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

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

31 January 2007

Bishoy Habib – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bishoy Habib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

the reason is because this is a real rapper who many people and fans adore, and he is on the rise. a wikipedia page for this artist would only be appropriate. and besides, all of the information on there was true, and so was the reference. many people are not satisfied now that it has been removed, so please attend to this ASAP, thank you. Egyamanda 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I definatley agree with amanda, please overturn your decision and dont delete this page. as you can tell by his website, he has thousands of fans across the world (mostly through the internet), and killing his wikipedia page would leave many of those fans feeling empty about this rapper. Its best purpose is probably just to inform his fans more about his personal life than his own website provides them. i for one thought it was an excellent idea, because so many people i know wanted to find out more about this aspiring young artist. therefore i am all in favor of overturning this decision and restoring this wikipedia page. if it isnt restored, that would really suck for all the Coptic Orthodox people across the world, who are fans of his music and want to know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheman2000 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Since the AfD link is dead, it seems this article was speedy deleted. Can you tell us how this rapper meets the
    notability guidelines? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I complete forgot about that link. Go figure. Anyway, will also endorse deletion unless some sort of notability of this person is proven. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adam4Adam – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adam4Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article asserts

verifiable sources. More can easily be provided. It is neither POV nor spammy; it was Wikified and had considerable information within. This article is being confused with previous versions with which the current author has no connection. The article was Speedy Deleted desite a "hangon" that had been there less than 24 hours. The topic of this article is a website used by men to meet for sex. The subject of this article may be creating an unjust bias against the article itself. House of Scandal 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I just love how "Wikilawyering" can wheeled out to toss any beyond-superficial consideration of policy overboard. Bwithh 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per above Fotografico 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and submit to complete AfD to resolve issues. Lack of claim of notability when notability can be shown is no excuse for speedy deletion. Haiduc 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If anyone is interested in the unusually high turnout, I did a quick check and found
    LGBT_open_tasks}}. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Response - On the LGBT page there is a small section devoted to deletion discussions. This is one of the articles listed there. The link goes directly here. There is no prodding there about how someone should vote. If the article was about plants the opinion of people involved with the botany project might be solicited. Etcetera. Elsewhere, the article creator asked for admin help right after being told by you:

"I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you."

Since when does an article creator saying something an admin doesn't like have a bearing on an article's notability? You told someone today to trust the process. To take issue with LBGT project people being informed about this discussion is contemptable. Shaundakulbara 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Chairboy, your comment above seems a red herring to me, designed to distract from the real issue, which is that the article was deleted in spite of having notability. It also seems to me (once again, from your own comments) that you have your back up about this issue, and are being defensive. Seems to me you made a mistake. Another admin made a similar mistake with this article, and retored it. I urge you to do the same. And I also take issue with your implication that the LGBT Project is being used for votestacking, and that we project members are somehow not objective enough to determine if an article subject meets
    WP:N. If I have misinterpreted your remarks, I apologize, but I don't think I have. Jeffpw 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your member Shaundakulbara has made personal attacks against me, implied that I'm on some sort of anti-gay crusade, called me an asshole, and so on, and your congratulatory backslapping for these actions in this edit is unfortunate. I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place, if there's higher than usual turnout in any DRV, it's customary to make a note for the closing admin to review so he/she can make that determination for themselves once the review is over. In regards to my comment above, read the exchange. I've done nothing to prevent anyone from restoring the article, but when a user immediately launches into accusations that I'm some sort of evil, power mad dictator who's conspiring against them, why should I go out of my way for them? I'm a volunteer here, like anyone else. My responsibility is to exercise good judgement, and when someone else tagged the article for speedy deletion, I reviewed it and determined that it was an A7 deletion. If I made an error, then it should have been easy to find someone to undelete it once I told HouseOfScandal that I didn't appreciate his immediate assumption of bad faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More deceit, more hypocrisy, and now paranoid histrionics too.

  • Chairboy Statement: There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article
  • Chairboy Counterstatement: I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place

You ignored a "hangon" and used your admin privileges to Speedy Delete an article which another admin had just restored. This was an abuse of power and when someone pointed that out (you were not called an evil power mad dictator and homophobe, that is your self-characterization) you decided to punish the author. When you volunteered to be an admin you agreed to follow guidelines and policies. Your observation of rules and policies should not be dependant on people kissing your butt. Encouraging civility doesn’t mean using the mop and keys to punish anyone who speaks to you in a manner you don’t like.

  • Chairboy 3:why should I go out of my way...?

You went out of your way to kill the article. You’ve spent enormous energy trying to keep it dead. Don’t pretend like your current course of action was the path of least effort. And sir, I referred to you as an asshole indirectly, I didn’t say “Chairboy you are an asshole...I said “the editor who deleted this is an asshole.” You are one who keeps dredging up the fact that I was referring to you. Three Admins have already reminded me about civility, this was my first breech of it ever.  ::Get over it, Mary! - it is NOT relevant to this article’s notability. You are the one making this about editors not about articles. When you forced this article to go to Deletion Review you thus chose to have your admin practices scrutinized and now you don't like the results. If it seems many people are saying negative things against you, if a respected Wikipedian with many peer awards says you abuse your power, if you are described as an asshole by a (different) editor who has never been rude before, if you are being cast as a villain by an usually high turnout of editors, what could be the reason? Shaundakulbara 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed each of the issues you've brought up independently, please don't mischaracterize things. As such, I'll refrain from responding other than to ask that you not call me 'Choirboy'. I've taken great effort to carefully spell your name correctly as a sign of respect, please consider returning the favor. Let's try to keep this civil. I have, and as I mentioned above, I feel as if you haven't made the reciprocal effort. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Misspell was an error and has been corrected Shaundakulbara 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I see her active on your project pages, both regarding this issue and having just presented new business. Jeffpw's endorsement of her smears against me on your project talk page is unfortunate. I hope you'll discourage this type of thing in the future, it hurts Wikipedia and, in the case of your group, draws attention away from the good work you've done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a member there. There was already a post about this issue there and I just followed the history trail. Speaking of which, as much as you want to play private eye and scrutinize what everyone says to one another on this issue on our talk pages and so on, it STILL doesn't affect the article's notability. How do you not know this? Shaundakulbara 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting four members of
    WP:LGBT who have voted here - how this could be considered vote-stacking I don't know. Also, if you were to check out our deletion sorting list, you would find that we do not deluge XfDs with keep votes, but consider every article on its own merits (and even vote against each other). To accuse us of votestacking, when there is no exhortation either way on our list or template, is the knee-jerk reaction of someone upset at their judgement being questioned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, you're wrong - contested speedy deletes can still be speedy deleted by admins. Prods (proposed deletions) are stopped by contestation Bwithh 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following statements are quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

  • reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended
  • Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.

Can this be any clearer? - Shaundakulbara 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make my statement incorrect? I was specifically responding to Mathmo's assertion that the mere act of contesting a speedy delete tag negates the possibility of speedy deletion - that's the case for Prods, not CSD tagging. Compare
WP:CSD does not relate directly to the point I was making (which btw, seems generally in line with what Chairboy and Ozlawyer have to say about hangon templates in the discussion on Chairboy's talk page[10]). Bwithh 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
As I've said in the past, mere claims to encyclopedic notability are sufficient to merit removal of a speedy delete tag. But I don't see any sign of that in the article, and apparently Chairboy and Ozlawyer didn't either. Its a matter of opinion whether mentions in news articles are encyclopedically notable or not (whether its from a news source with local or national or international focus - the NYTimes is all 3 btw and not every article it prints is automatically esteemed knowledge for the ages), but its within reasonable bounds to see such mentions as not asserting encyclopedic notability. Crime stories in newspapers are generally not encyclopedically remarkable. In addition, apparently no argument against the speedy delete was left on the talk page to accompany the hangon. So Chairboy was left with just a hangon tag. If it was felt that the speedy deletion was too hasty or out of order - that's why deletion review exists. There's no reason here for the bad faith assumptions about Chairboy's intentions or views. I'm not here to express opinions on Chairboy's behalf, but it seems clear to me from his talk page that he was ready to restore the article as a courtesy response to HouseofScandal's first assertion that he could provide a ton of evidence to show verifiable encyclopedic notability. Chairboy chose not to do this when he saw that HouseofScandal was assuming bad faith and asked HouseofScandal to make a request to another admin. This seems reasonable and does not indicate that Chairboy was tacitly admitting he was in error as you suggest. By the way, hoax and "vanity" articles are not subject to deletion by
WP:CSD while this article is within the bounds of consideration under A7. Bwithh 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually,
consensus can change even for deletion review decisions, so there's not exactly a solid "fact" to be uncovered here. No, this isn't AFD, we're discussing whether Chairboy's speedy delete decision was reasonable. I've already said that just a minimal claim of encyclopedic notability is needed. I don't see it in the article and I think Chairboy made an ok call. And I don't see why whether you "forgive" my opinion or not matters. Bwithh 11:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Overturn, not a legitimate speedy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Many things are clear as crystal in this review: 1. The page in question did not meet the utilized requirement for speedy deletion (CSD A7) 2. The article has various sources and thus stands a good chance of passing a good-faith AfD listing. 3. Some of the editors who opposed the SD could have been more civil; however, 4. Chairboy's refusal to un-delete the article because he was offended by what other editors said is petulant and childish (at best) 5. His job as admin in the situation is to consider the article, not those editors he is corresponding with, and there is no excuse for using your administrative powers (or holding them over someone's head, for that matter) because you are angry with the person. (I'll also note that, while Chairboy IS a volunteer, he should remember that his peers in the Wiki community elected him to his post). 6. Chairboy's supposition that posting this DRV on the LGBT noticeboard was vote-stacking (and that is clearly the assertion he was making) is troubling for various reasons, but for me mainly because it seems he assumed that all those who are members of the project would vote overturn simply because they are LGBT or interested in LGBT issues. This shows an enormous amount of disrespect for that project, as well as the LGBT editors of Wikipedia. Please, in the future, do not reduce us to our genders or our sexualities. That is extremely offensive. 7. Events like this one show a clear need for a serious discussion regarding Speedy-Deletion and the policies therein. CaveatLectorTalk 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel my actions were in any way improper and, as you suggest, indicative of a person who should not have the admin bit, I invite you to make use of the
request for comment mechanism so we can discuss this in greater depth. I make myself available for scrutiny at any point, and I'm always looking for ways to improve. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Eur_20041214_tues3art.jpg – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Eur_20041214_tues3art.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|FU review)

This image was unilaterally deleted while deletion review copyright discussion

Nardman1 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no free replacement, as was contended on the fair use rationale which was added only HOURS before the image was deleted. There isn't even a bio of him on the Northern Ireland Assembly page. [11]. I've looked in vain.
Nardman1 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Henrietta the four-legged chicken – Speedy deletion overturned, listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Henrietta the four-legged chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

I wanted to add something to this article I'd read before and found it was speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as not-notable but that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria. The article was well-sourced to news events and a simple Google search [12] shows 52,000 hits, a third of that of

Mike the headless chicken - seems notable enough to me in the realm of mutant chickens. An article with notability and reliably sourced shouldn't be thrown away on whim. SchmuckyTheCat 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This was the information the article gave: "Henrietta is a four-legged chicken at Brendle Farms in Somerset, Pennsylvania. She was found living normally among the rest of the chickens after 18 months. She was adopted and named by the farm owners 13 year old daughter, Ashley, who refuses to sell the chicken on the Internet. Henrietta has
Congenital disorder. The second (hind) legs are fully formed but non-functional." That doesn't even begin to claim any sort of notability. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
So it reads like a stub. It was sourced as well, correct? Does an article have to contain an intro sentence that says "Subject is notable because ..." in order to not be speedy deleted? SchmuckyTheCat 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:PopeofPeru – Discussion moot – trialsanderrors 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:PopeofPeru (edit | [[Talk:User:PopeofPeru|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I have initiated this review per the suggestion of original deleter

Proto after my attempt to persuade him to reverse his decision failed. This userpage of an unbanned editor was deleted without justifiable cause as part of the reaction to the recent round of Colbert vandalism. I therefore request that the userpage be fully restored AND/OR the page be restored and the congratulatory comments be moved to the respective talk page, where they properly belong. --Hemlock Martinis 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: This is my first attempt at a deletion review, so if I breach protocol in some way I would appreciate the notification. Thanks! :D)[reply
]

  • I am guessing the discussion here is a rhetorical rather than a practical one; I think we're trying to hash out how this sort of thing should be handled in the future. So no, we don't force the user to have their old page back! Shaundakulbara 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dogme ELT – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dogme ELT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Dogme ELT is an internet forum for teachers of English as a second language. On November 4, 2006, the Dogme ELT article was deleted as copyvio. On November 15, 2006, the article was deleted per

speedy deletion criteria 4 - "Recreation of deleted material". Malangthon asserts that none of the speedy deletion criteria applies and now request review of the January 30, 2007 speedy deletion by The JPS. Malangthon posted a request at ArbCom. trialsanderrors took Malangthon's request posted at ArbCom, created this deletion review request on January 31, 2007, and post the following ArbCom quote from Malangthon in support of this deletion review request: "The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy. (...) Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" This lead section was revised on February 4, 2007 by Jreferee to provide some clarification. -- Jreferee 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - It's my closure that's contested, so I just refer to my closing statement. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looks like the deletion that is contested is
WP:CSD#G4. ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - The prior lead paragraph to this deletion review contained the statement "Request by Malangthon (talk · contribs), who accidentally sent it to ArbCom:", which is referenced to in the below discussion. -- Jreferee 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There are still no sources. I don't quite know why you think it was acidentally sent to Arbcom. Thinking that they didn't intend to have Arbcom rule on it and punish the people who deleted it goes past my ability to assume good faith. -Amark moo! 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: still no reliable sources. -Amark moo! 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK trailsanderror. if
User:BrainyBabe can confirm this as well.
Your attention to this is welcomed. Malangthon 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Arbcom's remarks
*There are still no sources.
:Incorrect. The sources are listed
*I don't quite know why you think it was acidentally sent to Arbcom. Thinking that they didn't intend to have Arbcom rule on it and punish the people who deleted it goes past my ability to assume good faith.
:Not sure what this is meant to be. I could not find the deleter and anyone who insist that navigating the massive number of pages here and getting specific directions to adress specific problems needs to rethink this. I spent quite a bit of time looking for the deleter after it had been deleted. There was a short notice on my User page. I went to the stub and it was gone. I have been preoccupied researching a vast number (more than 100 thus far) of journal articles on autism for the Wikipedia article and this was in and out before I knew it with no one trying to justify a speedy deletion. So I went through the steps and was left only with arbitration. This is a problem with speedy deleters. They drop things because they have a strong POV about stubs or articles that are in fact hardly frivolous and then off they go--but that requires an administator so that means that an administrator was hardly giving this a good look.
Dogme ELT is as article stub justified both in content and in form. I have been in applied lingustics for more than 20 years. I heard the article had been deleted, I read what I could find. Went out and emailed applied linguists worldwide to see if there was any merit in it. They had no problem understanding that there was merit. The type of organisation that Dogme ELT represents is not at all unlike 'The Inklings' for example and who here will say Tolkein and Lewis were engaged in meaningless pastimes.
Dogme ELT may or may not signal a paradigm change in the philosophy of langauge education. That is not the point. It is a legitimate forum for professional educators from which they derive a growing body of material and support for a change in education policy in an area of profound influence--the ability of people to communicate with each other.
I have absolutely no connexion with this group. I went into the forum and read extensively and I asked a great many other people who responded via email. In addition to the forum contact address, the Guardian articles and the piece by the woman from the British Council, these serve to substantiate the existence of the forum. The comment that there are no sources is absurd.
This has merit and is Wikipedia worthy. Saying otherwise is strictly POV. I have established the existence of the entity and have correctly described what it is and what it does. Malangthon 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - I just found this at the Dogme ELT site. I need to know what is going on.
Dogme ELT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:"This page was deleted from Wikipedia, either because an administrator believed a consensus was reached among editors that it is unsuitable as an encyclopedia entry, or because an administrator felt it met one or more conditions for speedy deletion. However, an appeal has been made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored and protected with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history. You may wish to contribute to the discussion at Deletion review following your inspection. If there seems likely to be a strong consensus to undelete and you wish to improve this article meanwhile, you may wish to make a request for the unprotection of this article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. "
I would like access to the appeal procedure. Which link do I follow? Malangthon 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the appeal procedure. -Amark moo! 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REBUTTAL:
*Accidental is not nor ever was an issue. The deletion was done before I got there, I went through all the stages I could, the deletion had been done spuriously to begin with and a second deletion was being threatened and again without discussion or justification given. The last resort--since I could not find anyone to discuss it with nor anyone to take responsibility for the deletion--was simply that, the last resort. It had been done and was being threaten again. The categorisation of 'accidental' is irrelevant and moot at the same time. It is being used to detract from the issue at hand--spurious and malicious deletions.
*'Appears to be a non-notable web forum'. What it appears to be is not an issue--verify the reasons for deletion within policy guidelines. What it is, is the issue. I have many years in the business and these forums are essential in developing the philosophy and practice of a very significant part of education and learning. Having been to literally hundreds of international conferences, given papers, chaired or directed significant not-for-profit organisations, it is, in my experience, worthy of note. Opinions to the contrary--opinions drawn from 'it appears to be' are unsubstantiated. The vigour with which this 'deletion at whim' is being carried out make it clear to me that the question must be posed--what is the hidden agenda here?
Spurious and ad hoc rationale posed here--
no assertion of:
popularity and wide public interest (this is redundant),
importance (This is very POV).
Sole citation to a
WP:RS was to an story about the general subject, not the forum that is the subject of the article.
Web forum that doesn't even have its own domain
These are not reasons for deletion.
*A. Popularity or wide public interest--Small articles on the ranks and duties of Roman soldiers who fought at Adrianople against the Goths or the role of the curiales in civil administration while historically significant are hardly riveting reading to the vast majority of people who can read English--ever see a poll taken on popularity in Wikipedia on this prior to deletion?
*B. Importance is entirely POV--this in itself refutes demands for deletion
*C. Sole citations (in fact neither a sole citation nor unreliable) and their focus are not the issue. The issue is that (a) it is sourced and (b) therefore its existence is verified. There are more than a few articles and stubs here with single and rather vague sources. There are in fact more than one source to the DOGME stub and the description is both accurate and verifiable so this is a fabrication.
*D. 'Fora without their own domain' is not listed as criteria for Deletion an article or stub.
Summary: The case for deletion is based on
*A. Fabrication--the inaccuracy of which is verifiable;
*B. Multiple voices--get enough people to speak out against it and that is reason enough!?—the Roman Coliseum springs to mind;
*C. Criticism that assert reasons for which the deletion is not listed as justifiable cause for deletion.
*D. Criticism that assert unfounded reasons for which the deletion is not listed as justifiable cause for deletion.
and
*E. The reasons for deletion given here above are not the original reasons for deletion--It was DELETED for REPOSTING A DELETED ARTICLE.
This is essential--the voices for deletion are literally making it up as they go along. They have no case and can not defend the original premise for deletion.
-- Malangthon 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
A. Pay attention to what is being said? User:Amarkov has not paid any attention at all. If facts are not enough--as User:Amarkov says here--then why is User:Amarkov even involved? Once again, we see that this is not about the original rationale--refuted rationale--for deletion. Staying on topic seems to be problematic for User:Amarkov.
B. Now we see the qualifier 'essentially' attached to the statement for deletion. How far do we have to go till we get to, 'sorta like' or 'looks similar to'?
C. User:Amarkov has now stated without equivocation that the reason for deletion was not the asserted reason, it is in fact a dispute over sources. Again the reasoning and the quarrel--not an objective argument--is fallacious and very POV. Malangthon 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the previous article was a lack of reliable, independent sources. Thus, any article which fails to include reliable, independent sources is a repost, regardless of if the words are different. And it doesn't matter why it was deleted, if it should not be undeleted. Which it shouldn't. -Amark moo! 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiteration (RE: User talk:Amarkov 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)). The tedium of the serial attacks and continued failure to address the rebuttal clearly shows the deletion vote is being made by those who are not concerned with the issues at hand. This is not about the merits of the stub but about repeating again and again refuted and disproven assertions--trial by fatigue. Make your case. Show that the deletion rationale was in fact justified--that rationale stated, not the ad hoc nonsense that is being served up here. When that 'undelete' takes place we can get on with the next set of issues. Malangthon 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant Testimony Refuting Rationale for Deletion
This was posted on the Dogme ELT discussion page:
Author of the original article
:Just for the record, I am the author of the original Dogme ELT entry that was removed in November. The susbequent entry had nothing to do with me, was not sanctioned by me, and bore only a notional resemblance to my own article (in that it was about the same topic) but was otherwise completely different: its rapid deletion - on the grounds that it was an attempt to re-submit a previously rejected entry - seems hardly justified. ScottThornbury 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ScottThornbury
:See WP:Wikilawyering. Read WP:Wikilawyering. Come back with something resembling an actual argument. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
:This simply demonstrates User Calton's failure to stick to the original rationale for deletion. The deletion was categorically for reposting a deleted article. The writer of the first article has stated, without equivocation, that the stub deleted was NOT, I repeat, NOT the original article. The sole reason for deletion is thereby refuted and that categorically. Malangthon 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is or should be, the end of it and the article left in peace. Malangthon 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... no. If it were undeleted on the technicality that the text is not the same, it would be promptly AfDed again, and redeleted for still having no reliable sources.
Wikipedia doesn't follow process for the sake of having it followed. -Amark moo! 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
REBUTTAL
Again, another of those voting for deletion state that in fact the reason for deletion is not the real reason. It was deleted for reposting deleted text. This is very simple, undelete and leave it be.
This is process for the sake of serving the mission of Wikipedia. The assertion that this is about process for the sake of process is misdirection. We have here a glimpse into the mind of User:Amarkov and not the substance of this discussion. Malangthon 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring me, and I don't like it. It's not going to be let alone if it's undeleted, it's going to be run through an entirely pointless AfD discussion which will reach the result that there are still no sources. -Amark moo! 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just so clear. It is now a personal attack: it has been internalised and rendered by at least one person to a very unprofessional level. It is simply a threat of continued attempts to delete a stub which is in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Undeleted, this stub can continue to be developed over time into an article as would normally happen to a stub in compliance with Wikipedia policies. This is how articles begin and User:Amarkov has stated here that that will not be allowed to happen. Is there a clearer proof that this deletion is supported by someone that is way outside the Pale? Malangthon 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion beneath all the puffery, this is really just yet another of the thousands of unremarkable web-forum article deletions that happen all the time. In this case the forum is actually a Yahoo group with 2 messages in the past 7 days. The "accidental" ArbCom request (which was apparently sticken without even being voted upon) makes it a little bit tougher than usual to assume good faith, but otherwise it's just more of the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much of this forum discussion and its significance are not limited to the site itself? The assertion marks the writer as unbelievably naive for some who professes to have an informed opinion in this matter. I have been on the web since the early 90s and these are now the norm for discussion amongst groups of professionals in almost every field. How many entries does it take before a entity like H-Net which publishes citable reviews would make it to the pages of Wikipedia? Amazing. Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be
    assume good faith
    .
This is the version deleted by
the speedy deletion criteria for recreation of deleted material
. The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.
The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.
Reading the AFD, the reason for deletion was a lack of independently published reliable sources primarily about the group. So the question is whether the new article addresses this reason for deletion. The sources offered in the new article are 1) the forum itself (obviously not independent), 2) a 2004 item in the Guardian that mentions the educational theory but not the group (so is totally useless for an article on the forum) 3) a forum at the Guardian (obviously not meeting our standards for a reliable source), and 4) the personal writings of a single teacher on a site published by the BBC and British council that does not claim any authorship or fact checking of the articles by teachers (see the about page), so it also does not meet our standards for a reliable source. There is no source that addresses the concerns of the AFD about a lack of good sources. With no good source for our notability standards (
GRBerry 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Re: User:GRBerry, 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) REBUTTAL Re: "I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be

assume good faith
.

