wikipedia, take into account policy. The 'keeps' were ignoring the issues about the Wikipedia requirements for articles to be neutral and referenced.
  ► 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion. We should not have a list with a subjective criterion for inclusion, per User:Seraphimblade. EdJohnston 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - closing admin followed appropriate policy in deleting the article; keep arguments along the lines of "it can be worked on" are not compelling. Otto4711 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD 2)

I recreated this after searching for the original deletion reason. The only thing I could find was that it was frequently vandalized and that nobody could be bothered protecting it. I don't believe that this is a valid criteria for deletion, otherwise we would have deleted George W. Bush some time ago. It seems like the beginning of a reasonable article on a notable enough subject (an example of web 2.0 emergent behavior) to me so I recreated it. Seraphimblade speedied the article pointing out that it was probably deleted for a reason. The AFD was "No consensus". I originally searched for Drawball on Wikipedia as I had read of it elsewhere and wanted to know more. This seems like a good criteria for an article to me. AntiVan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes and clarifications It was actually
  notability due to no reliable secondary sourcing available. I endorse deletion unless those sources now are available and can be cited, but am willing to change my mind if they are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sorry Seraphimblade for incorrectly attributing the deletion to you, and thanks for notifying the others. Obviously I am not familiar with this process. In support of secondary sources I offer these: SmartMobs, The Wilx Collection & AdRants. I appreciate these are not the same as a front page story in the Times, but I feel it should be enough to support a little stub of an article. Thanks, AntiVan 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, blogs tend not to count as
    reliable sources, due to lack of editorial supervision. ColourBurst 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion, the most recent AFD was valid. I have linked it in the nomination statement. Blogs are also generally not considered
  desat 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion valid unanimous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I have not heard that there were any process anomalies with the second AfD, and the lack of outside sourcing is commented upon everywhere. Does anyone participating in this review know of new third-party sources that might justify a revived article? In proposing the DRV, User:AntiVan noted the difficulty of protecting the original article against vandalism. A valuable article might be worth the ongoing labor of protection; this one seems unlikely to be worth it. These are AfD-type arguments in a DRV but it's hard to keep them completely separate. EdJohnston 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Materialization (science fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• There doesn't seem to be a deletion to review here. The old article went through Votes for Deletion but was closed with no consensus. You can simply replace the redirect with new text. —Celithemis 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IndieTits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD

)

• Overturn Article had an AfD with a clear consensus to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Deletion was out of process. It had survived a fairly recent AfD. JuJube 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment logs say it's an A7 speedy deletion (doesn't seem to be related to the AfD decision). The last AfD was almost two years ago; consensus may have changed so relist it. ColourBurst 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article had no sources and claim of notabily, the deletion wasn't really out of process as I doubt the admin who speedied knew about the AFD so JuJube please
  ^{wat's sup} 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse speedy. The article states in two lines that it is a webcomic, who writes it, when he started, and how often it's updated. In between, the entirety of the article is a description of the comic's content. No sources are given other than a link directly to the comic itself, and no claims of importance or significance are made. This is a textbook A7, and even if it had a claim to disqualify it as a speedy, I would remove the bulk of the article as
  contains the barest minimum hint that it might possibly. —Cryptic 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and undelete. I'm confused, what happened between
  (jarbarf) 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Deleting admin here, no vote. No, I didn't know about the AfD, there was no talk page tag. If I had, I'd not have deleted it. Anyway, I think the solution is simple: recreate it with some
  WP:WEB-compatible sources. I'd be glad to provide someone with the text in their userspace to do this. Otherwise, it'll just go straight to AfD (again) once recreated. Sandstein 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to Jeph Jacques if that's a valid !vote here. Otherwise overturn and relist in the hope AfD does that. the wub "?!" 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 speedy, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have made it a redirect, as it seems like useful one. I have no opinion on whether it should be relisted at AfD, but since there's already some material in
  Chick Bowen 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. By that I mean, keep the original article deleted, but retain the redirect to
  User:Chick Bowen. I would consider changing my vote if anyone in this debate can list here some 3rd-party sources that could be added to the article, for example, some press coverage. The speedy deletion based on A7 seems correct. Looking at the AfD from June, 2005, I'm puzzled that no-one in that debate complained about the total lack of outside sources. (At least, there are no sources included in the copy of the article that is currently visible at http://www.answers.com/indietits ). EdJohnston 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The answers mirror is up-to-date, yes; and for the record, I have no problem with the redirect. —Cryptic 11:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(CfD)

Category:Erdős number 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Erdős number 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

• Speedy close, this is not CfD round 2. Do you have information that was not in the debate? Or evidence that the people who participated acted in bad faith? If you don't, there's nothing to do. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I dislike making accusations... --Cat out 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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