This name calling and deprecation is civil and in good faith? Yea right. Hoist on thine own.

Re: “The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.”

Point One: Substantially different –how substantial? An analogy if you will.
Act One: Someone one writes an article about a Martian who comes to earth and poses extraordinary theories in relativity and quantum mechanics —and oh by the way his name is Albert Einstein. It gets deleted;
Act Two: Next there is a legitimate article on Albert Einstein and we have about 95% of the same content and the same title and . . . oh well. This line of reasoning is stating clearly that if a topic is dealt with in a manner that is unacceptable and then deleted that the topic is forever out of bounds. You see how this could create problems. If not please recuse yourself.
Point Two:
The original article deleted in 2006 was, amongst other things, deleted because the founder of the group had written it and it was considered self-promoting. This assertion of irrelevance in the matter of authorship displays a marked lack of familiarity with the case. Since it is clearly the case that this is not self-promoting by a vested interest, this stub has now rendered an original deletion rationale moot.

“The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.”

ONE: Make the argument. If you want to refer to policy, then do it here and not make broad sweeping strokes by referring obtusely to other Wikipedia documents on the web.
TWO: An established forum in cyberspace is now reason for deletion—where is that written in policy
THREE: A loose collection—what is that? A established forum to discuss philosophy and practice in a recognised field by professionals is a whole new level. If you see a similarity there you really have to want it.

With regard to the section beginning, "The sources offered in the new article are"

  1. Irrelevant. This is obviously crucial in actually establishing the EXISTENCE of the forum.
  2. Incorrect & Contradictory (at the same time). This establishes the interest and the significance of the topic of the stub as published in a reliable source. Important Point: This statement is a contradiction with other assertions here saying this should be deleted because it had no interest (I believe one word used was 'popularity'). The reasons given for deletion are in conflict.
  3. The Guardian does not meet the criteria for a reliable source? The vote for deletion is now saying the Guardian is what?
  4. -
  • (A) We are now eliminating all personal writing from the list of eligible sources? Where in the policy is that written? All autobigraphies are personal. How many articles here cite autobiographies? What about biographies with the endorsement of the subject? Are those citations now to be removed and their associated articles judged on 'Keep' or 'Delete' accordingly? How many noted authors are cited here from articles in the media--op ed pieces are now for the chop?
  • (B)Who do writers have to be to qualify as a source? We have a rating scale?
  • (C)British Council or, say, Oxford faculty? CNN or BBC? We are now engaged in a disparagement of well known and respected governmental agencies in the UK--this is support for deletion? The voter does not consider the British Council or the BBC to be reliable sources? How many sources here in Wikipedia are from media but WITHOUT by-lines? This well-regarded media source has published an essay WITH a by-line. This is Wikipedia policy--saying the BBC and The British Council are not legitimate fora for opinions by professionals writing about issues in their field of endeavour?

SUMMARY:

  • The arguments are not serving the purpose of the review and they are often based on vague references to other web pages here in Wikipedia--e.g. referring to an opponent's argumentation as 'Wikilawyering'. Make the argument from the source if you can--Your opponent is not required to make your argument for you, for Pete's sake. And do try and stay on topic. Little of this last posting is on topic with regard to the deletion under review.
  • If it is a question of votes, then any Republican can get his party members to join and vote to delete all reference to Clinton, any politician in Turkey could get as many of his compatriots to join Wikipedia and vote to delete all references to the Armenian massacres and any right-winger in Japan could do the same for the Nanking Massacre--hell for WWII.

Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relevance of Dogme ELT
An issue, evidently, for the first article, deleted in 2006, and one posted here in various versions is the significance of the topic. Once a week I do a google and a vivisimo and an alta vista search of the topic and the list grows. I post to applied linguists monthly to get an idea about what changes are taking place in the field and Dogme is noted from time to time--out of the vast number of ideas out there: It merits note by professionals in the field. Dogme ELT is now being discussed and written about in language and education sources and publications on an increasingly wider international scale and this is significant. The ELT field has a major impact worldwide. When you consider that English is not just a language but an international language that is increasingly used in commerce, government & international relations and transportation (e.g. Japanese airline pilots speak English to Pakistani traffic controllers), the importance of this field of endeavour becomes clear. As I stated before, the ELT field also accomodates a massive industry for commercial interests (e.g. major publishers and universities) which philosophies like Dogme ELT has already effected (e.g. Edlearn Consortium, a joint venture of Wash. State U. & City University-Seattle is now charging some 2,500 Euros for a business course it teaches in English in Bulgaria--that is about twice the yearly salary of an ELT teacher in Bulgaria). The topic under discussion will have a signficant effect on the associated industries since it is advocating a mover counter to the glut of materials that ELT teachers deal with. Testing, especially testing English competence, is a very large industry that Dogme ELT may impact to increasing degrees (e.g. Edlearn Consortium have 'graciously' eliminated the TOEFL requirement). The interest in Dogme ELT is definitely there and its signficance is also being marked and discussed.

On the other hand, articles about pumpkin-headed deer are hardly of global signficance nor a topic impacting billion dollar industries although I certainly welcome the reading of trivial and slightly bizzare phenomena. Even though such articles are usually the domain of "UrbanMyth.com", I have no doubt that it fits Wikipedia's mission as does Dogme ELT which is significant on many levels.

  • Sources for Dogme ELT
I have been going over the beginnings of many of these articles and note that it has been common here in Wikipedia to start small--sometimes, very small. The Autism article, for instance, was recently a Feature Article and with our efforts may soon be again. However, when it started in 2001 in December, for two weeks it was a single web link. Others then pitched in and the rest is history. The attitude conveyed here in the votes for deletion--and I think it would be instructional to analyse the voters primary work loads here on Wikipedia to reveal what their real emphasis is--is a sharp departure from the evidence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, informative and collaborative rather than denigrating and combative. Malangthon 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process of AFD
I note that User GRBerry states on his talk page:
"Despite some appearances to the contrary, AFD is not a vote. It is a discussion, where we try to explain why an article should or should not be deleted. Then a closing admin comes along, and decides, in light of the discussion, whether the article meets Wikipedias policies and guidelines for having an article. Usually, because most AFD contributors are basing their comments on the policies and guidelines, the close looks like it is reading the comments as a vote. But if there is an overriding policy issue raised (a demonstrated copyright violation is the classic example), then policy will be followed. One of the boldest closes that I've seen, but absolutely one that followed policy, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of probability, which was closed as keep in a discussion with two keep opinions, eight delete opinions, and two userfy opinions (which are normally read as delete). "

Malangthon 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry also states: I have rescued 6 articles for deletion by improving them, some of them with significant help from other editors. The best possible outcome of an AfD discussion is an improved article. How many have you rescued?"

Malangthon 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 January 2007

Vlada Frey – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vlada Frey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Why have you deleted Vlada frey? I saw many people getting in his defense on article discussion page. All you "wikipedians" had in your defense is bunch of dumb rules YOU made up. You people act like you have all the knowledge of the world and if there's someone you actually haven't heard of, then that person is not worthy of your precious wikipedia. So what if Vlada doesn't have a web page? Is the internet only thing deserving merit to you? I have read a lot of magazines and newspaper articles mentioning Vlada. But, hey, they are all Eastern European, you haven't heard of them, right? And, ofcourse, that means they are not worthy. For crying out loud, man, get a little more flexible, will you? I ask for detailed answer, as why are you people so stubborn about your rules, the article didn't stated anything bizarre, sick or offending? P.S. Since the article was in process of debate, and your "rules" state that the page in this process should remain intact for seven days, why has the page been deleted two days earlier? Shmeket (misfiled at Content review, moved by GRBerry

What magazines and newspapers? They aren't online? Why don't you get an article on the Wikipedia that is in the same language as the magazines? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the reasoning here. While I myself know nothing of Vlada Frey, the fact that there isn't much online in English about him might actually make for a good reason to include him. Are we so narrow as to think that people are only interested in subjects from their own language groups or cultures? So long as references are cited, whether online or not and whether in English or not, and so long as the subject himself/itself is otherwise worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, an article should surely be permitted. As an example, I am myself hugely interested in Japanese music and culture, but speak hardly a word of Japanese. English Wikipedia thus is a major source for me, and I rely on contributors who are able to draw on Japanese sources to write good articles in English. Doesn't this make sense in our global, internationalist world? --Ishel99 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we do suffer from recentism and CSB here (and Chris Griswold is wrong here; WP:V allows for non-English sources), that doesn't necessarily mean that someone who isn't online deserves an article if they're not mentioned in online sources. The problem is that the author mentioned "many magazines" but didn't specify which ones, so it's a lot harder to verify the articles or magazines, whether the content matches or there is even enough content to write an article from. ColourBurst 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Clear consensus at AfD; closed per consensus; not too happy about the closing remark. "Jamnezdin Kurtovic-Piton" gets one ghit: the deleted article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The "dumb rules [we] made up" were reached through consensus, and if you have a huge problem with them, go to another site. JuJube 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AfD consensus was clear, and nominator's reasoning (more or less that we shouldn't bother to enforce our rules) is extremely weak. As noted above, if you have such disdain for WP's rules, try another site, there's plenty out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Your argument is, in effect, "Instead of the dumb rules you made up, use the dumb rules I made up". It's not too late to provide valid sources, however. --UsaSatsui 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of tall women – trialsanderrors 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD1|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4
)

The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that

Wikipedia is not a democracy
, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus.

Note: For the sake of consistency, I am also nominating

List of tall women for deletion review (the result of the AfD debate
was a consensus keep).

The administrator's justification for the decision is that:

The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.

However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":

NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.

The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article).

At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men (per the suggestion by User:Penwhale, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page). Black Falcon 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has undergone an AfD three more times (as copied from the most recent AfD): Black Falcon 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - At the risk of rehashing my comments on the AFD, I do reject Proto's notion that there being "no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means" is a reason for deletion. The obvious consequences of that logic are distasteful, particularly the deletion of many valuable, high-quality lists simply because they cover a group which has no definitive parameters. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The lost was improved a lot and the reason for deletion was refuted, with 'tall' parametres set by official authorities.Halbared 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was primarily due to fears of the list getting too lengthy. Also it included some on the other side who wanted "their tall guy" included for whatever reason so pushed for a lower standard. That "tall" exists, and can be measured to some degree, I don't think was the point. In retrospect I wish the higher standard of 201 centimetres, the standard used at the Italian one, had been kept as this is almost certainly in the highest percentile of human height in any society. As for another issue, it is incorrect that a variable physical commonality is arbitrary or verboten for lists. There is a
Tallest men would be better, but because of this deletion I'm not sure such an article can be created.--T. Anthony 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. Any relational adjective (such as tall, short, large, big, wide, deep, etc.) can be interpreted in different ways. The lower limit of such adjectives can be disputed, but this does not mean that they are hopelessly subjective. Following that logic, every list of the biggest, greatest, largest, longest, tallest, etc. should be deleted (e.g., every list noted in
    WP:POINT
    ).
  2. Although I do understand the frustration of those who supported deletion that the article hasn't reached resolution so far, it seems like they are giving up on the article. The criticism of the subjectivity of relational adjectives is, as noted in the AfD, "a fruitless semantic exercise, inimical to the subjective nature of language itself". —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. This is just as unsalvagely biased as a List of smart men would be. We can't decide how tall someone must be to be "tall", and there is no agreed on definition, so what are we going to use? If we had a List of tallest men, that might be okay, but that isn't it. -Amark moo! 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per all the arguments, not to mention the article was at many times simply a vandalism target. JuJube 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The arguments for deletion were strong, they were not suffiently answered, so the admin called it as delete. That's what's supposed to happen. So the AFD was closed correctly. I see a lot of talk above by the DRV nominator about what "tall" is supposed to mean, but remember, this is not AFD part 2. Some such discussion may be necessary, but please stick to what is relevent to the actual closing. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, relist or delete
    list of tall men apply equally to this article, so it should be deleted for the very same reasons. It appears that this article simply received fewer votes because it was lower-profile. If relisting is the necessary route, then so be it, but I think that it's obvious that one can simply apply the same arguments in this case, so deletion would be warranted. — coelacan talk — 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The fact that these discussions gave different results implies only that
    list of tall men. Other such articles should be AFD'd as well; I've no disagreement there. Practically, the cutoff point has been a huge deal, the subject of constant, and I mean constant, daily, even hourly, edit warring. The article can never be salvagable because everybody wants their own interpretation of "tall" to be enforced, and this is perfectly reasonable for everyone to edit war over because the cutoff point is arbitrary. There was never a compromise or consensus settled upon, and that's why AFD happened over and over, and when it became apparent that no consensus would ever form, that's why the last AFD finally came down as close. It's encyclopedia information, sure. Include that information in the articles of the people themselves. They should have their heights in their articles. Thus no information need be lost. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The arguments to keep did not answer the arguments to delete. So consensus was there, even if several people said "keep!", they did not provide sufficient counterargument. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history The arguments that this is not notable or subjective are facetious. We already have world's records in all sorts of things. Perhaps there are too many entries here, but that can be addressed by undue weight. There is no need to delete the entire entry. Wjhonson 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see [{WP:DRV]] and see what the purpose of this discussion is. It's not to debate the merits of the article. — coelacan talk — 20:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the closing admin's reason for deletion was essentially that criticism of the article is not addressed, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss the merit of such criticisms. Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have voted for deletion, but the closing admin seems to have acted improperly as there was no consensus. I would suggest that this admin should lose his or her deletion privileges. Pinoakcourt 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a tad drastic. I agree there was no concensus to delete at the discussion and this is the main reason I requested this be placed here. However if it was an honest mistake or misinterpretation I don't think Proto needs to lose privileges. A warning of "don't do it again" should suffice, unless this becomes some kind of pattern.--T. Anthony 03:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for even a warning. Consensus was followed. Just because some people show up and yell "keep!" doesn't mean they are providing arguments, so their !votes don't count. There were strong arguments for deletion. Those arguments were not sufficiently answered. How much clearer can it get? — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think many of us disagree that concensus was followed. You seem to be saying that concensus happens when keep voters fail to outargue the deleters thoroughly enough. I don't think that's what it means at all as this would make "delete" the default position. There was a great deal of valid arguments and counterarguments with neither side predominating really. This means "no concensus" as far as I know. That you dismissed or disliked keep arguments is your prerogative, but it doesn't create a concensus. (And yes I said I'm done with you, but this is as much for others as your benefit).--T. Anthony 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coelacan, please refrain from such derogatory comments that portray a significant number of users as nothing more than whiny, hysterical people who do nothing but repeat the same exclamation without providing rational arguments. You do not have a monopoly on the truth! Black Falcon 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and consider the two articles together Though WP may be inconsistent, it shouldn't be making opposite formal decisions on two almost identical cases on the same day. This is the sort of thing appeal procedures are for, and the only fair thing is to do it over. DGG 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other article only passed because it didn't receive as much attention. When this DRV is over,
    list of tall women can be relisted and get sufficient attention this time. There's no reason to restore this article just to delete the other one. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This is not AFD part 2. The discussion here is whether the AFD was properly closed. That is all. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the reason behind the deletion was inappropriate or unjustified by WP policy/guidelines/convention, then that means the discussion was inappropriately closed. "AfD part 2" is irrelevant here. Black Falcon 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Night Gyr is not arguing any policy that I can see. — coelacan talk — 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin closed it as delete instead of no consensus because he felt the list fundamentally violated policy. The list doesn't fundamentally violate policy through excessive subjectivity, as the subject has obviously been studied extensively, and some form of the list would be valid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proto cites, above,
WP:CONSENSUS. There were a number of !votes for keep, but they didn't answer the problems raised, problems founded in NOT and NOR and since AFD is not a vote, the arguments are what decide it. — coelacan talk — 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Pomte 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The admin closed the debate because, according to him, the arguments for delete were not addressed by other editors. To disagree with that claim is to disagree with the closing admin's interpretation of "consensus" and is therefore very relevant here. Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Text of the GNU Free Documentation License – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Text of the GNU Free Documentation License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD
)

The arguments for and against this redirect were laid out in the RfD discussion. Those arguments boil down to an assertion that this redirect meets criterion 4 of the "avoid deleting such redirects" section of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? Reviewing the discussion, I do not see any reasonable way that the discussion can be interpreted as having had consensus for deletion.
The closer added the comment that "Per Google, there are no links outside of Wikipedia to this redirect" and appears to have given it considerable weight in the decision. Had this comment been added during the discussion period, I would strongly have disputed it. Google is fundamentally unable to make such an assertion about inbound links. Google does not return hits based on the hidden html of a page. But even if you could run such a search, it would still miss any links that are 1) archived offline, 2) on academic or other pages excluded from spidering or 3) on internal websites which Google can't index. Rossami (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing admin. This redirect meets criteria 5 of the deletion reasons of the page Rossami references. The objection that Rossami raised during the debate was the risk of breaking existing links. Despite Rossami's statement above, Google is able to detect links in the HTML of a page and has a specified search operator (see link: help) for that purpose. The link is not used outside of Wikipedia and RockMFR fixed all the Wikipedia links. I weighed the objections that Rossami raised and decided the risk was extremely low and did not overcome the standard practice of deleting cross-namespace redirects. If we are to accept Rossami's argument about the risk of archived, offline, non-spidered, & internal website links, then no redirect could ever be deleted. We will never be able to prove that a bookmark to a page does not exist. We can, however, extrapolate that if there are no public links, then the odds of significant private links are extremely, extremely small. Furthermore, I stand by "The text is original source material and, per WP:NOT, doesn't belong in article space or masquerading as an article." -- JLaTondre 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I misspoke above. I should have said that "Google does not reliably return hits based on the hidden html of a page." While it is theoretically feasible to search for a link, that is a highly fallible process. For example, I just attempted to use google to find links to several sites which I know to be linked from pages which I know to have been indexed. (Targets containing link: [17], [18]. Search: [19]) Google is returning no hits even though I am looking at the source code in another window and can see the link right there. I am unconvinced that this aspect of the google test is sufficiently reliable to conclude that there are no inbound links. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like http://www.queenrightcolonies.com is a page without any content. I'm not sure that represents a valid example as it's possible Google may discard it. I'm willing to concede, though, that any Google search (text, link, or otherwise) is not going to be perfect. I do believe, however, that a lack of results gives a pretty good indication of somethings relative use. -- JLaTondre 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Odd... That's a small business site that worked recently. I wonder if he knows that his server is down. Regardless, here's another test, this time from a Wikipedia page. (Google cache of our Beekeeping page demonstrating that the page was indexed [20], Google search for the first in the list of external links [21], Search for the second link (59 hits but not the Wikipedia article) [22]). Finding things via the google link-search can be evidence. Not finding things is, unfortunately, not reliable evidence. Rossami (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The link was a cross space redirect to
    ► 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment The established procedure for cross-namespace redirects is to find an appropriate target within article space and add a {{
    selfref}}. ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikilobbying – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikilobbying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Wikilobbying is a practice which has been known to occur, and while the word may be relatively unknown, it is at least debatable whether it is deserving of its own entry. To summarily delete it as it was without allowing any time for discussion seems very arbitrary. At the very least, it should've been allowed some time for discussion before being deleted. TV4Fun 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn the protection of the page It's the truth. Wikilobbying is now and will continue to be a widely used and legitimate term. This is the true nature of language; words are created, and words are forgotten and lost. Languages evolve and die, dialects come from out of nowhere. Language is constantly in a state of flux and is constantly updated as Wikipedia should be, considering how many people access and use it, and how much it deals with terminology among other things. Overturning the protection of this page would be giving people a chance to explore and define a new term that has significant meaning. Nothing will be hurt by this, it's just provision of information. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) User has very few edits outside of this discussion. AecisBrievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the beautiful prose. A small note: nothing comes out of nowhere, not even dialects. But on-topic again: if you are confident that a worthwhile article can be written about the subject, you are free to do so in your userspace and come back here when you're confident that it is encyclopedic. AecisBrievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, you know what I meant. Yeah, I'll work on it, but one of the points in the beautiful prose was that people need to contribute to the meaning of the term, thus the whole point and beauty of using an open source tool in the first place. That's the whole reason why people are fighting for this, that's the whole reason why people want to use Wikipedia, that's the whole reason why people come here and don't just use Encarta. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the point. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable, and as I said, Stephen Colbert using this word in his show does not make it a word, nor does it make the word appear in a dictionary (which Wikipedia also is not). --
        desat 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Question for "Overturners": What this discussion any different from this one? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, protologism. -- Vary | Talk 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Yes, I'd say this discussion is different, this term carries quite a bit of significance and should really be considered. I agree with Igtgtfgtgmc 100%, great argument and every point is valid. Wikipedia says it's open source, but it's more like some parents taking a bunch of kids to a park and not letting them leave the sandbox. Js8669 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) User's first contribution. AecisBrievenbus 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's content is totally free: you can reprint it anywhere you'd like, whether it's modified or intact, without paying a royalty. You can even sell it if you want to. This is not the same as saying anyone can do anything they want on this particular website, which does in fact have rules, despite offering users a relatively large degree of freedom. See the difference? To the new users involved in this discussion, I recommend checking out
      What Wikipedia is Not, which will get you caught up pretty quickly on what Wikipedia aims to cover and what's outside of our scope. If you want a place to define terms which have not yet caught on, you can try Uncyclopedia, Urbandictionary, or even the Colbert-themed Wikiality.com. -- Bailey(talk) 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
chris thompson(business) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chris thompson(business) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

this is a bio relating to the company cmtd. this article is an essential part of that other page Ccthompson

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GRBerry 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Flashes Before Your Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted and locked because no verifiable info was available - that info has now become available so the article may be created: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=012907_17. --

Wikipedical 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I don't know if there's a valid speedy in the bunch, especially since the first was for "crystal ball." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. I'd like to think this has no chance of passing an AfD, even with that dinky little source, but we have far too many people who are willing to keep one sentence stubs because there will be more sources later. -Amark moo! 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Unsalt but not Overturn' - point of deletion and protection is to hold the article (which had been repeatedly deleted) until article is verifiable per the policy;no need for the beauraucracy of a deletion review once information has come to light. Article has been unprotected and is ready for creation --Robdurbar 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, requiring a review for an article that was deleted (justifiably) because it was about a future event with no verifiable info seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. The reason for deletion has gone away, should be a no brainer. --
Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Order of Nine Angles – Deletion overturned, relsited at AfD – trialsanderrors 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Order of Nine Angles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Overturn please? The vote count was in favour of keep (4-2 with 1 other person commenting), and the AfD was started by a sockpuppet. Notability is not an issue as there are several third-party references to ONA, and the article itself had references at the bottom of the article (check the Wayback Machine) - although the article was, perhaps, not very thoroughly referenced. This sockpuppet seems to have been used to delete a few articles similar to the ONA article, perhaps for religious reasons.

72.12.133.163 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I mean, please overturn the deletion. Or, undelete article, reinstate article, etc.; sorry, I'm new to this process. The point is, it was a vote to keep, but the article got deleted anyway.72.12.133.163 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caution over sources The first two books listed in the google books search above are self-published/vanity press works: [http:// www.lulu.com/content/115883] (Lulu.com) [http: //www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=1533] (Xlibris). The third book is from a reputable publisher, but only has a couple of passing mentions of the group. Checking other books listed too. Bwithh 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend overturnrelist overturn and stubify If the deleted version was like the Answers mirrored version, it would seem to be a gross violation of
    WP:SOAPBOX (adding a bibliography at the end of an article is often a misleading and flimsy figleaf for a mass of unsourced content). However, there seem to be at least some ok sources available. If the decision is overturned and article is kept, recommend stubification in order to purge the OR/SOAPBOX material and the reliance on an unreliable website (Yes, a book from "Thormynd Press" by Anton Long is referenced to support the website - but a google for "Thormynd Press" suggests that it is a small underground publisher dedicated to texts promoting Satanism and Neo-Nazism which are not generally available to the public e.g.[23][http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/essential-guide-young-aryans-72738.html?s=66bc58e836a7b61463b7fd76d1d86058&t=72738][24]. The reliability of this source and Anton Long is questionable at best). Bwithh 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
On third thought, going back to my original !vote Bwithh 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of thought for one little article.72.12.133.163 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Relisting as per Amarkov. Mathmo Talk 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not objecting to a relist Nomination was about a vote count, which is irrelevant. Additionally, this the AFD discussion was severly affected by accounts with few edits, so it is tough to gauge consensus of established editors that understand our policies and guidelines from the dicussion. Admins are authorized to discount the opinions of new editors, and are expected to follow guidelines and policy as illustrated by the discussion, so this is an endorsable close. But with more established users here opining relist than opining at all in the original AFD, I won't object to relisting.
    GRBerry 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

29 January 2007

Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted for a legitamate Pro Wrestling Company that provided a history and ability to find out the current historical information of wrestling in the Central New York Region. The suggestion that only one person contributed context is false. People seeking this information no longer have a place to go. Rock345 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Maintenance note: - I fixed the spelling in the header and the above links; the article listed here was a redirect to Squared Circle Wrestling, for which I've linked the AFD above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no new information presented to indicate there's any notability as compared to the article that was discussed at the AFD. Year-old small feds don't seem to have much in the way of notability, and the arguments in the AFD didn't hinge on providing notability, but instead suggested those !voting to delete were the competition. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Unsourced articles don't annoy me. People who assume and claim delete voters (that have explained their arguments in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, no less) hate the subject of an AfD drive me insane. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yes they do, it's called the Square Circled Wrestling website. Don't have one? It's simple to create, and there are many free webhosts. Wikipedia is not one of them. ColourBurst 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If people who want the information no longer have a place to go, it's
    original research. -Amark moo! 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

So you're telling me that having the NWA/TNA Championship defended twice in a federation makes it not noteable. In fact, that's what I was going on their to update. If you're going to let other originizations in the area run wiki sites with less information just becasue they are a year older that's fine. Just letting you know I disagree with it. Rock345

Which organizations might those be? If they don't have
reliable sources we might certainly consider those for deletion as well. Existing articles don't guarantee immediate inclusion of other articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Mind showing some
coverage of these title defenses in a published, reputable source? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stepanavan Youth Center – Restored by closing admin – trialsanderrors 08:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stepanavan Youth Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The AFD (

WP:ORG states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And those reliable third party sources were provided, both in the article and in the AFD. So the fact that this might let other youth centers in means very little; notability was clear, and selective enforcement is detrimental to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Restore. Based on Coelacan's comments above and after further review, I believe I may have made a mistake in closing this one. ···
    joe 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn per nom. This could be interesting... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In the heady Bwikipedia(tm) of my daydream fantasies, this article wouldn't pass muster with current sources and claims to notability. Under the current, actual regime, an overturn appears to be in order. Bwithh 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, possible merge and redirect. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore I wont know if it would pass muster until I see it, so the only fair way is to overturn, and then it will presumably be listed for AfD again). Anyway, possibly a speedy overturn if there is such a thing, based on the closer's comment above. DGG 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I think it really should go through AfD again, this time without a bad closure. The fact that there are many similar things does not mean that something can't be notable. -Amark moo! 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, do not relist. If the closure was bad (and the closer himself accepts this), so it should have been closed as a 'keep', what's the point of putting it through AFD again?
    ► 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of BitTorrent sites – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of BitTorrent sites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was AfD'd in september, under the grounds that it was little more than a web directory, and not much of a comparison. I userfied a version of it before its deletion and worked on it for several months, until I had grown satisfied that the arguments made at the AfD were no longer valid. I then recreated the page, leaving a message on the talk page about why I had chosen to recreate it.

This page was speedily deleted by

Proto a few days later, with the summary "CSD G4 - Receaation [sic] of deleted content". As I stated above, it is correct that the article had been deleted before - however, the old version was substantially different from the new version (diff) to not qualify under CSD G4. I contacted proto informing him about his error, and asked him to either recreate it or, if he thought that that was not possible, to userfy it so I could have a backup version (I naturally didn't want to lose several months' work). He chose to userfy
it. I contacted him again, a week ago, reminding him that it didn't qualify under G4, and asked him again to restore it to the mainspace. He still hasn't answered, so I chose to take it here, to DRV.

As you've now probably gathered by now, I think that this page should be recreated because the new version is an actual comparison, as opposed to a web directory, that it is sourced, and that it is substantially different from the original deleted version to not satisfy CSD G4. Even though it's a weaker argument, I'd also like to point out the high traffic it used to get, and the messages asking why it was deleted (1, 2, 3). Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These comments are asking for you restore it on another site outside of Wikipedia. I think that's a good idea.
    ► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What relaible sources is this comparitive table built on? How many articles on torrent clients do we have? There isa fair bit of precedent for excluding form such comparisons those for which we do not have articles, else they rapidly pass
    the spam event horizon. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. I was going to conjecture that the addition of two extra columns would not change the AfD participants' minds, but then I saw that I don't need to conjecture. Ultra-Loser said in the AfD "New columns have been proposed, which will make it more encyclopedic." to which TheFarix replied "Neither of the proposed columns will make the article encyclopedic, nor are they particularly useful." No-one contradicted him. The AfD still applies in full and this was a valid General-4 deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The columns proposed were different from the columns that are there now - I don't remember the exact two, but I remember that google pagerank was one of them (I later decided that alexa ranks would be more useful). Plus, there are more than two extra columns - scroll down to the private trackers section, for example.
      Also, I forgot to mention that at one point there was a criteria for inclusion to stop the article from turning it into a spamhole, but proto removed it. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this was a line - in the actual article - that informed people of the rules for how to add things to the list.
        ► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Endorse (my) deletion, G4 applied. It also remains an annotated list of external links, so could have just as easily been deleted for other reasons.
    ► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and AfD. I'm not sure about the G4 at all, honestly. Looks like a lot of new material to make it pretty different from what was originally there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an identical unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links, but it is a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links. Fails
      WP:NOT a link farm, and also fails the same criteria which got it deleted last time. Of course we could waste some more time, or we could simply accept that lists of weblinks with subjective and unsourced additional data are not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Seeing as
        WP:NOT isn't a speedy criteria, and "similar" isn't "substantially identical," and discussion is rarely a "waste"... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • That would be relevant if there weren't an AfD. There is. G4 is a speedy deletion criterion, and the mian part of G4 is failing to fix the things that led to deletion. Thise things are not fixed, and the deletion debate specifically indicates that cosmetic changes will not fix those problems. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • G4 has nothing to do with fixing things that lead to deletion, but only the recreation of a substantially identical version of something previously AfD'd. I have no clue where you came up with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jeff, we deleted a list of weblinks with no secondary sources. This is a list of the same weblinks still without secondary sources and based on the original content userfied. That's a G4, in my book. Waste of time AfDing again, since the last AfD specifically said these changes would not sort ther fundamental problem. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your book needs some fixing, then. Check the diff, there's a major content difference between the two. They are not substantially identical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you say. Me, I don't see the point in allowing the re-creation of an article which will immediately be AfDed and, because the previous AfD already addressed the issues "fixed" here, deleted for failing exactly the same policies as it failed before. It's a quirk of mine. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Whether you see the point is not relevant. G4 doesn't allow speedy deletion of a previously deleted article simply because it'll be deleted again. The language is very clear and direct for a reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The common sense application of General-4 is clearly to articles that were validly deleted where the same reason for deletion still applies. Interpreting 'substantially different' any other way means that reversing the order of the list from Z to A, or grabbing a thesaurus and replacing all possible words with different words while keeping entirely the same content, merits wasting editors' time with another AfD. Do you plan on giving any argument as to why this article was not suitable before, but is now?
                      "Check the diff" indeed. General-4 is not about "if you diff the new and old version and more than 15% of the words are in red, the article needs another AfD". --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links - it's a sourced, highly expanded comparison of websites, complete with internal links. The arguments made at the AfD were to the effect that it was a simple repository of weblinks, and now it's not a simple repository of weblinks. Therefore the AfD no longer applies, and neither does G4. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not one single one of the clients listed is a Wikilink, every single one is a weblink.
          synthesis of data from primary sources, what with the Alexa rank baing sourced from Alexa and the number of torrents being sourced in each case from the website of the client itself. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • None of which fit the speedy criteria, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • G4, as stated. The original AfD also applies to this content. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's the process wonk answer. Me, I'm more inclined to a Clue-based approach. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The clue-based approach tells me that you don't abuse the system that tends to benefit your position, but hey... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actualy, nine of those sites (not clients, those would be the programs in
            Comparison of BitTorrent software) have wikipedia articles and are wikilinked appropriately. What's more, the NOR policy only applies if the facts are synthesized "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Here, the facts are just presented, so it isn't OR. The new page has twice as much information on it as the original, and more than was covered in the AfD. Plus, this isn't the place to discuss whether or not it's a linkfarm (which it is not, hence the criteria for entry proto removed), this is the place to discuss whether or not the G4 applied. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Endorse Deletion, a lot of BT sites host files that are licensed in the US, thus creating a copyright problem. Let someone else have this list. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: that has nothing to do with anything. There is no copyright problem. There is no potential for a copyright problem. Go try to AFD The Pirate Bay and you'll see what I mean. There is substantial media coverage on most of the large bittorrent sites. That is not a legal problem for the media, and it's not a problem for us. (Just a clarification. No vote from me.) — coelacan talk — 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning. The original article as AfD'd and the recreated one are identical in substance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per Guy. It's a reposting with the same problems, and running the AFD again for the same result for the same reasons is processwanking at its finest. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and relist The new site appears different, gives different information, and gives quantitative information. I do not see how the old discussion is applicable. It would furthermore seem the obvious course to do this discussion as an AfD---at least by the criteria of common sense. It will be much more straightforward to discuss the new site simply as a site, without the minutia of whether it was not validly reconstructed, or validly deleted by speedy, or which rule applied. WP:LAWYER is only an essay, and was in fact written to stem unfair tricks to keep an article, but it makes just as much sense the other way round. DGG 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid G4. >Radiant< 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-redeletion. I've compared the latest version with the version as it stood during the AFD discussion. I am not finding the kind of substantive changes which would indicate that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion have been successfully addressed. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. The point of G4 is to prevent people from recreating the article in a form that does not solve the problems raised in the AFD. If the new article has the same problems as the one that was AFDed, it doesn't really much matter if it's identical, "substantially similar", or just similar;
    Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Restore, as per badlydrawnjeff "The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process". (once it has been recreated then those who oppose can slap an AfD tag on it and get it deleted, this however is not the place to run through a new AfD on a new article). Mathmo Talk 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The point of G4 is to make it easy to delete things where it is obvious that the concerns were not addressed. It is not at all obvious that the concerns were not addressed. -Amark moo! 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T.H.E. Fox – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
T.H.E. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
For the purpose of review, I have made a copy of the comic strips under debate. It will be removed after the conclusion of this debate. The comics have been altered from their original file format, but other than that they should be undisturbed, including the non-extension portion of the file name that dates them. GreenReaper 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally come to deletion review, but I'm surprised at this one as there was no consensus to delete. Five votes for keep, two (or possibly three) for delete. One previous vote had been converted to keep on the basis of arguments establishing the comic's notability (namely, that it appears to be the first comic distributed online, dating to 1986 and onwards). WP:WEB is an inappropriate metric to apply to content that appeared several years before the web itself existed, and being the first "webcomic" that we know of in the world seems a clear claim to notability. In response to the closing administrator's comment, I disagree that an interview conducted with the author by the Commodore Roundtable group does not count as a source. Indeed, I would have thought them rather well-placed to determine the comic's provenance and to challenge any inaccuracies. Moreover, several facts from the interview were independently verifiable, as noted in the AfD discussion. GreenReaper 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Wills (wrestling) – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Wills (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

On the AFD discussion of the page, there was no clear consensus of how editors felt about the article and not enough editors participating to make any consensus. 4 editors wanted to delete the article (2 of which are questionable/non-prolific editors), and 5 wanted to keep it. One of the editors found a link to a message board about the deletion of the article. Despite valid reasons given on both sides, it was deleted early under WP:SNOW. There was no barrage of keep/delete votes, and the editors did not give enough time to others to find reliable sources (although the article did list some) and just deleted it. Booshakla 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a grand idea, I'll try it next time. ---
WRE) 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't had a chance to look for sources yet, but I am fairly sure that some can be found. And it can be confirmed that his clip was used on
Jimmy Kimmel Live, for sure. But with the 4 that voted to deleted the article, one was a vandal account (and was blocked for removing comments on the AFD), one was a single purpose account with around 100-200 edits, two others were established, but didn't real give any real reasons to why it should be deleted, just made jokes. That is not convincing to me. And I am also an experienced editor and I voted to keep the article and gave valid reasoning. I hope that this can be overturned or reconsidered. Booshakla 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Closing articles early has precedence. The article was created by a forum who has had a history of vandalism on wikipedia and the AFD was getting out of control by the same people. Badlydrawnjeff, I'm highly disappointed about your insulting and incivil additude here. ---
    WRE) 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There are tons of articles here about people with "15 minutes of fame", that's a pretty sharp comment to make. And also, for some more sources, look for some wrestling shows that he's been involved with as a ring announcer. He's done this on a lot of major shows and I'm sure they could be found, since he is a popular wrestling draw in the mid-south, and is probably more notable than most of the independent wrestlers featured on this site, that have got no national TV time, where Dave has. Booshakla 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Clock Crew – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 08:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Clock Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

They are an active community (www.clockcrew.cc). See Talk:Clock Crew for more on why this article should be back on Wikipedia. The last admin to change the article is on break. Lurcho 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GRBerry 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bay Ridge Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

I would request a review of the deletion of the above article. While the college does not currently hold accreditation they have applied. Several pages link to the college to include

Warner Pacific College, and Association of Christian College Athletics. Additionally, I am currently researching the colleges move from Mississippi to Texas as a result of threats from the KKK. This would give the college notoriety from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement perspective.
Absolon S. Kent 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Endorse deletion also. Wikipedia is not a billboard for every fake wannabe pseudo-something. And the above poster's comment is not ad hominm; the original poster used a stream of irrelevant non-information as evidence of why his make-believe school should be taken seriously by an encyclopedia.
    Sys Hax 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion, but then again I'm kina feeling what DGG is saying. I'd advice Absolon S. Kent to create the page in his userspace and improve it there. Then come back with an article that you can show us would probably survive another AfD. Mathmo Talk 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and recommend continuing in user space. Want a userfied copy? Article doesn't have independent sources, so the only change I see relevant to the AFD discussion is that the college's website is live now. Given that the head of the school has changed since the AFD, there might well be new sources findable, but recreation should start from the sources.
    GRBerry 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thank you for the review/discussion. Much of my original research into the college ("finding the RSs that say X") was contained in the article. Is there anyway to retire the information without starting from scratch to build the page in my user space? On the personnel comment note: I'm a little disappointed in the response tone in what I considered a legitimate request for review. I in no way wanted to present myself as a research expert, but instead was simply stating that I was looking for additional sources on the college. Bay Ridge Christian College is a small institution with limited funding and an interesting history to

Church of God (Anderson) movement. I was not attempting to do any free advertising for the college, but was instead trying to provide information on a top which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about.
Absolon S. Kent 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

28 January 2007

Bill Madden – New article moved into mainspace as requested – trialsanderrors 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bill Madden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

see comments below please ww 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia. On January 9, my very first and relatively new article,

WP:V
. Between January 11 and January 15, I re-wrote my article to address these points. Unfortunately, on January 16, my article was deleted.

I acknowledge that my article as originally posted was poorly written and in "bad shape". However, I believe that it warranted at least a {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} tag initially rather than a nomination for delete.

As a newbie, I clearly understood the invitation from Wikipedia to be bold and also understood that, although my writing may not be up to par with experienced Wikipedians, that the community would assume good faith in my writing (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

I'm writing to ask that you please reconsider the deletion and consider my undeletion request for the following reasons:

  • As suggested in
    Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, Simple undeletion
    , I have edited the article to address the concerns that got it nominated for deletion in the first place.
  • My initial writing style failed to meet experienced Wikipedian standards and was misunderstood and for that I apologize; however, it has since been modified to meet the noted standards and expectations. I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which states that "behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules."
  • As noted in
    Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion, the article contributes to Wikipedia and helps it be a better encyclopedia with the article restored as it improves the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, and enhances Wikipedia's value (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
    ).
  • Although the consensus as to the number of delete per nom votes won, I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus vs. supermajority wherein it states "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." Additionally, it also states that "When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. ... If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds."
  • Finally, I again respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Reasonable consensus-building which states that "stubborn insistence on a position," with refusal to consider my additions, revisions, and viewpoints in good faith, "is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice."

For all of the above noted reasons, I kindly request that you consider my undeletion request and reinstate the most recent version of the Bill Madden article which can be found at the moment at User:Windwall/Bill_Madden. Please note that this version is different than the one that was discussed earlier (before deletion) as this version contains all of the recommended changes.

Thank you, Windwall 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong relist. The new version manages to cite upwards of 15 sources, which is definitely not the terrible state these people saw it in. -Amark moo! 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Potter Puppet Pals – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Potter Puppet Pals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Both Potter Puppet Pals and its creator, Lemon Demon, have been covered by the Boston Globe, establishing notoriety. The least that should happen is a merge of Potter Puppet Pals into Neil Cicierega. JNighthawk 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Knowledge of that article was present in the debate, so you have no new evidence, and no reason why closure was bad. You can put more information into the creator's article whenever you please. -Amark moo! 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and the article is not even about the cartoon, it's about the creator. It gives next to no information on the cartoon itself. -Amark moo! 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Valid AFD, with awareness of the article from near the beginning. The AFD reveals that that article is already in use in Mr. Cicierega's article, just make more use of it there, without putting undue weight on anything.
    GRBerry 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. The Globe article is an excellent source for the Neil Cicierega article, but it only mentions PPP in passing, and thus can't be used to source information about it. I think a redirect to Neil Cicierega is reasonable though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Long Island Electric Railway – Article created, talk page restored – trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Long Island Electric Railway (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Long Island Electric Railway|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This had a template like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, telling admins "please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article", and it had similar information that I compiled. NE2 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the notes. is this what you were looking for?
  • They had to purchase the Jamaica and Far Rockaway Turnpike to run to Far Rockaway. (details of this and other obstacles in 7/10/1896 page 8)
  • July 24, 1896: opened Crescent Street (surface) to Jamaica (7/23/1896 page 4)
  • BMT Fulton Street Line
    at Crescent Street (transfer) completed; open to Jamaica (4/26/1897 page 1)
  • May 2, 1897: Jamaica (at 168th Street) to Queens Village opened; not yet connected over BHRR (5/4/1897 page 1)
  • night of May 15, 1897: temporary switch installed at 160th Street and Jamaica Avenue (Brooklyn Heights Railroad Jamaica Line); through route open from city line to Queens Village and open south from Jamaica to "Dooley's, near Three Mile Creek and Jamaica Bay and to Springfield [Gardens]" (5/17/1897 page 4)
  • June 6, 1897: opened to Far Rockaway (6/7/1897 page 4)
  • November 1897: switching from 105th Avenue and 148th Street to South Road and Waltham Street (I don't fully understand this) (11/19/1897 page 5)
  • December 1897: allowed to use Brooklyn Heights Railroad on Jamaica Avenue between 160th Street and 168th Street (12/11/1897 page 4; also 4/11/1897 page 31 for agreement with the BHRR)
  • July 1899: plans to consolidate LIE with proposed Cross Country Railroad (Flushing to Jamaica) and New York and North Shore Railroad (under construction Flushing to Jamaica) (7/25/1899 page 6)
  • early November 1899: New York and North Shore Railroad open, Flushing to Highland Avenue and 164th Street, Jamaica (10/26/1899 page 7)
You might want to start the new article in userspace to keep it from being redeleted. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking for, but it should be on the talk page to be of use to other editors who may wish to write the article. The template on top was processed just like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, including the line "Admins: Please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article." --NE2 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G8 is unambiguous about this. Also, your purpose is better served if you start in userspace and advertise your project at the proper Wikiproject. ~ trialsanderrors 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Then why does
Template:TWP have that text (added by Slambo, an admin), if it's not going to be heeded by other admins? --NE2 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
What text? ~ trialsanderrors 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text that appeared on this talk page, and that appears on other talk pages like Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company. There is a parserfunction in the template that checks whether the article exists, and if it doesn't it displays "Admins: Please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article." --NE2 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I get it. That clearly has to go, it's against policy →
WP:CSD#G8. I'll let Slambo know. I also looked around and didn't see it on any other project templates. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Couldn't we apply ignore all rules here? The notes clearly help the encyclopedia. --NE2 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not helping the encyclopedia. Userspace or WikiProjectspace is the right place to prepare articles. ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is making notes on the talk page for others to start from not helping the encyclopedia? You assume that I will be the one to write the article. --NE2 14:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because speedy deleting is a pretty shitty job as it is, and you're not helping the admins by posting stuff where it doesn't belong then come here to try and get it back. Post it on project space, see if you get collaborators, when you're done move it in article space. It's extremely simple and common sense. ~ trialsanderrors 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for missing the request on the template. Usually when I'm deleting orphan talk pages, there are about 20 of them in a row. I do think it would be better to work on a draft article in userspace than on an orphan talk page, as Trialsanderrors suggested above. NawlinWiki 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not a good idea to leave talk-pages orphaned for long periods of time NE2. ---
    WRE) 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • user space would do & is in fact the customary way. There are many people interested in NYC transit. DGG 06:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why shouldn't we give those people notes to help them write the article? --NE2 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't get it. CSD G8 says that talk pages of non-existent pages may be deleted, not that they must be. I agree that it makes more sense to go ahead and write a stub, but I object to the idea that the page's existence is a "violation of policy". We have no rule against such pages, simply one that says that IF they're to be deleted, then an AfD isn't necessary. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to this is yes, they can be deleted, and if they're deleted editors should try to collegially retrieve the lost information, and not clutter DRV with frivolous requests. ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wrote a stub at Long Island Electric Railway. Can we end this? --NE2 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hasbara Fellowships – Copyvio version replaced with new article – trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hasbara Fellowships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Out-of-process deletion John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted without an AfD or proper use of a copyvio template by "20:48, 9 January 2007 RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hasbara Fellowships" (fails WP:N, WP:COPY)". This left several articles with redlinks. The article had been previously edited by multiple editors over a period of time, and had settled on a brief article with a cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction. A copy of the article can be seen here on answers.com, since the Wikipedia copy is now inaccessible until restored. --John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction" was virtually the article in its entirety; hence the
notability and/or provide independent verification thereof, satisfying criterion A7. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Meantime, the red links are my fault, and I'm following through now. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion. It's absurd to say "It wasn't tagged as a copyvio, so it can't be deleted as one!" Copyright violation is not just against policy, it is against the law. We can't restore a copyvio. -Amark moo! 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if copyright violation is ignored, we have 11 words, which is not worth undeleting. -Amark moo! 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - it's claimed to be a copyvio by one editor. That's debatable. The article had a six line quote, properly cited. It's too bad that an out-of-process deletion hides the history. We got into this situation through edits which deleted material other than direct quotes. This is very unusual; the usual copyvio situation involves a new article, but that wasn't the case here. If we can get the history back, it should be straightforward to fix the article. It may just need a reversion to an earlier version. Also, please don't remove the redlinks to the article while this is pending. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored relevant red links to keep the record straight. --John Nagle 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red links were supposed to have been removed upon deletion anyway, and the edit summary "rvv" (here's one of six) is usually an abbreviation of "revert vandalism", which is clearly inaccurate (if not provocative). Meantime, and I reiterate, almost the entire article was the verbatim quote from the website, which is indisputably a
notability? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
With the quote out, the article is an 11-word intro (including the name), two "See also"s and an external link. As to your second point, this is why
notability". It was deleted, not salted. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, did the move. That seems to settle this issue to the satisfaction of all parties, so we can probably close out this deletion review as moot. Thanks, everyone. --John Nagle 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The copyvio content was in all prior versions, so they have to stay deleted. The only other factoids in the history were later removed as original research. There is nothing that can be restored. There is more in the userspace version that was in the stub, just use it. (For clarity, a G12 deletion has no precedent value for later article creations. In fact, speedy deletions in general aren't precedent setting if a new version that solves the problem is created. Only deletion discussions (AFDs) are precedent setting, and then only for articles that are substantially similar or inferior - ie, if deleted as non-notable, bringing part of the text back as a stub is inferior.)
    GRBerry 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'll leave it for other editors to decide whether they want to send this to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Princess Charming – Deleted version replaced by sourced article – trialsanderrors 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AfD
)

A newspaper article indicated that the pilot episode of the show will be aired this Monday.[26] and another user created a much better article on its talk page. -

Danngarcia 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
desat 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mywebber.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

the web site has been release and is a real company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywebber (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Score (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Deleted and protected from recreation, apparently without going through the AFD process. This is a major magazine with wide distribution in the United States, and while the article that was deleted consisted of only one line of text, it is expandable. As an admin, I have restored the page, however it appears other steps need to be take to remove the protection, which is why I'm going through this step. 23skidoo 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Send to AfD. Worth a wider look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define "major", giving circulation figures. I don't care if it does go to AfD, but none of the three versions I deleted before protecting had any claim of notability - unless "prints pictures of naked women with big tits" is a substantive claim of notability these days. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, but endorse all the substub deletions. Create something that actually asserts notability if you want to. -Amark moo! 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first deletion was neither a substub nor an A7. Send it to AFD. —Cryptic 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it did not claim notability either. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does claim some kind of notability, "The success of the magazine...". Mathmo Talk 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2007

GRBerry 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Podróże z i pod prąd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)
Wszystko jedno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Studio albums by a notable band (

Proto on the grounds of insufficient notability. Notability criteria guideline for music says that the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
desat 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood Krupters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I think that this page should not be deleted as it is a history of a gang and nothing is bad about it! Please undelete it! I will be very thankfull! Sapp Krupter 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Janet Balaskas – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Janet Balaskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Administrator appeared to overlook the extensive evidence that she is a notable author and speaker on natural childbirth, particlarly provided by the latter comments on the AFD. She coined the phrase "Active Birth" A Google Search shows some 71,000 uses of the term. She has published six books. I can't see that this fails our notability requirements! Maustrauser 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter if she's notable. You still must have multiple reliable (and independent) sources, which you did not. If you have any reliable sources, please show us them. -Amark moo! 15:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the AFD certainly showed a bunch of multiple and independent sources. She has published six books with DIFFERENT publshers (big publishers too - not vanity publishers). Isn't the test you applying much tighter than applies to bands, musicians, and cartoon characters that populate WP? The vast majority of these that have no reliable and independent sources other than a fansite and/or a publisher? It appears you are saying she might be notable, but the article is badly referenced. In that case, it deserves a reference tag, not deletion. Finally, there was no concensus between the editors for deletion. I suggest a better response from the administrator would be to have closed the AfD with 'No consensus' and suggested that the article be cleaned up. Maustrauser 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A book written by her is not a source. An article written by someone else, which is on her, is a source. And I reject the m:Eventualist stance of "Oh, well someone might find sources at some point in the future, so we can't delete unsourced things". It's your responsibility to find the sources, not other people's responsibility to prove that no sources exist or ever will exist. -Amark moo! 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My frustration is that the AfD showed sources! It showed articles about her written by others! That is why I have brought this to deletion review. Maustrauser 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Long form of closer's comment:
Going strictly by

Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins)
, this should be sent to AFD again, as the article existed before the speedy deletion, because there is no consensus here to endorse the speedy deletion.

The larger editorial community would probably look at the article the same way they did when the last AFD pointed them at the ArbComm case - they came up with an overwhelming keep result. So we get a cycle of 1) speedy deletion, 2) deletion review overturn, 3) AFD keep, 1) speedy deletion, etc.... We've already been around the cycle once; this is the second time at deletion review. The last ArbComm decision came right in the middle of the AFD that was closed at keep, but what was going to happen was clear to a reader that choose to look even before the AFD started. The AFD result was also obvious at the time the ArbComm closed their case, but I find no evidence that the last deletion review and current AFD had been pointed out to them.

While the cycle is not as fast moving as a

wheel war
, this isn't much better either, and the cycle is the natural consequence of the ArbComm case. (Anyone who has previously undeleted or speedy deleted and repeats that action is warned that this could be considered a wheel war, including myself if we get a third cycle.) I therefore take guidance from the policy on wheel wars, that dispute resolution should be used as an attempt to break the cycle. There are too many parties (42 here alone, disregarding banned users) for one on one discussion to reach a decision. The normal forum for discussing article deletion is AfD, and nobody endorsed the one proposal to use a different forum, so that is where we will go.

There is fairly weak evidence here of a consensus that we should not have an article at this title, so moving to a new title is part of the close, but the specific title I choose is not. And the ArbComm case says that any editor can stub the articles related to RM. So the close here overturns the speedy deletion, as per the Undeletion policy and brings the article to AFD per both the Undeletion policy and the wheel war policy. I will then, as an editor, move the page to one of the possible better titles and dramatically trim down the article. After that, I will complete the close here by listing at AFD.

A possible compromise outcome that we might be better served by putting a paragraph or two into

GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Closing in progress. Feel free to continue discussing at the bottom.

GRBerry 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

I am sad to say this is back at Deletion Review for the second time:

I have since tried to negotiate with SlimVirgin (by email) to have the article undeleted, but she has not agreed to do so.

Discussion on deletion has also taken place at:

Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive2. I don't dare to summarize the discussion, however it should be noted that much of it comes from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. User:Stompin' Tom
, who suggested the most recent speedy deletion, is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. In my opinion, no basis in Wikipedia policy has been given for deletion.

A person familiar with Canadian news over the past ten years would not consider this to be a sub-article of

Phi Delta Kappan. Expanding the article would have the fortunate side effect of making it less focused on the individuals involved. (I've struck-out my vague POV, which is distracting the discussion from the question of how to apply Wikipedia policies for deletion and undeletion. Kla'quot 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC))[reply
]

The energy spent putting this article through deletions and undeletions would have been much better spent on constructively discussing concerns on the Talk page. Kla'quot 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Request clarification Do you want the old text back? If so why? Or do you instead just want people to join you in writing this article afresh. I see no discussion since 7 December, a month and a half ago, at
    GRBerry 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, I want the old text back. (Doesn't everyone who brings a deleted article to DRV want the old text back??) It was a very well-sourced article on a complex case and it would take a lot of work to start it from scratch. I put a notice about this deletion review at
Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, probably a minute or so after you looked for it. I don't think it's essential to mention it at Talk:Rachel Marsden and chose not to because I don't want to perpetuate the meme that one article is a sub-article or fork of the other, but since you asked, I will put a notice there. Kla'quot 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Could an admin please perform a history-only undeletion of this article so contributors 0can see what we are talking about? Kla'quot 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it astonishing that a case of "far-reaching social impact" has not been widely covered in the mainstream press or the sociology literature (article in PDK notwithstanding)? It seems to have created a very brief local stir. Keep deleted. Grace Note 02:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been covered dozens of times by the mainstream press. Maybe less so in your country than in mine. You still haven't given a basis in Wikipedia policy to delete it. Kla'quot 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To give some indication of what utter nonsense Grace Note's "brief local stir" comment is, the Ottawa Citizen ran a two-part set of articles about the case, totalling 7438 words, in December 1999. This was two and a half years after the story broke. The distance between SFU and Ottawa is 5660km. Kla'quot 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. It contained unsourced information on living people. Thus, anyone stopping by should have, and apparently did, remove it. That's what
WP:BLP is. -Amark moo! 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Amarkov, my reply was to Grace Note, not to you. You were the first person to vote Keep in the AfD [30] and nothing has been added to the article since then, so why did you change your mind? And what unsourced information are you talking about? The article was extremely well-referenced. Feel free to email me if it's too sensitive to repeat here. Kla'quot 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Apart from being a significant news story in its own right, the Marsden-Donnelly harrassment case had national significance beyond the actions of the two main participants. Several Canadian universities re-evaluated their procedures for adjudicating sexual harrassment complaints in light of the decision, and there was something of a "chill" on the issue for a time. I do not believe the decision to delete this page was appropriate, and I have some reason to suspect that SlimVirgin's perspective on the matter may not conform precisely to the expected standards of neutrality. ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) CJCurrie 04:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The ArbCom ruling allowed that any admin could delete the Marsden articles if there were BLP concerns, and I feel the concerns are very real in this case. She's arguably not notable enough for one article, let alone two. The first of the articles was created by a Canadian left-wing political activist as what appeared to be an attack page, one of a number of such pages on right-wing figures the editor didn't like. Since then, both articles have attracted a lot of trouble and very poor editing. There were blogs being used as sources, including, if I understood the ArbCom case correctly, a blog belonging to an admin who both edited the page and took admin action in relation to it; speculation about Marsden's sexuality; sly implications that she doesn't tell the truth about her education or professional life; people involved in the situation in real life editing the article; persistent sockpuppetry on both sides; and allegedly demonstrable damage to Marsden's career as a direct result of the articles. In fact, just about everything that should worry us BLP-wise has happened on one of the Marsden pages. Given her borderline notability, we should have at most one article about her, and we do at Rachel Marsden. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1)The ArbCom case never determined that a blog belonging to an admin was used as a source for this page. This may have been asserted by one of the participants, but never appeared in the final decision nor was it even extensively discussed. A search of the relevant blog for "Marsden" brings up nothing, so I doubt this is true. 2) Most of the BLP concerns you raise appeared in
      Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been written mainly by well-established users, and the participation of sockpuppets is not a reason to delete anyway. 5) There are hundreds of articles in reliable newspapers, from all across Canada, whose primary subject is either the harassment case or Rachel Marsden. This is not borderline notability no matter how many times you say it is. If we were to have one article, it should be the harassment case article, not Rachel Marsden. Kla'quot 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
1) The imagined or real political orientation of contributors is not basis in policy to delete, especially given that an AfD closed as an overwhelming Keep. 2) Who has called
Marsden-Donnelly harassment case a hatchet job, and where? 3) Are you saying that the notability bar for cases is "reviews in the legal journals and precedent as case law"? What policy did you get this from? 4) Cases settled out of court do not set legal precedent. You still have not given any basis in Wikipedia policy to delete this article. Kla'quot 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • 1) Oh yes it does, if the presence only of detractors and political opponents means that
    WP:BLP violations, including this one; 3) the notability bar is non-trivial coverage, sensationalist coverage in local or regional media is, by and large, trivial, hence I am asking what wider coverage exists - we have articles on many ground-breaking cases cited as precedent, we do not have articles on most cases even though most will have at least a couple of mentions in the local press - Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism, Wikinews is thataway → ; 4) All sorts of cases can set precedent, even if the precedent is only that such cases do not get prosecuted. Per policy, we are not a directory of legal cases, a tabloid newspaper or an attack site. Which is why I have concerns over this article. But I keep an open mind, which is why I asked for more information. Your response encourages me to believe that no wider coverage exists and that this is being pursued for sensationalist and political reasons. I apologise for my cynicism. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OK, I'd like to answer your question about what wider coverage exists. Has the case been discussed in legal journals? To the best of my knowledge, no. Has it been extensively covered beyond the "local and regional" press, in stories that are multiple-pages long, beyond a brief period of time, beyond sensationalist stories, and beyond the tabloid press? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes, all at the same time, and these sources are cited in the article. If there is a spectrum of significance with minor local junk at the low end and multiple ciations in legal journals on the high end, this event falls somewhere within the spectrum, as do many events for which we have articles in Wikipedia (including all current events). I think we agree that we should delete articles on events that are at the low end of the spectrum, and we generally should keep articles at the high end. We're looking at something in-between, so I'm asking for us to a) articulate what the standard for inclusion really is, and b) evaluate whether this event meets the standard, as separate exercises. My participation in (b) will be limited: After being put through the wringer yesterday for citing sources too much (see my talk page), I have chosen to stop participating, as much as possible, in any discussion about information that relates to Marsden. Kla'quot 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question about scholarly critical review of the case: Reviews whose primary subject is this case include a 51-page position paper by the Fraser Institute (cited in the article) a position paper by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and an article in Canada's oldest political magazine, Canadian Forum. The case was also one of many cases used to support the thesis of a 2004 book written by a criminology professor; this book itself has been reviewed enough to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. Let me know if you want me to email you with details. There is also the Phi Delta Kappan article that I mentioned in the nomination for this DRV. Kla'quot 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I do not think the issue is non-trivial coverage. I think the issue is that the harassment case is if not the only then one of two or three things that merits any article at all. The current article addresses the harassment case. My point is simply that Marsden merits only one article. the current article could go into appropriate encyclopediac detail about the case and its significance and still be WAY under the ideal word-limit for wikipedia articles. And anyone interested in this case can easily find the Marsden article and thus all the information anyone could want to find concerning the case at Wikipedia. One article is enough. If the article reaches 50 kb and there is a consensus that all the material in the article conforms with all of our policies, then we can discuss spin-off articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We need one article, not two" is an argument for merging, not deleting. The Rachel Marsden article is deliberately short due to the difficulty of writing a longer NPOV article about her, and currently says almost nothing about the case. The harassment case is historically far more important than Rachel Marsden, so if we were to merge them, I would vote to keep the harassment case article. Kla'quot 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that much of that content was deleted because it either violated NOR or Verifiability or came from an inappropriate source. There is no need to officially merge articles. If any deleted content is fully compliant with
WP:V and comes from appropriate sources, just add that content to the current article!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with what you say about the content that was deleted from
Marsden-Donnelly harassment case deleted; we can't do both. Kla'quot 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The relevant Arbcom statement is: "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator.[41]" SlimVirgin has made some less-than exact paraphrases of this before:
I hope this explains why I brought up the ArbCom clarification in my nomination: I have seen Arbcom's decision paraphrased before in ways that I consider skewed. Everything I've seen from Arbcom members since then indicates that their original statement stands as stated - no more, no less. Kla'quot 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Fred. However, it might be appropriate to include some of this material in

Thatcher131 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • It doesn't. We're interpreting ArbCom's findings re the problematic history of these articles and the difficulty of keeping them compliant, with content removed up in one place only to pop up in another. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom has no right to give any admin carte blanche to delete the article at will. It's enabling censorship and a clear impediment to attracting good-willed editors. ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The duty of anyone who encounters material of this nature to delete it arises from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no limit or restriction on deletion. Being based on exposure of an individual to opprobrium, it cannot be made into an acceptable article. Fred Bauder 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty blatant misreading of BLP. There is no "exposure to oppobrium", as you call it, the "exposure" happened in the unvisersity proceedings an in the national press. BLP allows for deletion of unsourced material, not for any material an editor might find objectionable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, it's not clear to me whether you're saying that the original sources or the article are based on exposure of an individual to opprobrium. It can't be the sources, because they were all written before Rachel Marsden's career began. The public had never heard of her before the story broke. As for the article, as long as it sticks closely to the sources (which it does) it should be OK. Kla'quot 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Per many good arguments presented. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Sam (and Fred and Thatcher). As for ArbCom, I'm not sure that people are saying we have to delete this because they say so but more we should delete this because of the problems that they recognized. On the other hand, As the highest level of dispute resolution ArbCom has authority to issue binding decisions in the name of the community/Jimbo. Where there are substantive policy issues (such as
    WP:BLP), as opposed to a simple content dispute, at stake I see no problem with making a deletion decision. Eluchil404 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Deleted Issue of whether Marsden was harassed was never resolved and no precedents of any kind were set. Of local notability at best. Kitty's little helper 11:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Kitty's little helper is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis. Kla'quot 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a sock puppet. Arthur Ellis does not have an account on Wikipedia. I am editing legally. People can look at my edits and szee if I have been in the least bit disruptive. I have started some important new entries, copy-edited a couple of hundred, and am being attacked because I have crossed Kla'quot's little Marsden hate campaign. Kitty's little helper 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never engaged in a hate campaign of any size against anyone. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per all of the above. - Merzbow 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus AfD closure, overturn unilateral deletion First of all, even if anywhere remotely true, Sam Blanning's comments amount to an AfD round 2, which routinely gets thrown out at DRV. No argument was made why the AfD endorsement was out of process. Second, his misreading of NPOV is egregious. Claiming that the harassment case is not notable enough for a stand-alone article and needs to be merged into the Harsden article is like claiming the
    GFDL. This review should be declared a mistrial and restarted, with a clear directive that DRV procedures be followed, policy breaches be pinpointed, and evidence be provided. In addition, several editors here owe Kla'quot an apology. If anyone is actually interested in the source material and can't access Newsbank or Lexis-Nexis, contact me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Sam, trialsanderrors didn't say who owes me an apology, but FWIW I don't think you owe me an apology. Sigh. Kla'quot 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn per trialsanderrors, who absolutely nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore article I wasn't involved in earlier rounds. It seems that a highly respected WP ed. and admin made an obviously wrong decision, for whatever reason. . The remedy against such decisions is of course this process, and the minimum that need be done is to restore the article, with an understanding that the repeated use of speedy process is not appropriate. Like any article affected by many hostile edits, the best procedure would be to recreate it from scratch. Presumably the article will then be submitted for AfD once again, but it is only 60 days since the previous AfD closed. I gather we have no remedy against multiple continuing attempts to find by chance an admin willing to close in the direction desired. Wouldn't a RfC on the article be the better choice? It should give a more definitive result. DGG 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Participants in the prior deletion discussions have been notified. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - let me get this straight: The article is debated at AfD, which rightly (and overwhelmingly) comes to a consensus that it is a keep. After long debates and strong consensus building, the article is speedily deleted despite not coming close to meeting any relevent criterion. I'm not sure why it's generated this much discussion when it is such a clear overturn as procedures were not only not followed, but circumvented to reach an erroneous conclusion against overwhelming consensus. WilyD 19:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The reason for the AfD being overwhelmingly "keep" was the large number of reliable sources verifying content, as well as establishing notability. It's not up to us to decide past events; our authority on history, events and notoriety is
    reliable sources and, as trialsanderrors pointed out, there's no reason to charge that The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Maclean's or the Vancouver Sun are all inaccurate. We're heading into a double standard at WP if we make more stringent demands of verification from reliable sources and then do an about-face and suddendly start ignoring them. --Oakshade 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Deleted per Sam Blanning above. A mes chers confrères canadiens: shrilly indignant lessons on the various importance of different news sources in the Canadian market is unhelpful, small-minded and missing the point. Eusebeus 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind being called shrill, indignant, small-minded or missing the point, but I certainly take offense at being called Canadian. :-) I would go as far as claim that until three days ago, I had no knowledge of your country's existence. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had looked at this deletion review and decided not to comment because I was torn. But then, because of my If by whiskey response to the previous DRV, I was asked to come here and comment. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Thinking about this some, it seems there are sufficient sources that establish notability. Good God, that's an understatement. There are copious sources on this, and multiple, independent coverage is the standard, rather than more subjective criteria, such as whether something sets a significant legal precedent or not. But the Arbcom case contained this remedy:

2) Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So, these articles can be created, then an administrator can determine that they violate
JChap2007 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Absolutely the case involves more people than just Marsden. I would argue that they don't have any "right" to representation or coverage here, only that if we do cover them they have the right to be treated fairly (meaning any information be in compliance with
    JChap2007 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Judging from its history, the content of the article had been stable in the months before it was deleted, except for vandalism. I can find no version that has any kind of "disputed" template on it. There were no comments at all on the Talk page between March and December of last year. The number of comments on the Talk page that are not part of deletion discussions is exactly one, and it's unsigned. (There is also some relevant discussion in the archives of Talk:Rachel Marsden from last spring.) The only thing unstable about this article is its existence. This may set some kind of record for being the most undisputed page to ever earn comments from Arbcom. And please see the humour in this: The article's second edit was a stub-sort by none other than Sam Blanning. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to previous AfDs, the fact that this story has had national press attention and the fact that the effects as a result of this story have been significant. Also, it's verifiable and the sources (both in number and by type, as many of them are national news outlets) certainly make this article notable. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Bauder and Blanning.
    ► 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Query The petitioner for deletion review writes The article should be expanded to discuss its far-reaching social impact, for which there is plenty of source material including a 1434 word article in the Phi Delta Kappan. I've looked at the full text of this article (available through a free trial of High Beam[42]), and I don't see anything that corresponds with "far-reaching social impact". There's this line "Clearly, the Marsden/Donnelly case has been one of the more notorious sexual harassment fiascos in Canada, and it sent strong signals about the many inequities in the handling of sexual harassment cases by Canadian universities" (and well there's this too: "Simon Fraser's sensational case has all the makings of an erotic made-for-TV movie"). But the only substantive impacts due to the case described by the article appear to be localized to Simon Fraser University. ("Strong signals" is too vague and insubstantial). The article starts out by suggesting that the Simon Fraser case belongs to sexual harrassment policy problem trend in British Columbia universities that were first marked by two earlier (1993 and 1995 - the Marsen case was in 1997) cases at the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia. The article also refers to coverage in the Canadian media but not to international coverage. Can the petitioner come up with sources showing "far-reaching social impact" as well as the international prominence (a "cause célèbre") claimed but not proven in the Marsden case article? (The only international coverage (excluding general newswire reports) I can find on this case is a "Letter from Canada" opinion column in the Lifestyle section of the Malaysian New Straits Times.). Bwithh 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is much evidence for the international cause célèbre, although I found a few more international sources (Wash Times, grrr). This certainly needs to be stricken from the claim to notability: The case became a cause célèbre both in Canada and internationally because of the salaciousness of the details, the topicality of sexual harassment, and the procedures for investigating it. The case led to the resignation of SFU President John Stubbs and a rewriting of procedures for investigating allegations of sexual harassment. The rest, as far I can tell, is accurate. So social impact seems to be in line with other cases in
      Duke lacrosse case, probably the closest contemporary match. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I'm fine with the institutional social impact localized to Simon Fraser. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (still thinking) Bwithh 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck the "far-reaching" part of my nomination, as it's a vague statement that can't be proven one way or the other, and it's irrelevant to DRV. The original reasoning beind my comment came from two articles. In one, the Canadian Association of University Teachers said, "Many commentators noted that universities across the country were likely to reconsider their sexual harassment policies as a consequence of this case." Another, published by the
      Hamilton Spectator in 1998, was entirely devoted to the effects of the case on feminism and the status of women. One quote "But the message to women on campuses was clear -- for God's sake, if you're being sexually harassed, keep it to yourself. That message was clear to the women at SFU, where complaints dropped by 80 percent. " The "international cause célèbre" claim doesn't come from me and I doubt it's accurate. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • I am a feminist woman quoting another feminist woman writer who made the comment in her pro-feminist article. You are making a sly, hurtful, entirely unfounded, and completely false insinuation that I want to keep this article in order to discourage reporting of sexual harassment claims. It is a
    personal attack. I have never edited the article whose deletion we are reviewing here, and only started editing Rachel Marsden (check my contributions to see if they violate BLP) after you and Arthur Ellis's sockpuppet made similar blanket allegations on its Talk page and drove off most of the men. Kla'quot 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I do think the idea of deleting articles on trivial or ephemeral news events that could damage living people is a reasonable one, and notability guidelines for events could be rewritten to say so. However, it is very unlikely that the community would accept jacking up the notability bar high enough to justify deleting this article. Will we require editorials in the national newspaper of record? Multiple Google Scholar results? If we did, it still would not be high enough to have this article deleted.
I completely agree that it is important to avoid giving the appearance of creating an attack page. It is equally important that we avoid the appearance of whitewashing history in order to protect political interests. And it's hard to think of a more blatant way give that impression than to circumvent our own policies so we can suppress information unflattering to someone who was once asked to run for office by the party currently governing the country. Kla'quot 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duke lacrosse. All a pain in the butt to edit. None deleted solely because the "expose (someone) to opprobrium". ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I participate in a large number of AfD debates - working on such debates is, in fact, my principal contribution to Wikipedia - and the first questions I ask of articles under review for deletion are the simple ones of notability and supporting references/sources. It seems to me that there is clear evidence that references/sources for this topic are adequate, and when I search for this subject on the internet there is prima facie evidence of notability: the case made the news, and had a significant impact on the people involved and the university in question. Policies were changed, and actions performed or reversed, as a result of this case. Broadly, I feel that this case should therefore be covered by Wikipedia.
The case itself does not reflect well on the participants. Given the kind of case, the allegations made and the participants' previous relationship ( the earlier case involving a junior team ) this is not surprising. Unfortunately, these items are all matters of verifiable fact, and it appears to possible to document them all, along with other substantive matters of fact, in a NPOV way. I wish to support and re-iterate a comment made above by Kla'quot: "The idea that this article, just by existence, fails NPOV is bizarre." I believe it is quite possible to write articles on court cases in a way that ensures a balanced presentation of the facts: in fact, we already have many cases covered in Wikipedia.
One question that has been discussed is the possibility of merging this article with the article on Rachel Marsden. I feel this would be inappropriate, as she was not the only participant in the case, and in the interests of balance we should not seek to give any one participant in the case undue prominence or weight. That Ms Marsden has gone on to a successful career and attained notability in her own right is certainly reason for her to have her own article, but as I understand it the events of this case, its reasons for notability, and the publication of the relevant sources all pre-date her successful public career.
Finally, on the question of the article name, I wish to follow the guidance given by my colleagues in these debates ( I am "assuming good faith" in accepting this guidance ) and suggest that the article be renamed from "Marsden-Donnelly Harassment Case" to "Marsden-Donnelly Case", if this is indeed our preferred form for such case names.
In conclusion, is seems to me ( after some fairly exhaustive and exhausting reading ) that: (1) the case is notable and can be adequately documented; (2) the case can be presented in an NPOV and non-salacious way; and, (3) it is coincidental ( that is, was not caused by her participation in this case ) that Ms Marsden has found subsequent fame in an unrelated field. Accordingly, I advocate that we Retain this article, that we Protect against deletion without further discussion, that we Review for bias, and edit appropriately to remove POV items, and finally that we Rename as "Marsden-Donnelly Case".
Please let me know if I can make any further contribution. WMMartin 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we've made mistakes elsewhere, that's no reason to make them here, T&E. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I didn't realize you're still around. So what exactly is the source of your objection to the article? BLP clearly, as discussed above, does not state that "we cannot have articles that present living people in a negative light". It states "we cannot have unsourced, poorly sourced or unduly unbalanced articles on events that present living people in a negative light". I have no idea where this thing got so completely out of control that people have to make those extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims. This is a mid-level scandal at a fairly prominent Canadian university that never got A1 frontpage 84pt font headline billing, but was still covered extensively by all the major Canadian news outlets over an extended period of time and still reverberates through the press. As I posted on JChap's talk page, I polled four Canadian friends about Marsden, and three of them actively remembered the case. So this is far from obscure, and we certainly don't have a policy called
    WP:FORGET test because I have never even heard of the case or the participants before. I even managed to be accused of having both a left and a right wing bias in my editing history here. Now after having read some 30,000 words on the case if I wanted to create such an article it wouldn't look all that different from the one we're discussing here, maybe with some of the claims about impact toned down and more direct quotes and claims about events double-sourced. The players are certainly not portrayed in an unduly negative light, there is far worse in the source material (from top-level newspapers, not the tabloids which I'm sure had a go at it). Right now it's at less 3% of the coverage available to me, so it's probably at less than 1% of the actual coverage. And lastly our respnsibility is not to the participants in the case but to our readers who have come to expect Wikipedia to be the first port of call on dispassionate and accurate information about noteworthy events including scandals, especially if the primary sources are hidden behind paywalls. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's an argument for deletion of the Marsden bio, as happened to the Donnelly bio. He was also considered non-notable outside the case, so any bio on him would be unduly biased by the discussion of the case. (Also technically that was a prodded deletion.) The idea that the case should be discussed on the Marsden bio creates undue weight, because she was only one of four players in the case. The case for all I can tell should be discussed in an article titled "1997 Simon Fraser University harassment scandal" or somesuch, but that's a page move issue. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IronDuke, to clarify, I've never said that this case was anywhere nearly as important as
    Lewinsky scandal. I said that if this article violates NPOV by existing, so does that one. Kla'quot 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • So let's delete the article on her then. That doesn't diminish the role of the SFU case. ~ trialsanderrors 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Sam Blanning, Thatcher131, IronDuke and others. 6SJ7 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I don't think the event is notable enough for its own article, and I agree that it seems its purpose is merely to attack the subject.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is starting to look like IRC channel canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Starting"? CJCurrie 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking about the sudden appearance of "me too" commenters after the nominal deadline. ~ trialsanderrors 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether we're looking at the results of IRC, emails, or just people who chronically follow each other around nodding in agreement with each other, there's no question that Wikipedia emotional baggage is playing a significant role in this debate. To cut straight to the point, this has all the appearances of being a continuation of a bitter conflict between the creator of the original Rachel Marsden article, SlimVirgin, and others (many of whom have voted on this page) over Israel-related articles. I've very often agreed with SlimVirgin in the past - far more often than not - but everyone makes mistakes and deleting this article was a mistake. It is Wikipedia's emotional baggage we need to get rid of, not this article. Kla'quot 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in progress. Please add any additional comments below this line of text.

GRBerry 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pawn Game – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pawn Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Well written real page, is notable. It was deleted due to (nn web) I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive the quality of what I am doing. Pawn Game I believe is a notable game, and it worthy of staying up. Just like Stick arena is because they are basically the same thing. it is a game that is created and is playable, forums, domain etc. I will keep it updated. I do not know what to say? I am new, but I love wikipedia, but this is my first ever created submission, besides minor edits, etc.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

26 January 2007

Bought Science – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bought Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

IMHO, this page should not have faced speedy deletion by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. If pages such as

Sound science can exist on Wiki, then surely one for Bought science should be. Bought science is neither any more of a neologism, nor a POV, than "Junk science" or "Sound science" is, as Jeffrey alleges. NorthMiamiBeach 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

"Bought science" only gets about 2000 hits on Google (the neologism half), and the text of the article irrelevantly goes into the issues you bring up in your POV essay listed below (the POV part of the equation). Wikipedia is not a venue to air your grievances with the PMRA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You claim I have grievances with the PMRA? Not so, that's unfounded. These are very real concerns by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Charles Caccia report entitled: "Pesticides: Making the Right Choice", May 16, 2000) and Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gelinas (all cited in the PMRA article). As for rapid deletion by claiming it is POV, well, isn't that's a fine way to censor anything that one disagrees with!--NorthMiamiBeach 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with your opinion (nor do I agree with it). I do disagree with your attempts at trying to inject your opinion into Wikipedia, both through this article and the POV essay I deleted (see below). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) – Copyright violation, unencyclopaedic content, unreliable source – Guy (Help!) 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I question why this page faced speedy deletion. It was not patent nonsense, nor advertising, nor a personal attack page, but rather a well written and researched article critical of the PMRA. If other Wikipedia pages can exist that are critical to issues such as global warming (i.e. the movie an Inconvenient Truth etc), or Criticisms to the 911 Movie "Loose Change" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism ), then surely one critical of the PRMA should also be allowed to exist, without being deleted. I would appreciate a Wikipedia panel review on this matter. NorthMiamiBeach 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not a copyvio, it is an unencyclopedic essay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a copy violation, as I hold authorship rights. As for "unencyclopedic", that is not a qualification for speedy deletion. It is my opinion that my article is of merit and should not be deleted. --NorthMiamiBeach 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no link to the infringed material given that I can see so I can't endorse on the basis of copyright violation (assuming that's what 'cv' means - what, even 'copyvio' takes too long to type now?), but this is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Please see
    what Wikipedia is not. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


Thanks for the link on 'What Wiki is not...' Upon reviewing that, I fail to see the PMRA article as being a personal essay. Rather, the article references the works of others who share the opinions that the PMRA is problematic, i.e. Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gelinas... etc)--NorthMiamiBeach 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Keller court martial – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Keller court martial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

(1) The court martial is notable because (a) Court matialsPolitical court matials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years, (b) the court martial was covered in all the main newspapers in Israel at the time including the English language Jerusalem Post and the Arabic Al-Ittihad and was recently referred to by the British Guardian.

(2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."

The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would agree that the court martial is not Keller's most significant event in his long history in the peace movement. But that does not necessarily imply that the court martial is not notable. We have seen above that the court matial is turing up in references 15 years after the event [[47]]. Whether Keller as an individual is notable and whether an article about him should be written is an interesting question, but not the one which we are discussing here. Abu ali 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The event is certainly notable. It is covered in the standard literature on the Intifada – eg in Andrew Rigby,"Living the Intifada" (Zed Press, 1991), p 185. Rigby cites Al-Fajr 26 February 1990. The trial was covered in the Israeli press, but it is even harder finding a twenty-year old Hebrew article than an English one; the Haaretz online archive, for instance, goes back only to 1994.
The event is notable not only in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and of the Israeli peace movement; it is remarkable in anyone's terms. Writing graffiti on 117 tanks, as well as the officers' mess and toilets — and a long slogan too, not just one or two words — is surely unprecedented in peace and protest movements anywhere.
In fact, I think that Adam Keller deserves a Wikipedia article of his own. He is the spokesperson of
PLO, and author of the excellent study of Israel "Terrible Days". And if we do this, the court martial (and his other spells in gaol) will certainly be relevant. RolandR 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Do we have a rought consensus that the court-martial was a notable event? If so the main argument for deletion is that the article's subject made many of the edits himslef. This is discouraged by the policy
    WP:AB
    . The WP:Autobiography policy states

    You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia [1]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, or that they are strictly forbidden.

(my emphasis added). Keller should have refrained from writing an article about an event which he was so personally involved in. But if you examine his edits to the article you will find that he was absolutely meticulous in maintaining a
WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Abu ali 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I have now created an article on Adam Keller. It is a stub, which needs more work. But the bare bones are there, including reference to the court martial. He is certainly a notable-enough person to merit a Wikipedia entry. RolandR 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • new article its clear from the comments above that the matter in N, and that RS are present, because the discussion has moved on to the qy of the actions of the IDF. . But, Roland R has the solution--for others than RK to do an article on RK, affording him the usual BLP courtesies. This article will be more suitable than the old one in all respects. DGG 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we seem to have a consensus about notability and reliable sources regarding the court-martial. I would also agree that the subject of the court martial is notable enough for a biographical article. But the question of whether these two articles should be merged is something that I have not been convinced about, and is really a separate discussion. Abu ali 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, AfD was perfectly proper. This is an encyclopaedia, not a television schedule. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check your facts, a list of syndicaters is not a television schedule, get your facts straight, otherwise your vote doesn't count. Suoerh2 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Wikipedia intends for people to follow it's policies, then deleting this article sends the wrong message. Pretty soon people will not want to split off sections from long articles into new articles for fear that some Wikipedian who has no idea what he is talking about finds the new article, thinks its "trivial" and deletes it. Sometimes, with summary style, your going to get article that aren't full of a huge amount of content, but that is just something you have to live with if you want to use the summary style. If nothing else, then please restore the text of the article to the Futurama page (where is lived for a long time with no problem) and let the editors of that page decide if the information belongs or not, not some elistish snobby Wikipedians who troll deletion review (thats what they are). Suoerh2 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please be reminded that Deletion review is not AFD round 2. The deletion review is more about judging process than result. Could you indicate why you believe that certain processes were not followed properly? Is there any information that was not considered during the AFD? AecisBravado 10:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This reminds me of arguments against deleting fancruft which follow the lines of "But we split this out from the main article, so it must be good!" -Amark moo! 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion per unanimous AFD. --
    desat 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD.
    GRBerry 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion per
    JChap2007 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • remerge the pertinent material into main article--if it was removed for fear the main article was overlong but it has been found that by itself it is not sufficient. If anyone objects to it being there, cite this DelRev. DGG 06:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of this unanimous discussion. If the editors at the main article decide (on the article's Talk page) that there is consensus to bring this detail back in, it can be merged and redirected via a history-only undeletion (above). Until they reach such consensus, leave the page deleted. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charles C. Poindexter – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Charles_C._Poindexter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [48] Notability was established at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter. MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. It was a legitimate G5 when the sock made it, who initiated the creation after that, because those G4s are a problem for me. If it's not a sock/banned user who recreated the G4 deletions, undelete. If it was, can I request userfication to clean it up and make it legit, since "notability" appears to be established in the linked AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our DRV nominator has done all three recreations. I have no basis for an opinion whether G5 would still apply, although I can see that others are suspicious, I don't have the knowledge base to tell myself because my mop is still too clean and shiny. If you think notability was shown, I hope that means the AFD revealed adequate sources, and you could just use them.
    GRBerry 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong undelete. G4 does not apply to speedies, and if it did, it certainly would not apply to a speedy criteria that doesn't even judge the article. -Amark moo! 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was one of the deleting admins. I have a very strong suspicion that MrDouglass is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, Mykungfu, since he showed up less than 24 hours after the article was first deleted and the then-most-recent sock of Mykungfu was blocked and re-created the article. That's not a coincidence. His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK). I have no objection to undeletion per se, but to another attempt by Mykungfu to game the system. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article is bad, it won't survive an AfD. If it is not, surely it shouldn't matter who you suspect wrote it. -Amark moo! 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it does matter. Banned or blocked users are not allowed to create articles; it's speedy deletion criterion G5. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well MrDarcy has now listed MrDouglass as a sockpuppet of Mykungfu. [49]

Lets see if there is any valid proof with this one. 172.164.250.29 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite fortunately, G5 does not apply to suspicions. If it is established that he is a banned user, it's different (although I'd likely just
ditch G5 then, since it looks decent), but suspecting who a user is is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You are mistaken. Proof by contributions is more than sufficient, and the user's contribs have made it clear to me from day one that it is Mykungfu. Proof by checkuser is not required, and in this case, since Mykungfu and all of his socks use AOL, it's not possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete just so other users know what G3,G4 and other terms are.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion . If MrDarcy suspects me to be racist. Simply go thru my edits and see if you find any racially biased edits. Also, i thank everyone who will supports this articles undeletions. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by MrDouglass (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
from "His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK)." of the above opinion. MrDouglass 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much to undelete, just a short paragraph with a lot of weasel words and sourced solely with questionable copyright material from skipmason.com via the Google cache. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

25 January 2007

The Game (game) – Speedy close, no new information – 05:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AFD6
)

The Game has previously been deleted from Wikipedia because it was not previously verifiable. However, The Game has now been published on its own web site, http://ilostthegame.org. Does this web site dedicated to The Game suffice? Hamz01 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, no sufficient reason to overturn AfD result. The website cited by Hamz01 is just one person's self-published thing with no editorial review to check facts, and it's not under the aegis of any organization (since the game has none). See the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. Barno 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, this has been endorsed before, and having its own site does not provide verifiability. -Amark moo! 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - a self-published website does not notability make. Sorry, nothing new to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion again A DRV perennial. No new information. I've also linked in AFD6, which is the most recent AFD discussion resulting in deletion. If someone could dig up the recent DRVs, for completeness I'd appreciate; I don't have time now.
    GRBerry 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liz Rettig – Userfied to requestor's sandbox – 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Liz Rettig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AFD)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Young Hot Rod – Deletion endorsed, recreation in userspace recommended – trialsanderrors 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AfD
)

How many times do I have to tell you, he IS TOO notable! I mean, he is signed to G-Unit Records as well as Interscope (Spider Loc isn't part of Interscope, yet you have a page on him}, his single Be Easy, charted on the Billboard charts (Top R&B/Hip-Hop), and if you google him, there are several notable sources. Undelete, but if that's not possible, Unprotect, so someone with better info can recreate it. Tom Danson 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and salting. I don't see evidence here that he meets
WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't appear that "Be Easy" charted (Billboard's Web site does not show him having any charting singles or albums). And Mr. Danson, watch your tone. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alela Diane – Overturned and listed at AfD – trialsanderrors 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alela Diane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alela Diane is an up-and-coming artist of renown, for whom at some point soon there will clearly need to be an article. She is already cross referenced in the

psych folk and New Weird America articles. She currently has 47,000 Google hits (up from 45K yesterday), is touring in the US, and shortly in the UK. She has an All Music Guide entry. I suspect that one factor in the summary deletion of the article may have been the references to her early work being self-published. However, her album has now been issued internationally to widespread acclaim, as evidenced by a simple Google search which will show numerous positive reviews, establishing her importance as a singer-songwriter. Information should be made available on this current artist who is in the process of becoming one of international renown. Ghmyrtle 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment I have revised the original article to include more evidence of notability and placed it for the time being at User_talk:Ghmyrtle. The suggestion made earlier that her album has not been released in the UK is incorrect; it is available at Amazon.co.uk (not as an import), as is her more recent vinyl release. I'd be grateful to be kept informed of the process from now on, as luckily this question of notability has not arisen with any of my previous articles. Ghmyrtle 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction - it is an import to UK, but readily available. Incidentally, the criterion of being released by a "major label" or even an "important indie" is surely an anachronism in this era of downloads, when (in UK at least) musicians can make the charts through downloads alone without being signed to any label ... ? (Not for this forum, I know...).Ghmyrtle 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete I dont think there was the intent to be unfair, but it seems to have turned out that way.DGG 06:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Assburger syndrome – Löschung bestätigt (deletion endorsed) – trialsanderrors 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Assburger syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD
)

I think there is substantial evidence that this exists as an innocent misspelling, and the presence of a so-called "bad word" should not have automatically caused it to be seen as disparaging and used as a reason to delete the redirect.

Random832 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. I think the controversy at

Random8322007-01-26 13:44 UTC
(01/26 08:44 EST)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GRBerry 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

No reason given by closing admin.

WP:CRYSTAL was cited by many delete proponents, however, content was referenced and citations inserted. A message left on the closing admin's talk page has gone unanswered. Neier 12:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

    • Was that concensus after discarding the
      WP:CRYSTAL. That is why I brought this to review. Neier 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
I'm just saying please don't expect me to give a reason. --Majorly (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ProductWiki – Deletion endorsed among established editors – 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ProductWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I recently discovered the ProductWiki article was deleted from Wikipedia. I read the debate that lead to the deletion, and feel that the comments in the debate were unfair and inaccurate. I am a co-founder of ProductWiki, and we are not a spam wiki, nor new, nor an insignificant wiki. We have been growing for over 1 year, and have 13,000 products contributed by our community of almost 2,000 members. We provide a voice for the consumer, and have chosen the wiki format as the best medium.

As per the

WP:WEB Web notability criteria, we meet criteria #1. We have been sourced multiple times in published works, including Popular Science magazine (both print and online), the Kitchener Record, and in Ben McConnell's latest book Citizen Marketers. Ekkalvia 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Endorse deletion, as AfD nominator. What new information was missing from the AfD debate? None presented as yet. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, do we need to make it clearer that you're not supposed to use DRV just because you disagree with consensus? -Amarkov blahedits 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, ProductWiki meets
    WP:WEB criteria number one by being the subject of two different printed independent publications. The Kitchener Record, and The University of Waterloo's Imprint Newspaper. In light of these two pieces of factual evidence that ensure ProductWiki meets the standard for inclusion, I don't see how this can even be debated further. The other "mentioned in" articles further strengthen the point of significance. All arguments made in the original deletion debate to form consensus were uninformed. Now, with the full information come to light I see no other reasons for deletion to be a consideration. If people have an opinion about the quality, integrity or "spamness" of ProductWiki then they should come up with objective observations to justify this viewpoint and place it inside the Wikipedia article for ProductWiki. (full disclosure: I am also a co-founder of ProductWiki). Omarismail 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Um... no, it is not the subject of those two publications... -Amark moo! 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how there's any dispute about the KW Record article. As for the Imprint article, it's about ProductWiki and more specifically how I (as a founder) was able to find and utilize the resources available to me to benefit the business. Can you guys help me out here to understand the spitefulness I sense here? I mean, everybody against is simply giving one line answers that don't really justify anything. The only reasonable response given so far was a comment that agreed with the Record article "a slam dunk" was the term used, and requested for another article, which has subsequently been provided. If the Imprint article isn't sufficient as an independent publication then please explain why and point to the relevant Wikipedia policies that define what an article is "about", because it's definitely more than a passing mention.Omarismail 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the Imprint article is about the UW program, including, as an example, ProductWiki. That's really not more than a passing mention. -Amark moo! 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "As an example" is being inaccurate, such a statement implies that ProductWiki is just one among many, when in fact the article focuses entirely on ProductWiki and me. I'm the only person who is interviewed, and the entire piece revolves around my experiences and my advice, with information as to what I've done and where it's got me with the site. The article would mean nothing if you took away the context that these are my experiences with launching ProductWiki. And fundamentally, this makes the article about ProductWiki. But it's about the site in a different way. It's behind the scenes kind of information. That's why I said the word "about" in regards to "publications about the site" is ambiguous. Do the referenced pieces have to be strictly about the site itself and factual information concerning the site like an encyclopedic entry? Or can the piece examine other aspects to the organization not just the web address itself? This isn't defined in the policy, and for now is up to people's judgements. Now, let's go back to the original point of this entire discussion and the essense of the policy, is ProductWiki a notable and significant site? If ProductWiki wasn't notable and insignificant then there would be no reason to interview me as a success since my product would be unknown. It's precisely because ProductWiki is notable and significant that the article exists. This is the independent, objective, unbiased real world references that Wikipedia is looking for to determine notability.
            few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
            ]
  • once more, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article. —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Repeating, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article. Could someone explain the purpose of having an appeals procedure if it has to depend on memory of the original process? I remember someone said once that it is enough to look at the arguments during the afd, but this and many other DelRev involve the original article. DGG 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, you certainly don't need the article. The issue is if there is new information here that wasn't considered or if it was closed incorrectly, not anything else. Unanimous decisions are pretty clear consensus, so that leaves new information. Nothing requires the article, regardless of what some people would like. -Amark moo! 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be dismissive of ordinary users requests for notice, openness, fair process and access to information in AfDs and DRs. These are not trivial concerns. I am not weighing in on the merits here. At issue is "will editors work be destroyed in a manner that is not involved in edit disputes." Histories are removed. It is a "
        Kafka-tutional" issue. I agree with the need for reasonable access. Edivorce 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit history restored for this review. ~ trialsanderrors 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The book and the major article (neither of which showed up at the AfD) give the impression that it likely meets WP:WEB. More eyes at the AfD, and perhaps a clearer review of the book, would generate a consensus of more than 4 editors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Now that I can see the edit history, I endorse the deletion, because there is no evidence whatsoever of the significance of this site.DGG 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

24 January 2007

Piotr Blass – Article unsalted, draft moved to mainspace and relisted at AfD – 07:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closing notes: I closed this DRV as the discussion is now moot. There was overwhelming concensus to unsalt and move the new draft to articlespace, which Trialanderrors acknowledged and proceeded to unsalt the articlespace location. As such, the request for unsalting, which this was, has been fufilled, and this discussion need not continue on the merits of the new draft.
I moved the new draft to the article location (
Daniel.Bryant 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD1|AfD2)

The Piotr Blass article was deleated after AfD#1 and AfD#2, largely because of lack of Wikipedia:Notability. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion. I took the new information and created a draft article here, which I would like to be included as the Piotr Blass article. The article talk page requests that this article be discussed prior to recreating it. Please review the draft article and take the steps necessary to have it included as the Piotr Blass article (relisting, overturn, etc.). Thank you. -- Jreferee 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GRBerry 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AfD2
)

I'd ask that you undelete that bio/article. In support of my request, and in response to the criticisms made of the bio/article's noteworthiness, I am attaching some of my notes and relevant links below.

Saul Kaiserman is a recognized leader in the field of Jewish education, and an opinion leader in the scholarship re: birkat hamazon

  • Kaiserman's thesis has been reprinted on an independent website: lookstein.org
  • Curriculum has been written based upon ideas gleaned from Kaiserman's writings on birkat. lookstein.org
  • Kaiserman was an invited/featured speaker at the Limmud 2007 conference on birkat and other topics in Jewish education: limmudny.org
  • On the subject of treatment of eating disorders in the Jewish community: atid.org
  • Of course, there's also the self-published scholarship: newjewisheducation.blogspot.com
  • On other topics: shma.com, my.mli.org.il, bjeny.org
  • And he has influenced other scholars: urj.org

Devincohen 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a reason, that's a wish. (double vote struck) --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: This is Saul Kaiserman here. I just wanted to say that while I always was amused that there was a wikipedia entry about me, I don't necessarily consider myself to be "encyclopedia-worthy." On the other hand, I'd say a substantial percentage of what I am glad is included in the Wikipedia would probably be considered as being of dubious merit. Further, I suspect that most people who google me have appreciated finding the information that was in my entry. Regarding this current conversation, I doubt seriously that most of the people commenting here are in any way qualified to know what credentials would make one appropriate to be considered a "cutting-edge Jewish educator." I also suspect that few of you have actually done any serious research into the links that were provided - saying "I haven't found anything to overturn the AfD" is like saying "I haven't found any evidence that he isn't a pig-f**ker, so he must be." A lot of people think that "superfluous entries" mar the credibility of the Wikipedia, but from my perspective, it is the amount of time people waste on arguments like this one that truly demonstrates the limitations of its volunteer-driven character. One would think that any of you commenting here would find the Wikipedia better served by working to improve and edit the truly substantial entries, not decrying the superfluous and ultimately irrelevant ones. Think Fred 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • saying "I haven't found anything to overturn the AfD" is like saying "I haven't found any evidence that he isn't a pig-f**ker, so he must be." Not even close, User:Saulkaiserman. To repeat what's said frequently, this is an examination of process, not AFD Round 2: the burden is on you to show any flaws.
  • I doubt seriously that most of the people commenting here are in any way qualified to know what credentials would make one appropriate to be considered a "cutting-edge Jewish educator." Your appeal to authority aside,
    your obvious conflict of interest
    means that you're not not really qualified to assert your importance.
  • One would think that any of you commenting here would find the Wikipedia better served by working to improve and edit the truly substantial entries, not decrying the superfluous and ultimately irrelevant ones. Removing the superfluous, inappropriate, and irrelevant indeed raises the overall quality level here, and it's certainly a false dichotomy to claim one comes at the expense of the other. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LoHo – Deletion endorsed, redirect set editorially – trialsanderrors 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LoHo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

I believe that the administrator allowed people's personal bias to interfere with the rational approach to this debate. The fact that people disagree with the tactics that caused the name LoHo to come into play 10 years ago do not take away the fact that it indeed has come into play. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus in on Clinton St at Attorney. 207.237.54.86 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of the Lotus Lounge at Clinton and Stanton (Clinton and Attorney don't intersect). The blog post in question is talking about Lotus, Lindsay Lohan's (or "Lindsay LoHo-Ho-Ho-Han") hangout on 14th. Mosmof 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment **The Village Voice, not sure if it is a Reliable Source, had a story called LES is more, and it talks about the "boutiquification" of Loho. See this link Village Voice, LES Is More, by Sarah Ferguson, March 22 - 28, 2000. It states,

"He limits his study to the area south of 14th Street and north of Houston, ignoring the recent boutiquification of the old Jewish quarter south of Houston, dubbed "Loho," where an Orchard Street condo just sold for $1.1 million."

While it is stil not the feature on the name, it is about the neighborhood and mentions "dubbed Loho" Juda S. Engelmayer 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Loho will still remain the name of a place, if only a fictional colony in the fantasy world of
Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, province in the Philippines. New York awaitsJuda S. Engelmayer 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You still seem confused about Wikipedia's basic principles. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is
not an indiscriminate collection of information
. That something exists or is true is not enough of a reason to include it in Wikipedia.
For example, my girlfriend exists (really!), and that she doesn't have her own Wikipedia article doesn't change the fact. But if she does get a profile in NY Times and Bob Woodward pens her bio, then she's probably going to get herself a Wikipedia article. In fact, even if my girlfriend didn't exist (but she does, I swear!), she'd actually get herself a Wiki article if the Economist and Time wrote feature articles about my imaginary girlfriend. Why? Because my imaginary girlfriend is notable enough for reliable journalists, people whose job depends on knowing what is and isn't notable, to waste their precious time and energy writing about her.
The point I'm making with this admittedly far fetched example is that existence or truthfulness is irrelevant. The key is notability. When something is notable, notable media will talk about it. And this is why Narnia (world), a land of make believe, has an article, and LoHo, a real life location, doesn't. It doesn't matter that one is more real or important than others.
As for your specific example, I don't see how the Village Voice article helps your case. Notice that the writer left "LoHo" in quotes, which I interpreted to mean that she doesn't really think the name is established. You might disagree, but that's precisely the point - if it's open to interpretation, then it's not verifiable. And the phrase "dubbed 'LoHo'" can easily be read to mean, "dubbed 'LoHo' by realtors, but not too many others". Again, you might disagree, which is why Wikipedia demands multiple independent sources talking about the subject, so there's no room for interpretation. Ytny 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel.Bryant 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Funny Farm (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of literary works with eponymous heroines – Deletion endorsed, sent to project space – trialsanderrors 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of literary works with eponymous heroines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

follow-up deletion, no thorough discussion <KF> 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first there was no request for deletion at all. Rather, a contributor was hoping that the companion article, List of literary works with eponymous heroes (that one still very much work in progress), would be improved. As no deletion was requested, "speedy close" of discussion was suggested. However, at that point someone who had never contributed to either page (User:Apostrophe) suddenly requested deletion. In the wake of the ensuing debate (about the definition of "hero", whether it could ever be NPOV, where participants misinterpreted the literary term as a moral judgement), attention was also paid to the corresponding "female" list. Its deletion was only requested by four contributors (who had never contributed to it), and one of the major reasons cited was that now, after the deletion of its "male" counterpart, the list was "orphaned". In fact it had existed since 2003, had always been carefully maintained (not just by myself but also by other contributors who also seem to have been unaware of the deletion process) and is linked to by more than 20 pages.

I request undeletion as this list serves at least two purposes: to show all those involved in the WikiProject Novels which articles are still missing, and mainly because it serves as a survey of works of literature with eponymous female protagonists. Minor problems—what should be included, what not, etc.—could be easily discussed, and resolved, on the talk page.

  • If you want to create a list of missing novels in project space as part of your WikiProject, go right ahead. Consensus was pretty clear here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes that these lists are not suitable for mainspace due to their arbitrary nature. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such a list can be of interest not just to members of this particular WikiProject but to all students of literature. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about individual authors deciding to call their novel after the female protagonist (for example, you can notice a marked increase in the second half of the 19th century, what with "fallen women" becoming "heroines" etc.). Also, this list also included/includes all literary genres (drama and poetry). Finally, you are referring to the wrong deletion discussion. There is no mention of what you are referring to at the "female" counterpart. <KF> 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it belongs in the project space, it should've been moved instead of deleted.- Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this wasn't that list. This was a list with poorly defined and indescriminant criteria for membership. My point was that the "redlinks are useful" argument applies to projectspace not mainspace. Eluchil404 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was just nasty. Especially since there seems to be some sympathy towards moving the list into project space, so no work would be lost. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Yes, I agree with Guy that it was indeed nasty to delete the list. A noteworthy collection of titles whose unifying criterion is that the heroine gives the book its title. The criteria are in no way indiscriminate (that's what you mean by "indescriminant", right?). For example, DuMaurier's Rebecca was excluded because the character of Rebecca actually never appears in the novel etc. The list would have been the basis of more extensive work of the typology sort, like creating various types of heroines etc. Where can I get hold of that list? I jsut dont believe someone had it deleted. Wikikiwi 10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If you look up my user contributions now it may seem I hardly ever contribute, but many of my edits were this list.

    • It's indiscriminate because there's no actual connection between the novels. "creating various types of heroines"? Are you sure that isn't
      original research? Furthermore, the "nasty" is referring to my name being dragged through the mud. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Restore The lists were useful and as said above the term "hero" or "heroine" is a valid term in literature. Even if this is still part of the argument against the list, why not change the name of the list to "List of books with female eponymous protagonists" and the same for the male counterparts? Tartan 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm editing now for the first time, but I have been using this list as a point of reference for I suppose more than 3 years. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing here, I found this page via the What links here button on the talk page. Sorry if I have made a mistake, if so please delete this again. —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by 83.65.173.162 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion per consensus here. >Radiant< 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here. <KF> 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS The main objection brought forward against this list is its arbitrariness ("an indiscriminate collection of titles", "there's no actual connection between the novels"), i e the lack of a criterion by which you can tell whether an item fits into the list or not. Now if that is true, I suppose a list such as the List of unusual deaths—"unique causes or extremely rare circumstances throughout history", as it says in the introductory sentence—will even more so violate Wikipedia's official policy against arbitrariness.
    • The reasons are clear. Not only are book titles verifiable (no problem at all, any publisher's or library catalogue will do) whereas death "by having a red-hot iron inserted into one's anus" (
      Alexander Woolcott in 1943
      ?
    • Consequently, one might think, the List of unusual deaths will already have met its maker, maybe even have been speedy-deleted. However, this page reveals that the list has even been a Featured list candidate.
    • Don't get me wrong here. This is the first time I've come across that list, and I thoroughly enjoyed browsing through it, so under no circumstances would I want to see it deleted either. The whole point of knowledge is that isolated items of knowledge are cross-referenced, grouped and regrouped under a broad variety of titles and categories so that new insights can be gained. In that context someone even pre-emptively resorted to Wikipedia's "no original research" argument just because someone who would like to see the list restored pointed out that they were planning—privately, I suppose—to use the list as the starting point of some further categorisation.
    • So rather than having some more "Endorse deletion per consensus" or "Endorse deletion per above" votes by experienced voters or critical comments saying that unusual deaths are not the issue here (I know that very well), could someone actually explain to me what makes that other list—a random choice by the way—so much more eligible for inclusion than the female protagonists? <KF> 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you so kindly reminded us, "Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here." Either precedent counts or it doesn't. You're also assuming that we approve of that article when you have no basis for believing as such. I know I don't. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, featured list candidacy proves absolutely nothing. Anybody can do such to any list, and for you to use this for your support is deceptive, implying that only exemplary or consensus-approved lists get this. Especially with the fact that there was absolutely no support for it becoming a featured list. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Deceptive" is a strong word, and I don't like being called a deceiver. This I'm afraid is no basis for a discussion. Whom should I want to deceive anyway if all I'm doing is asking for an explanation not why the List of unusual deaths has, or has not, or has almost been, awarded Featured List status but why it has survived two Votes for Deletion although, by all standards of objectivity, it is far more "arbitrary" than the Female Protagonists ever could become. I've never understood what makes individuals so set upon having something removed which they could easily ignore while at the same time others would benefit from it. This deletion has already driven away one (more or less potential) contributor to the literature articles, and I can well imagine that Wikikiwi might also stop contributing if what they say—that they mainly contributed to this list—is true (which I can no longer verify because the edits have been eradicated from their user contributions). Have it your way. There is no point in carrying on once it gets personal. And no, I'm not feeling chatty any more. <KF> 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Looking at the debate, it was clear that there certainly had been no consensus that lists in general were not suitable for article space. There may possibly have been some consensus about this particular list in the state it was in at the time, but it will take more than a single AfD to get a consensus on where lists can go--in fact, I do not think we will ever have a consensus about what to do with lists, though sometimes people (not represented here) have tried to remove individual ones on the basis of various pretended policies.
it was also clear that the debate there was really a personal fight which quickly diverged into unrelated issues. i don't think any decision made in that atmosphere should stand. I know I didnt participate because of the way it was going.
In fact, the same thing is happening again here. Some of the debate above is about other lists entirely. Some of it is about tobacco-related deaths. At least it isn't over-personal. DGG 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
# Such a point of reference is important because it visualizes the interrelatedness of seemingly isolated pieces of knowledge (our Wikipedia categories serve exactly that purpose).
"Interrelatedness" and "seemingly isolated" are are purely your interpretation, as correct as they may be. That is about as pure a case of original research as you can get, asserting your own views and assuming reader interpretation. Ytny 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Just as, say, 1967 in literature gives a whole list of isolated (seemingly isolated, yes, that's my claim) facts and figures, the heroine list lists isolated book titles. Users of Wikipedia cannot be prevented when they read "1967 in literature" from noticing that, for example, in that year more books were published by female authors than, say, in 1867 or 1767, can they? The "original research" clause was introduced because cranks were advancing their personal conspiracy or end of the world theories, not because some readers may be clever enough to think for themselves. <KF> 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daniel.Bryant 07:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Speartip Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I request that this article would be fully restored. It was deleted on reasoning that it was a gaming clan, which is true, but also the fact that it is non-nnotable, this however is not true. The 'gaming clan' is a group of Warhammer 40k players who were set up in Game Workshops recent campaign. The group wasn't unnoticed and whose actions were featured in several of the weekly reviews of the Campaign, although the group wasn't mentioned by name, and in the final international conclusion for the race that the group fought for: Medusa V Conclusion (Paragraph 7) The group is also mentioned in another Wikipedia article: The Imperial 12th Army Group which is basically our equivalent but on the 'other' side. The group also intends to have a page on Lexicanum another wiki encyclopedia. Thank you for reviewing our case and the group apologises for any inconvenience. Speartip 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not intended to be about the group, i.e trying to advertise it, but about the actual object the Speartip is, basically it is like other articles on Warhammer 40,000 and not about the group of people who set it up.

That is what the subject is, it is in the world of Warhammer 40,000 a group of chaos lords who set up an alliance. Though as it was mentioned on the official warhammer website then surely it has as much right to be here as any of the other articles on things in Warhammer 40k such as the Medusa V article in which the Allaince was recognised in one of the campaign summarys (see original post). Just for complete clarification: what is calssed as a 'Gaming clan', I know what it is but I would be interested to know what the in-depth definition is. Speartip 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me see if I understand this (I don't play Warhammer 40k). You meant for the article to be about the fictional group, but still possibly containing some data about the real people who represent it?
Veinor (talk to me) 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Not intentional for it to contain information about the people. If this is accepted then I shall make sure the page has no reference to the people and only to the Alliance. You may be interested to see the page on lexicanum: The Speartip Alliance Speartip 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just making sure. And I would like to point out that the article on Lexicanum has been marked as possible "Fan Fluff", which seems to be the same thing as
Veinor (talk to me) 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The notice on Lexicanum does make things look bad but it is mainly to do with the lack of sources which I have now provided, you can see that there is quite a lot of mention of the Alliance. The reason why I pointed out the article on Lexicanum is that it is somewhere where you can see what the article on Wikipedia would basically look like, with any required or requested ommisions. Speartip 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The "weekly reviews of the Campaign" do not meet
    WP:RS, and neither do the blogs and chatrooms. In general, game clans get featured coverage only from self-published sources, not from anything with fact-checking editorial staffs with real independence from the publisher; so they don't meet the core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without that, we can't use it, no matter how much interest a few dozen people may have. Barno 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

It is reliable as anything else to do with the Medusa V Campaign, Games Workshop could have not placed the group in the updates, as soon as it did so it became as official as Medusa V. There are no chatrooms on that sources list and if you are implying the group itself I request that you check my previous statesments on how the article will be about the written group and not the group of people. Speartip 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it is, to be charitable, non-canon. And that is always going to be a problem. You already have an article on the relevant specialist WIki, I'd leave it at that if I were you. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what any other administrators have to say first, if it isn't restored then i'll stick to the Lexicanum page. Speartip 08:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators or Mods feel free to close this review 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
desat 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:MontenegroFairUse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore)
Template:SerbiaFairUse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|joint TfD)

Deletion was completely irresponsible. Person who proposed didn't noticed me, even this is not an ordinary template, but a product of specialist expertise. Any work created in Serbia or Montenegro may be used reasonably wherever if author of the work is mentioned. This is not the case for Florida law, but the case for the law of the country where work had been made. I am wandering what is the sense to contribute to English Wikipedia if there is no a minimum of cooperation between contributors. millosh (talk (sr:)) 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 January 2007

Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|DRV)

This is the second time around The article has been fixed tremdesly so I hope this time it will be restored. The only thing I could not find was another external link so I only have one, hope that's ok. You can find the fixed article here, make sure you look here before saying anything.Sam ov the blue sand 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh Sam. You do know what that means, don't you? No sources, means no article, without exception. I know you care, but it can't be done. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, article still fails
    ► 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep deleted. The article looking bad was never the problem. -Amark moo! 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of articles with only one source and sometimes none so why haven't you deleted them? And if it's because of the fanfiction in Electrosphere if you havn't noticed I remove all of that and have kept all the reliable information and some of this info can be found in the game by using the aitcraft. So what exacally is the problem?Sam ov the blue sand 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reasons. First there is a difference between having only one source currently in the article and having only one source that could be used to build the article. Our policy is that content must be verifiable, not that it must be already cited. (An example article would be
    GRBerry 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I never get those essays I read that one and I still don't get all of what you're talking about sre you saying I should but those number things that lead to an external resource in the article?Sam ov the blue sand 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essay was to explain further why inconsistency exists. Basically, because the project is too big, with too many participants, to expect that either 1) everything has been reviewed or 2) that the same standards have been applied in each review of things reviewed.
If you have other
WP:CTT
(I think) gives the current preferred form for citing sources, but external links in the prose, external links in an external link or reference section, or a clear and complete citation of a printed published sources (books, etc...) can show us what other reliable sources there are. We all understand you to say that there is only one reliable source available that is independent of the game.
There is a difference between having sources available and using a source, and that is what the bit about our Geology article was supposed to show - it had external links, but not references, and those external links wouldn't have validated a large fraction of the article content. Even when it had no sources, they were available, so it was a valid article. With this topic, in the absence of sources, we don't think this stands a snowball's chance of survival. Even with sources, it would still have to comply to the various other standards mentioned in the AFD. But without reliable sources, this doesn't stand a chance on Wikipedia. I know there are some gaming wikis that might be happy to take it, I just don't know them myself.
GRBerry 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:BLP
violations and nominator has been indefinitely blocked – 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Patty Columbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColScott, including this diff.

Sources accurate (newspaper) Notability established...does not violate BLP since you cannot defame a triple murderer by definition Spawnopedia 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.I speedy deleted this as a recreation of
    Chick Bowen 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Coredesat, maybe you can learn something while roboting. BLP is about AVOIDING defamation of living people. Defamation involves destroying someone's reputation. By definition, a triple murderess in jail for 300 years HAS NO REPUTATION. Learn! Spawnopedia 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well, do some research people- it is NOT G5 since COLSCOTT created the page well before he was banned. Look at the history . Make up some other reason.Spawnopedia 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore it is very well sourced GRBERRY so G10 fails. It is not an attack page (how can you call a murderer being called a muderer an attack. So actually NONE of these are accurate. But let's see what you do. This will be right up there with Colbert. Spawnopedia 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looking again, I've found at least one version of the article that had some sources, however the cited sources do not verify all of the negative material in the article. So maybe the G10 reason is debatable. But the G12/G5 still stands; if Spawnopedia is ColScott, then the recent creations are after ColScott's ban and G5 applies, if Spawnopedia is not ColScott then a copyright violation is being committed and G12 applies. Since the right answer is deletion either way, we don't need to know the outcome of the suspected sock puppet report to know that this article needs to remain deleted.
    GRBerry 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment:
    WP:BLP is binding and unconditional. AecisBravado 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
So then please RIGHT THIS MINUTE go delete the Charles Manson article. It accuses him of horrible things, is not sourced AT all and he is a Living Being. Go on I 'll wait.Spawnopedia 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you are logical- BLP only exists to protect from defamation. If I say GW Bush humps children that is defamatory because we don't know he actually humps children. But if I write that Scooter Libby performed criminal acts- this doesn't violate BLP because, umm he did. So stating that Columbo is a triple murderess who traded anal sex for hitmen is not defamatory SINCE IT HAPPENED. I mean come one, learn about the world. Spawnopedia 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The monkey logic doesn't work here Berry. If I am ColScott, then the article SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DELETED TO BEGIN WITH. Go back to the history. It was deleted by Centrx because the article was by the banned COLSCOTT in direct VIOLATION of G5. So either I am REINSTATING an article that never should have been banned in the first place and I am not VIOLATING Col Scott's alleged and unenforceable copyright. You cannot make up nonsense situations to support nonsense. Or let me put this another way, Berry. If I go and write my own version of the article using the same sources and you gonna us G 56 to delete it? Spawnopedia 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion per GRBerry. The article massively fails
    WP:BLP. The fact that someone is strongly disliked by some members of society does not give us license to host their defamation. alphachimp 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of tools for static code analysis – Deletion endorsed, new article created – trialsanderrors 00:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of tools for static code analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

10 minutes of no discussion is not consensus. BTW I'm not sure about the reason, so I want a real discussion! Cate | Talk 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should only list Wikipedia articles, I fear. Any external links should be banned. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen discussion. Nothing was right about that close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing wrong with this article so long as it doesn't become a linkfarm like it was (of about 200 or so entries, less than 20 had Wikipedia articles). Ral315 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could someone copy the old article to temporary page? So I can create a category, thus avoiding the link spam problem. Also the new article seems to attrack spam. The deletion process was to fast to improve the situation. Cate | Talk 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:CSD#G4
deletion has occurred, so nothing to review – 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
And The World Goes 'Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

After I created an article for this notable off-Broadway revue of Kander and Ebb material, I was amazed to discover one once existed and was deleted after discussion by a number of people who don't seem to be particularly theater-oriented. I don't know what the original article's content was but I believe the one I created contains sufficient info to warrant its existence. SFTVLGUY2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As long as the text isn't the same from the original, you have no issue with it being speedy deleted, because it shouldn't qualify. Recommend speedy close as there's nothing to discuss here, but I do suggest the nom add some sources pronto. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history (which I've already done for now). The deleted article was mostly a song list and I can't say any great injustice was done by deleting it, although if the creator of the current article wants to dig it out and salvage what material was there that's fine too. Congrats to nom on creating a far better article than the previous one, although it does need sources. Perhaps this, mentioned in the AfD, might be helpful? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MfD – trialsanderrors 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|MfD
)

Admin decision was to merge. Have another look at the MFD, and you'll hardly find consensus to merge at all! 5 people wanted it merged, and yet there are 30-50 editors participating in this. Can someone PLEASE urgently have another look at the MFD before the page is entirely screwed up?! Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • XfDs are not votes. Interesting information, - will improve public relations, - valuable (without explaining why it is), and saying keep as per previous AfD/discussions are not
    going to impress the closing administrator. Believe it or not, there *was* consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relist - the merge was clearly not a result of the discussion, and with all the heated arguments and inappropriate actions that went on, t's easy for people to lose their heads - so the AfD ended with the wrong result for the wrong reason. Trying it again is the only logical action. WilyD 14:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Though this is essentially a worthless usage of the Wikipedia space (not even worth a merge in my opinion), and another AfD will probably be an ugly mess, there were enough problems with the earlier AfD that it should probably be done over. I have to agree with Nick though, the "consensus" was based on pretty weak reasoning and I agree with closure as a delete in principle because numerical counts are not nearly as important as strength of argument.--Isotope23 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazing! So in other words, we should be cowtowing to the closing admin? Amazing. So in other words, even if a whole bunch of people don't want it deleted, we ignore them. Has something changed on AFD? It appears to have changed from "consensus" to "who can make the best argument and make it sound great"! So, let the best orator win, I suppose? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above, although I'm very tempted to just say overturn given the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Incoherent close.
    Catchpole 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn close was entirely against the consensus reached.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse • Unencyclopedic content should not be on Wikipedia. Period. ✎
    Neutrality Project ) 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn, this was misclosed. There was no consensus for deletion; while bainer is welcome to suggest a merge, there was no consensus for that either. Had strong arguments been made for a particular outcome in the MFD, a closure other than no consensus might be reasonable, but there were no compelling arguments for any outcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa there. As a meta-topic, vandalism of the project which has been solicited or inspired by media figures has obvious merit. Of course it needs to be properly cited and stated neutrally, and maybe it should be on Meta not in the Wikipedia namespace, and maybe the title should be toned down a bit, but it's pretty clear that several people would like to preserve this content in a place where it does ont violate what is, to my eyes, the only policy it did violate in mainspace, which is self-reference. Why can't we discuss this calmly? If people object to the format or something then surely we can fix that without resorting to verbal fisticuffs? Guy (Help!) 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu. Several people in this debate keep referring to it as if it were AFD, which seems to show that they have not read the MFD. We are not here to rehash the MFD itself, merely the closure. That said, "Merge" was not a consensus opinion of the MFD, so Overturn (likely as no consensus, despite the AFD result) and take it to the talk page to figure out the next step. That may be merge after all, but that is not to be decided here and was not decided in the MFD in my opinion. -- nae'blis 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Let's try it again at MFD. I think the issue at hand isn't whether it's encyclopedic or not, but whether or not the deletion discussion was handled properly, which I don't think happened. I probably would vote delete in there, but regardless of what I think, Consensus must be respected. Just H 18:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist without votestacking and associated dramatics. The bainer's decision appeals to me, but I don't see a consensus for it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. My opinion is that it would be better if this were simply overturned without relisting this anywhere. This has already been subjected to one
    hostile to "keep" opinions, thanks largely to an increasing volume of argumentative responses to "keep" opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn Despite the legitimate concerns of votestacking, I feel it was unwise to not take into account that the AfD had an overwhelming consensus for keeping this but moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. Not too many people actually go through the MfD debates and the nomination should probably have been speedy closed given the very clear consensus of the initial debate. Pascal.Tesson 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist To clean up the mess with a fresh start. No side taken. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, allow relist. The deletes don't want it merged (I would prefer just a straight keep to that). The keeps don't either. No consensus there. -Amark moo! 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, it's clearly valid. No, the numbers don't point to merging. However, the numbers aren't important, and MfD is not a vote. A lot of people wanted to delete it saying it wasn't worth having a page for this, and a lot wanted to keep it saying it is useful information. A merge is a fair compromise in which the content is kept, pleasing the people who wanted it kept, but it's combined with another page, so there's no individual page for it, pleasing the people who wanted it kept. How is this not the best solution? --Rory096 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - merging is not a compromise, it's a seperate action. Milto LOL pia 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Admins are called on to interpret the debate. As Doc Glasgow says, in this case merger does accommadate most of the concerns expressed on both sides (even if not their bolded "votes"). Eluchil404 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want it merged. I much prefer a keep to a merge, so calling it a compromise, at least from my perspective, makes no sense. -Amark moo! 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the close was a decent one (from an outsider's perspective), it doesn't quite seem it was a consensus that could have been reached from the Mfd discussion. Of course, it should be noted that most people seem completely unwilling to compromise (whether through a merge or by addressing the issues that brought the article to Mfd), so a relist will merely result in some sort of shitty head count that will probably result in some form of keep. It's a bit troubling that deletion debates rarely result in compromise, but this will never change until Xfd becomes more than a head count. --- RockMFR 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That misses the fact that it isn't really a compromise. I wanted it deleted, but if we're assuming it will not be deleted, I want it just kept, not merged. How is it then a compromise to merge it? -Amark moo! 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this seems less like an attack against the media personalities.--Azer Red Si? 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable compromise. Why are people so upset about this anyway? >Radiant< 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure. As far as I can tell, the list was created in article space on 2 August 2006 by Ta bu shi da yu (the edit history was later moved, which is why the edit there seems to refer to Wikipedia namespace). It was PRODded by an IP address on 22 August with the comment "Do re [sic] really need this type of list around here, see
      this requested move - opened by ContiE on 21 November 2006, closed by Duja on 27 November 2006). The crossnamespace redirect was later (1 January 2007) deleted by CanadianCaesar. The Wikipedia namespace page was then put up at MfD recently (18 January 2007) by Azer Red (who thought it was a category). At the MfD the page creator mounted a vigorous defence. I (Carcharoth) suggested a compromise to merge to the normal Wikipedia in the news pages, which some people agreed with. The closing admin (bainer) went with the merge compromise and closed the MfD on 23 January 2007. The page creator took the MfD to DRV on 23 January 2007, just after I had added the merge tags and started a merge discussion here. And here we are, at the DRV. I think that is a fairly comprehensive history, though there are doubtless discussions of this in other corners of Wikipedia. Carcharoth 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Endorse closure per Nearly Headless Nick. JoshuaZ 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not my preferred outcome, but I can't see how running through the MFD again is likely to be helpful, and the result is within the bounds of admin discretion when closing such a debate. --pgk 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Everywhere Girl – Deletion endorsed by established editors, redirect set – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Preemptive reminder: The AFD resulting in deletion had to be courtesty blanked due to content therein. Use courtesy here so that doesn't have to occur again.

GRBerry 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Everywhere Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)
Everywhere girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Jennifer Chandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (3rd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chandra

High profile article, generates lots of interest

DLX 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Everywhere Girl article should be restored, as it is high-profile article that generates lots of user interest. While I am not a fan of "everywhere girl" - more like the opposite - it is painfully obvious that we are dealing with powerful Internet meme. Like the talk page says, this is a well known internet meme - and also a good example of what happens, when too many agencies use stock photos.
Also, deletion of this article has generated huge amounts of very bad publicity for Wikipedia. Accusations that deletion is a anti-Inquirer crusade of some administrators; articles and blog posts "What is wrong with Wikipedia" and more. I think that best solution would be just to restore the page.
DLX 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Restore Article --Lawdy 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement by DLX, and fully support the restoration of the Everywhere Girl article. --Lawdy 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse previous deletions and reviews absent any credible new evidence or reasoning. We know that
    some people like it, that was adequately addressed last time around. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn the previous decision. If proof is what is wanted, proof is what will be given.
Her image, used in the packaging of a wireless security kit.[61] Microsoft also saw fit to use another of her photos.[62][63] As have HP.[64]
Someone liked the look of it and used it on their book.[65] And the BBC still use it.[66] A discount card for students![67] TCF are on the bandwagon as well. [68] A company which produces caffeine pills saw fit to use one.[69]
Here's another website who keeps track.[70] They have nothing to do with the unmentionable inquirer, before someone asks.
I can trawl the internet and find more, if someone insists, but anyone can do it. Let it be known that I do not simply 'like' this meme. But denying its notability is absurd. This is not just another case of stock photography. These photos have been used and re-used by far too many companies and websites to count, and they are being used even today. It has endured far longer than other, less notable memes have (memes that have their mention in wikipedia I hasten to add). Perhaps this article keeps being remade and its deletion reviewed for good reason. If it is possible to interpret wikipedia policy to warrant the eradication of articles such as this, the policies themselves are at fault. I've said in the past that some administrators delete the article just because the inquirer popularized it, but I'll happily shut up and change my thoughts should I be proven wrong. The one reason I press the issue of this article is one of principle, not personal likes or dislikes. -Skorpus McGee 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to tell you that this is canonical
original research. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Is
DLX 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Because we can't use original research in the article, it is almost always useless for AFD and deletion review purposes. When the issue, as here, is whether there is adequate reliable sourcing to sustain an article, it is without practical use.
GRBerry 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Overturn. I fail to see why this article in particular is so undeserving of Wikipedi-ation, with so many other
    Internet Phenomena being considered acceptable. (It seems like a thread on SomethingAwful and Fark.com all that's needed for something to be listed there.) The Inquirer is already considered an "acceptable" news source, even if they don't have a print edition, and I can't think that anyone is seriously accusing The Inq. and/or the girl herself of setting this all up as some sort of viral marketting scheme. Furthermore, even if it wasn't originally deserving of an article, as a "meta-article" it certainly is (i.e., although IMO there are sufficient references to the phenomenon in and of itself, there appear to be even *more* references now specifically referring to the Wikipedia page controversy). There are plenty of other topics on Wikipedia more banal and without 97K hits about it on Google. Etcetera 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) — Jccleaver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
I have to disagree with the above tag of me as a "single purpose account". I've had an account on Wikipedia for over a year, and make edits when I feel I have something to contribute to a topic, or a correction to be made. What is the standard for an "spa"? 20 edits? 50 edits? 100 edits? Etcetera 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a discussion on the use of stock photography and consumer confusion in my Mass Media Structure class at the University of Washington this morning. The professor mentioned the "Everywhere Girl" phenomenon and many of us immediately searched Wikipedia for it and came up blank. It was only after Googling it that I found the information I needed. One argument for deletion--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chandra--mentions that Jennifer Chandra is not notable as she only has 300+ Google hits. Well, "Everywhere Girl" has 97,000 Google hits. I don't care if the information is merged into an existing article on The Inquirer but, if a search for "everywhere girl" turns up a blank page here, then I'm going to agree with David: Wikipedia failed me too. Ironmaus — Ironmaus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'd never heard of any of this "everywhere girl" business until this morning. (I'm given to understand I should be ashamed of myself for that, but oh well.) Anyway, I read a news article that offhandedly mentioned her. Being curious, I came to my trusty source for up-to-the-minute reference information... Wikipedia. But what? Article deleted?! WIKIPEDIA FAILED ME. I don't know what this debate is about, or what prompted the article to be deleted. Having still not found a single word of content about the mysterious "everywhere girl," I will now have to turn to Google and other websites to find out what all this is really about. What does that tell you about whether or not this article should be restored? David Norris 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)— David Norris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Notable enough to make it into an online dictionary. Restore!

Over Turn!!! If the everywhere girl cant be here why can this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_baby

  • undelete this article please there are multiple sources available now yuckfoo 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this pontificating about what constitutes policy and doesn't constitute policy is putting me right off WP. I came here tonight to look for info on Everywhere Girl, and couldn't find it. I look here to see why it had been deleted, and see all this rubbish about policy. Does it really hurt for the page to be here? Really? I think WP is in danger of disappearing up its own rectum if things carry on like this. I don't know why some of you insist on complicating things. Its a wiki, nothing more, and you are in danger of alienating people. I vote for restoration. I also vote for people to chill out a bit. --Amdsweb 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What made you interested in the Everywhere Girl tonight, doc? Dionyseus 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Memes. The concept of mems interests me, and after reading about the B3ta memes such as 'The Fear', et cetera looking around for other visual memes brought me to the Everywhere Girl. Is that OK? --Amdsweb 08:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse and keep There now enough mentions to establish this as a cultural icon. I'm judging on the subject, I didnt see the article, but everyone who sees a computer magazine has seen the picture. Though we might not have a GFDL image, we could link to an image. And one could make a case for fair use on the basis that the image itself is a new item. In fact, there are enough sources for a new article: the Everywhere girl-Wikipedia controversy. This is a case of using common sense to avoid letting WP look more foolish than it already has.DGG 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, we use secondary sources. If we consider The Inquirer a primary source (they created and sustained it, and no reliable source picked on this meme since), then no, there is no way to verify this. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly certain that it was only popularized by the Inquirer, not created. So, technically, two reliable sources (at least) have picked up on this, and it is verifiable. The question at this point is notability, which is simply irritating. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Inquirer was the place that "discovered" her, one of their writers the one who coined the term for the first time (according to the deleted article). -- ReyBrujo 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I like the proposed idea of merging into The Inquirer. If you want to put it in a way, it is their "symbol". If so, I suggest converting Everywhere Girl and Jennifer Chandra into redirects to The Inquirer, protecting them if necessary. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That idea has possibilities. -- Zanimum 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this is a notable internet meme. Yes the Inquirer found her, but I've heard her mentioned on many other internet sites. Just restore and put this silly thing to rest. --Pboyd04 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which internet sites? Dionyseus 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding request. Blogs and forums aren't enough, they need to be notable sites. -- Zanimum 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another source to add to those mentioned already. The Stock Asylum - it is accepted as a news source by Google News.

—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.117 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]

Could you explain how a single 4 word claim is non-trivial? JoshuaZ 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the meaning of these four words are clear to most native speakers of English,
Kappa 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


  • SOURCES - a list of sources for all those who have requested them

The Inquirer (obviously) 50 or more stories here

The Stock Asylum - This publication is accepted as a news source by Google News. They use the term 'Everywhere Girl' in their story. They do not mention the Inquirer.

The Stock Artists Alliance, a global trade organization of stock photographers, reported on the phenomenon. Notably they did not use the term 'Everywhere Girl' and they did not refer to the Inquirer (you can perhaps imagine how unsuitable internet search tech is for finding stuff like this). The organization sent letters to Dell, Gateway, etc. warning them that they had used the same stock photos. [76] (linked pdf documents may require internet explorer)

Urban Dictionary

The San Antonio Express-News here, requires a subscription to access the archives.

Engadget Story referring to Dell/Gateway Girl. It does not mention the Inquirer or the "Everywhere Girl" - The Inquirer was not the source for this story (although it was the source for an earlier Engadget story). In fact, the website discovered by Engadget, applyesl.com cannot even be found on the Inquirer site. Engadget is accepted as a news source by Google News.

As well all these sources, a simple Google search for phrases like "Everywhere Girl", "dell girl", "getty girl", and so on will find many, many other references. But it seems from the preceeding discussion that many of these websites, such as Ecademy or GigaOM, are defined by Wikipedians as 'blogs' or 'forums' - even though they contain original, verifiable research - and therefore they are regarded as totally irrelevant to this debate... and on that note, I hope you'll forgive me for adding that whatever the outcome of this sorry little debate, this is the last hour of my life I'll ever waste fixing Wikipedia's admin problems. Goodbye. -g 218.102.23.91 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Additional sources - sorry if these are already covered, or seem irrelevant by some. Yes, many are blogs, but some are professional photo oriented websites, and a researcher. So, whatever.. References in support of inclusion:

http://www.rbloch.net/index.php/weblog/more/everywhere_you_look/ http://www.brianbehrend.com/archives/2004/09/more_stock_foot.php http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=57857 http://www.joeycoleman.ca/archives/2005/04/16/u_of_m_dell_everywhere_girl.html http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Christian_Fundamentalists_upset_the_Everywhere_Girl http://www.visualeditors.com/forum/archive/the-story-of-everywhere-girl-5078.htm http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2005/stupid-stock-photography/ http://ligsy.stumbleupon.com/tag/the-everywhere-girl/ http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~rory/gallery/ http://brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ev/everywhere_girl.html http://www.luckypix.com/blogger/2006/05/stock-photo-girls.html http://commercial-archive.com/112042.php http://researcher.se/archives/2004/08/igen/ http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/11/wsj-on-companies-use-of-nonexclusive.html

While the below WSJ article doesn't mention The Everywhere Girl as a specific example, it does highlight the stock photo overuse trend, for which TEG is the best tracked example. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-M7qaK32f_P0exg6tqL_QMsu6caM_20071128.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top --Wiremold 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the Source list above The problem with these third party sources is that they most of them do not meet
    WP:RS
    or are not non-trivial in nature. Lets take a look at them:
The Stock Asylum What you have here is a brief mention in an article. Trivial in nature.
The Inquirer], while The Inquirer is a reliable source and most of the articles are non-trivial in nature, they are the source that basically named and manufactured this story. For the purposes here I think the Inquirer needs to be viewed as 1 non-trivial source regardless of how many stories they have about this.
Urban Dictionary Not even close to a reliable source.
here The San Antonio Express-News] I can't see the whole story, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and call it a non-trivial source.
Engadget Brief blurb... never mentions "Everywhere Girl" by name. To me this is pretty trivial coverage.
Wiremold's list. Going through these it is a series of blogs, a Wikpedia mirror, and a Digg with a whopping 4 Diggs. There isn't one reliable source in there.
At this point there still isn't adequate evidence to support the theory that this is a widely known meme, which is really the only way this should be restored. There are exactly 2 reliable sources. Where is any evidence that this has become pervasive in any way ala Leeroy Jenkins (who I'd never heard of before this DRV, but in reading the article it is pretty clear how LJ constitutes a pervasive meme)? Mentioning "Everywhere Girl" at Stock Photography or The Inquirer with a link to one (or both) of the reliable sources that have been provided would be fine, but at this point there is simply no evidence to support a standalone article on the idea that she as an individual is notable or that her "Everywhere Girl" persona constitutes a meme.--Isotope23 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deletion
  • Overturn and undelete. There are now enough third party sources to fulfill notability and verifiability requirements. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. No consensus shown during the debate for deletion. No valid reason given to discount the keep voters. Hence overturn close. --JJay 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the fact that most of the Keep !voters ran along the
WP:ILIKEIT or "seems notable to me" line of reasoning I would say that is a pretty good reason to discount many of them in the original AfD.--Isotope23 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Smoothbeats – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Smoothbeats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article contains notable content, hastily deleted before content added Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to appeal the protected deletion of the article Smoothbeats.

Smoothbeats.com is a non-profit internet radio station dedicated to supporting independent artists, running on custom-written open source software which runs many large popular internet radio stations.

  • The article was initially created as a stub outline about a week ago, but was marked for speedy deletion less than an hour later, before any content could be filled in.
  • Content was soon added and the speedy deletion tag was removed, only to result in a repremand for removing the tag.
  • The speedy deletion tag was added back in and contested, only to have the article deleted for lack of notable content.
  • The article was recreated with more notable content, discussion of key technoogies used, meta-links to numerous related articles, and contributions to open source development, only to have the article deleted once again for lack of citations to backup any claims.

I'm curious as to which claims were made that need to be backed up by citations... I suppose that the claim of being an internet radio station could be backed up by citing hundreds of messageboard posts and blog entries that mention Smoothbeats, but simply clicking on the external link to the radio station and tuning in should suffice to prove its existance. Nobody has written any articles on our free open source broadcasting solution (except us), but that lack of documentation doesn't refute the claim that we developed it.

Most importantly, I'm confused as to how this article on an internet radio station is any less notable than these other 168 articles in the Internet radio category, almost none of which provide any significant content other than a blurb on who they are and a link to their web site.

Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Since I was the deleting admin, I have no idea if I can vote or not. But I would obviously vote for delete. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as deleter - I deleted the article because it had been deleted twice before and it was non notable. So So many Internet Radio stations. We can't include them all nor should we. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The two sources cited above are trivial mentions, which leaves the Billboard thing as the only good one. We need another. -Amark moo! 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no credible claim to
    encyclopaedic notability. This is not in any way a judgement on the value of the subject, only on whether we can cover it within our policies. We can't. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

January 2007 (UTC).

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

22 January 2007

Tubcat – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tubcat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|1st AfD - 2nd AfD)

This article was AfD'd, no consensus. AfD'd again, and deleted because lack of proof of notability. It turns out that the

Washington Times devoted an article to Tubcat and a "Russian challenger" on March 6, 2003. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=tubcat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Thus, one can assume other legitimate references to it exist, making this article verifiable and more notable. -- Zanimum 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rusty trombone – Keep closure endorsed – trialsanderrors 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rusty trombone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD - 2nd AfD)

Article was kept after its second AfD proposal. Was kept for "I Like It" reasons. Reasons for deletion are: 1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_trombone_%282nd_nomination%29. 2) Precedent set by Keep is very bad. Prairie Muffins (preserved here) was exceedingly better cited but deleted. CyberAnth 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. No one except you argued for deletion, this is obviously a well-known term, I find multiple references in an Amazon search. For the record, I think the AfD on "Prairie Muffins" was poorly done, and should have gone in the direction of this one. You have nothing to worry about regarding precedent, BTW, we don't do precedent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The community decision to retain this appeared to be... unanimous. RFerreira 04:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. There is no other possible way an admin could have closed this. You simply can not close an AfD as delete when only the nominator argues for deletion. -Amark moo! 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can can do it by following the policies. Are you saying that so long as I get enough people to "Keep" my way I can get 'bout near anything into WP? CyberAnth 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, if you also manage to keep away all but one person saying to delete. Which is considerably harder. -Amark moo! 04:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I see nothing out of order with the closing of the afd.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per RFerreira and Amarkov. One might reasonably argue, I suppose, that, were every keep !vote entirely silent on policy and the interpretation thereof propounded by the nominator, relisting might be in order in view of the AfD's being conducted without respect to overriding policies for which a consensus plainly exists, but here several participants addressed the arguments for deletion essayed, and I imagine that any close other than keep would have been wholly without merit. Joe 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Relist in a while if you like, it is unsourced after two AfDs. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with that. The article's editors should please take heed. Multiple good sources are the solution. CyberAnth 10:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, what will have changed 'in a while'? Will the article be better sourced, or are we just hoping for a different closing admin at the end of the five days? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're hoping that if it truly should be deleted, more than one person will say so. -Amark moo! 15:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What will have changed "in a while" is that people won't !vote "keep, we only just kept this" and might instead focus on the article itself. I'd have !"voted "delete" as I habitually do for previosly AfDd articles which still have no sources second time round, and for which I can't be arsed to find sources myself. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Nominator explicitly asked for reliable sources in the nomination, none currently in the article, none of the keep proponents provided any and consequently all of their !votes are a waste of server space. Unambiguously should have been closed as delete without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno. This is pretty much an exact copy of the
    Cleveland steamer debate: an essentially dicdef sex-act article that gets kept on the basis of "pop culture references" and claims that "WP is not censored, so we can't delete this". Those debates never go anywhere, and I don't see this going anywhere either. This article is far worse in the sourcing department, though. WarpstarRider 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn per Sam Blanning. Come on... find some sources. WP:V is not optional. --W.marsh 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annoyed endorse but probably should be relisted ASAP. Since it was basically unanimous, there's really no other way the admin could possibly have closed it, so no process problems here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? DRV is pretty good at endorsing closures made according to policy rather than vote count. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Unanimous keep. Issues with reliable sources are trivial, as sources do obviously exist. Go look for them. You'll find them if you want to find them. Consensus among most editors is that sources do exist for this, just everyone is too lazy to look. The same can be said for tens of thousands of other articles which are unsourced but would get through Afd without problems. --- RockMFR 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sources exist, why haven't they (apparently) been mentioned in the article, the afd or the DRV? Watch who you call lazy...
      WP:V puts the burden of proof on the people who want to keep content. Alas we've voted to ignore that. --W.marsh 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • They've been mentioned here. I haven't added them yet more because I haven't exactly been in a position to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Claiming "multiple references in an Amazon search" is different than citing them in the article... at any rate, looking at the Amazon results, it's mostly T-shirts. The book references (that aren't speaking purely about Jazz musicians) seem like passing mentions in fiction that do not even define the term, much less give useful information on it. I don't want to debate WP:RS here, the fact is that I'm just not seeing the reliable information to write an article on this topic... and vague claims that it exists aren't helping. I'm not even understanding what information we would use to write an article here... South Park Episodes? Stuff our buddies told us over beers back in college? Just not what I think of as reliable stuff, in the context of making factual claims about the history and usage of a term. --W.marsh 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why did the process of this AfD fail? One of the largest misconceptions among Wikipedians is that consensus trumps policies. It does not. Per
    WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus vs. other policies, "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles". Thus, whenever a consensus is reached that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles, the consensus is simply illegitimate. A consensus to "Keep" an article that fails Wikipedia's basic policies and principles is thus illegitimate. CyberAnth 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is most certainly illegitimate, but that doesn't produce a delete consensus either. And articles need a consensus to delete to actually be deleted. -Amark moo! 05:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh not really. I've closed "unanimous keeps" as deletes without controversy, the cases the jump to mind are ones where the article was a copyvio no one had noticed, clearly we can't just vote to violate copyright. But there are some less obvious cases. The point is that consensus isn't a suicide pact... CyberAnth is right that the consensus produced by an AfD is illegitimate if it calls for doing something obviously against our policies or even copyright law. But going against consensus in closing an AfD is certainly something that needs to be done very carefully and sparingly. --W.marsh 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, if there is a copyvio, it should be deleted anyway, but that's a speedy criterion. I don't think that you should close near-unanimous keep AfDs as delete in any other case, though, because it's highly unlikely someone didn't consider the policies and think they were met. -Amark moo! 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - the AFD got this one wrong - the one and only source is the Urban Dictionary ... that's not exactly reliable. Consensus cannot override policy. --BigDT 06:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure pretty much per Starblind. Although I agree the provided source's reliability is dubious, a quick check with Google will immediately confirm that the term is in use. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Either way this would have come to DRV, right? Silensor 12:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure per Alkivar. I've also added some references that verify it is a sex act. VegaDark 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse closure and keep. The discussion was almost unanimous. There is also the media use, supported by an increasing number of references. Opposition may perhaps be influenced by an NPOV attitude to non-orthodox human sexuality articles. Is there any way to keep it from being proposed it again and again until there eventually comes by chance a time when people aren't alert? DGG 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

21 January 2007

IS group – Request withdrawn – 01:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IS group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

OVERTURN Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group). I am a new newbie, interested in cognitive science. I ran across this one and was fascinated. As a newbie, I did not enter into the deletion discussion. If I had, here is what I would have said. Keep. Notability is clear. Reliable sources are adequate, but thin. The discussion was cool. I found it to be more fun and interesting than many other Wikipedia entries that I read. As a newbie, I was troubled that no one mentioned Please do not bite the newcomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers) and Be bold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages). The latter refers to updating pages, but as a newbie I would also encourage support for newbies being bold about adding quality information. This particular entry is of considerable interest (at least to those in cognitive science), reasonably sourced, definitely notable, and another newbie's first attempt at adding content to Wikipedia. Don't bite the newcomers. | Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion per valid AfD, and problems regarding
    WP:BOLD also offers no deletion protection... indeed, the fact that articles can be deleted is one of the reasons why it's possible to be bold in creating them! To sum up, valid AfD, no reason given to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AfD. I'm going to go off on a tangent now...
  • AAARGH. STOP CITING
    WP:BITE IN SUPPORT OF NEWBIE CONTRIBUTIONS NEVER BEING DELETED. That is not even close to what it says. -Amark moo! 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm sorry, perhaps I was misunderstood. I didn't mean to imply that because the item was by a newbie it should not be deleted. What I meant was that after carefully reading the discussion for this item, I felt that some editors were unduly mean to the newbie in their comments and (as a newbie myself) I was concerned enough to propose this deletion review. Also, if there is any possibility for gentle consideration of newbie entries, this should be kept in mind to encourage newbies to participate and keep coming back and keep improving the quality of their work. (From
      WP:BITE -- — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism). For myself, I have almost no experience editing Wikipedia items, but plenty of experience reading them. I have looked into this item a little bit and have some experience with some of the information referred to in the item. There are at least (what I would consider to be) 2 reliable sources to provide verifiability (some would argue with this, and have). There is significant notability and importance for at least a portion of the information. Other information in the item could use editing and, perhaps, removal. There are COI issues, but considering the newbie status, and the value of the information presented, they do not seem compelling enough to require deletion. Looking at the background of the originator of the entry, it would seem that Wikipedia would embrace individuals with such expertise. I do not deny that these issues are arguable or problematic, but not enough to convince me that this item should be deleted. On balance I think that this one is a keeper and deletion should be overturned. Please note that I don't feel this way about all Wikipedia articles, and have proposed deleting some. | Noticket 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The problem is that people being unduly mean does not mean they are wrong, so it's insufficient grounds for a deletion review. And while I respect your opinion, the fact is, the AfD shows that consensus goes against your opinion. -Amark moo! 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with you -- being mean does not mean that those who provided comments are wrong. I am not disagreeing with the opinions or expertise of those who have weighed in on this issue. I am suggesting that greater civility should be encouraged. For example, if your AAARGH comment, above, was directed at my earlier comment, I do not see the necessity in your responding that way. It smacks of elitism. I already admitted to being a newbie prior to that, and thus am unfamiliar with your concerns with this issue, should you have any. Further, as a newbie, my concern about this particular entry is that the attitudes of some of the editors of the original entry, particularly their apparent elitism and arrogance (see, as just one example, the final addition on brevity, which appears to suppress the need for further discussion and communication), appear to my mind to indicate that they may have their own issues that prevented them from giving this particular entry sufficient consideration. I certainly am not saying that I am right and they are wrong. I am suggesting that perhaps the consensus has gone the way it has is because the issues here are complex and need to be looked at more carefully than they have been up to this point. There are clearly concerns about the entry. All of the concerns that have been raised appear to me to be legitimate. At the same time, this particular entry appears to be more on the edge than any I have previously looked at, and its creation was possibly hampered by its being the first entry of a newbie who was arguably unaware of appopriate policies and procedures. Still, on balance, my preference would be to not throw away the baby with the bathwater. I feel that this particularly entry has enough going for it that it should not be deleted, but should be reinstated, be edited, and then improved by community input. Finally, as stated before, the entire process would be improved if experienced editors tried as hard as possible to not be snide or curt when dealing with newbies (or anyone else for that matter). You are not going to improve the quality of Wikipedia if you chase away those who are trying, in their own stumbling ways, to make valuable contributions. | Noticket 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that I am the original creator of the IS group entry and have an (unintentional) COI with the entry. Sorry about that. Thus, I will not be working on this one again. Couldn't agree more about the civility comments. It certainly has made me question my interest in the Wikipedia enterprise. At an editor's suggestion, some content will be moved elsewhere. Ddp224 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, sorry, the more well-reasoned comments on AfD were right: we would need non-trivial external sources. Please don';t be too disillusioned, what you have discovered is that Wikipedia is populated by humans, with all that entails. Sometimes it's great, other times it sucks badly. I suspect that your being here would improve the great-to-suck ratio, which is all any of us can do. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy, thanks for the kind words -- they are greatly appreciated. I also thank all of those who provided comments -- I have learned a lot from them. The problems with the IS group entry were entirely my fault. Because this was my first entry, I was misled by my previous experience using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and information resource. At the time I was also completely unfamiliar with the rules. Based on my experience and familiarity with Wikipedia entries up to that point, I had (mistakenly) thought that Wikipedia was a more "open" resource than its rules, unfortunately, allow it to be and thought that notability, verifiability, etc., could be established in other ways than Wikipedia presently considers to be appropriate. Because of the non-controversial and potentially useful content, I also did not understand, at that time, that COI or original research would be a problem. It was pretty clear to me then that many entries (if not most) are started and edited by individuals that Wikipedia would presently consider to be too close to the item -- I continue to believe that this can be a useful way to get entries started and to get individuals involved in the process. Also, I mistakenly assumed that these matters, if problematic, would be handled by the market forces and the ability of those reading the entry to change it and edit it in ways they saw fit. At that point in time, that is what my naive view of what Wikipedia was -- my understanding has since changed. My intent was to add value to Wikipedia by adding what I felt was an entry of unusual scientific interest and importance. As suggested by a Wikipedia editor, the IS group entry has been moved to Wikinfo, where it arguably more appropriately belongs, given Wikipedia's current policies. I am not disillusioned by my Wikipedia experience, though I will admit that my IS group experience has been a lot more fun and informative than has been my Wikipedia experience. I expect that I will continue to add to Wikipedia in appropriate instances and, hopefully, in appropriate ways. I was a little taken aback, however, by the needless rudeness of certain editors and their apparent lack of knowledge, which, in my mind, diminishes the quality of the enterprise. I hope that policies like verifiability and original research become more open in the future in Wikipedia, providing greater flexibility, and providing opportunities or exceptions for contributions where notability of the contributors and/or topic can be established in other ways. The quality and value of the information should be primary, not just the rules. In one of my former lives I used to be a regulator and very much understand the pitfalls of being driven or obsessed by the rules and regulations while ignoring common sense -- the unintended consequences can sometimes be enormous. Rules often have exceptions and frequently change. Again, thank you for your very kind words and for taking the time to look at the history of this particular entry and its demise. Ddp224 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would make an exception for this one, but will withdraw my request for a Deletion Review, if that is allowable. | Noticket 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – trialsanderrors 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Closed as delete. Delete votes were not properly weighed - besides "kick it in the pants," many cited a historical guideline proposal, the rest claimed "no notability" although keep suggestions indicated the obvious "notability" of a charting single. Deletion must be overturned badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion valid AfD. Do you have any evidence to back up your accusation that "delete votes were not properly weighed"? While I'm not sure I would have voted to delete this myself, I don't see anything wrong with the debate or its closing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the obvious evidence is that when people say "not notable," and then people show various information that confers "notability," that proper weight wasn't given. I did ask the closing admin, and his/her response was that s/he "felt that the Delete votes were more convincing, and they were more numerous, suggesting vote counting and that s/he feels that a blanket "non-notable" is "more convincing" that verifiable facts about chart positions and true "notability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as
        WP:MUSIC, which doesn't cover this at all. That it is obvious to you is nice, but apparently it wasn't obvious to everyone in the discussion. I'm therefore unsure how this is out of process when the only policy/guideline it seems to be violating is WP:ALLCHARTINGSINGLESARENOTABLE. GassyGuy 19:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Jeff, your reasoning seems to be based on an assumption that any charting song is explicitly guaranteed an article. Not so.
        WP:MUSIC is pretty clear that charting shows notability in artist articles, but whether the individual songs themselves get their own articles isn't spelled out in any policy or guideline that I know of. Hence the AfD debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • ...thus my point. Unless the debate works around "not notable" without any evidence being greater than "this is why it's notable," there's abolutely no way anyone could say that the delete suggestions could be "more convincing." They had no argument. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, "this is why it's notable" is based on personal opinion that charting = notability. "Not notable" is the opinion that that's not true. The burden of proof is never on the folks saying it should be deleted to prove that it isn't notable, but rather for irrefutable evidence to be presented that it is. The basic arguments are between, "It charted, therefore it is notable" (which is a personal opinion, not a policy) and "Its chart position is not enough to establish notability" (which is also not a policy). Nobody in the discussion had any real Wikipedia grounding. GassyGuy 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No one's saying that anyone had any real policy or guideline on their side, though. But when there's no guiding document, and one side says "this is X because of Y and Z," and the other says "No, it's not," which side is stronger? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither one by my reckoning. GassyGuy 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Interesting analysis. I don't get it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I will try to explain, but I honestly don't think it's worthwhile. "X is notable because of Y" is an opinion. There is nothing that actually validates this premise. Therefore, it cannot be assigned a value of true. The argument there is "I believe X is notable because of Y." "Y does not establish X's notability" is also an opinion. There is no way to actually prove Y is an insufficient criterion to establish notability. When there's no policy which officially affirms that Y is sufficient, nor a policy which actually establishes than more than Y is necessary to establish notability, neither side actually has a very strong case. GassyGuy 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Like I said, I don't get it. i guess we disagree, but I don't think WP:IDONTTHINKSO should ever trump actual efforts to demonstrate "notability" in the absence of a guiding principle. One of the many reasons why "notability" has to get junked sometime sooner rather than later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need something to prevent people from making articles on random things based on government records of existence, though. -Amark moo! 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The keep opinions were far stronger than the delete opinions. The first five opinions seem to be completely invalid- two were based on some fantasy policy that songs are only notable if there is a corresponding article for the artist/album. One !vote ("boot it in da pants") gave no reason at all. Weirdoactor's comment suggests both deleting and merging (impossible action due to GFDL), and gives no reason for either action. Uioh's comment seems to suggest deleting solely because the article was too short- that's not a valid reason for deletion. A decent discussion actually begins at badlydrawnjeff's comments. There seems to be no consensus whether the subject's claim to notability is good enough, so the only conclusion to the Afd would have been "no consensus". --- RockMFR 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It was shown why it was notable, and in response, the delete arguments were that it... fails a proposal which never managed consensus, that it doesn't fail anyway? -Amark moo! 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, very few people actually cited
    WP:NSONGS (and yes, it would have failed that). The discussion was based on whether simply charting on any chart is enough to be notable. There's no policy which says one way or the other. I really don't care if this is overturned, but that notability was somehow "established" simply isn't true. GassyGuy 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hercules Cycle and Motor Company – Withdrawn – 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hercules Cycle and Motor Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article deleted as alleged copyright violation, however content this cited was not duplicated from the external webpage - facts were taken from there, and other content based upon that site but rewritten 'in my own words' (as per WP copyright policy), and this was also combined with content from two other sources.

The admin who deleted the page,

nothanks-sd
}}) on my talk page to notify me - or even let me know which page it was that the problem was with, just left a non-specific accusatory message.

Rather than specifying any particular sections of the article with which Centrx had a problem he (or she) just deleted the entire article.

Article appears to have been speedily deleted - it doesn't appear to have been listed on the Copyright Problems page (

WP:CP
) prior to deletion or had an RFD.

Note that the page the information was sourced from, http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/hercules.htm, has been altered recently. The older version is (at the time of writing) available in the Google cache.

Mauls 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, nearly every paragraph if not every paragraph is copied verbatim from that website, in both the new and older version of the website. You should also review your other contributions to make sure they are not copied as well. You cannot undelete a copyright infringement. (Note: see also OTRS complaint). —Centrx→talk • 15:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my recollection of the work I did is obviously at odds with the above - and I'm at the disadvantage that I can't see the article anymore to compare. Given that, I've recreated the article from the notes I used last time. I still remain critical of Centrx's approach though - not helpful and not constructive. Mauls 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffrey Mishlove – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jeffrey Mishlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The admin Jaranda abruptly closed

WP:IAR as his(?) primary justification. The majority of those who voted in the brief RFD period before Jaranda closed it voted to "keep" the article. The article was in the midst of active discussion and revision by good faith editors (admittedly, it had some problems with unsourced material). However, it is clear that Mishlove is a well-established figure in the world of parapsychology. A large number of verifiable books and articles by Mishlove were documented, he is the host of a national television program, there is evidence that he holds a unique PhD in Parapsychology from UC Berkeley and his been the subject of magazine articles, there are 36,000 "google" hits for the guy. I request that the article be restored. BTfromLA 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Response Re: the "abrupt" closure--in the few occasions that I've gotten involved in AfD discussions, they went on for a couple of weeks if there was a continuing discussion without clear consensus. If the policy has changed, and the idea now is that the door slams shut at the stroke of five days no matter what, then that's my error--I was not aware of that change in procedure. But I don't really see what the point of the AfD is if the admin is going to come along and unilaterally decide the fate of the article. Clearly, the only possible interpretations of the consensus of that vote were "keep" or "undecided." If admins are going to disregard the "keep" votes, as Jaranda did, why invite non-admins into the process at all? Re: reliable sources about Mishlove: I don't have time to ferret out much detail (this was not my article--I don't have a particular interest in the guy), but a cursory internet search reveals a review of his book "The PK man" by Stephen E. Braude in The Journal of Parapsychology, June, 2001; a June, 1998 review in the same journal by Larry Dossey which lists Mishlove among the "most prominent persons in parapsychology"; He appears as a subject on the "Coast to Coast AM" website, and apparently has been the focus of at least one episode of that radio program (one of the more widely syndicated radio shows in the US and Canada); the deleted article stated that Psychology Today ran a piece on him and his unique degree in October, 1980 (I don't have the ability to confirm that from my home computer); and despite one user's arguments to the contrary, I'm not convinced that Mishlove's claim to be the only person ever to recieve a PhD in parapsychology from an accredited US university should be rejected. A copy of the document, the list of his dissertation committee members, and a description of the program which permitted him to create this unique degree program are online. The guy has authored or co-authored several easily verifiable books, some published by major presses, including Ballantine, while addressing a "fringe" specialty. There aren't many professional, academically trained parapsychologists in the world, even fewer with TV interview shows. I think he surpasses the notability level of many of the subjects awarded an entry in Wikipedia. But my main concern is with the administrative swooping down and undermining the process of discussion and revision. BTfromLA 11:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My fault for the
    wat's sup 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion. Assertions that there are sources are unconvincing. You must provide the sources. -Amark moo! 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the same results would occur again but have no objection to re-discussion. I voted delete in good part on the basis that--more than just no RS--, there was evidence of error at the least as i found objective evidence from the standard list of phd degrees that there were about 40 more of them in his field, which is not a trivial mistake by a guy claiming to be the only one. He claims to have run a major interview series, but strangely enough nobody else has ever mentioned it. If that sort of evidence doesn't count, then we have the evidence on the other side that one of the editors has frequently seen his name on a signboard in front of his research institute/university. DGG 03:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beating a dead horse: DGG, I appreciate your willingness to re-open the discussion, and am frankly baffled by the attitude of the group of admins who've weighed in here. Apropos your argument, did you look at that copy of Mishlove's PhD? He is clearly claiming a PhD for research IN Parapsychology, not about it or mentioning it. So, either he indeed has this unique credential, or he has been perpetrating an outright fraud for years--it's not a matter of exaggeration or prevarication, the online degree states on its face that it is in Parapsychology, and he puts it that way in his bio (and a list of his dissertation committee is supplied below the scan of the certificate, along with a description of the interdisiplinary PhD program that permitted him to structure such a degree). BTfromLA 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the abstracts, there were clearly other programs that permitted people to arrange the structure of the committee and to fit dissertations in this field. There is no use of the word which does not establish him as either careless or lying. Now, neither of these are reasons to keep anyone out of WP, but it does cast some doubt about other matters relying to any extent on his word , and the details will have to be rexamined for RS. DGG 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to recreate if reliable sources can be found (and I suspect they can). Actually, I'd like to see the history to be sure, but it sounds like the article was fairly dubious, and the deletion was (at least barely) within policy. But I've definitely heard of the guy, so I'm pretty sure that there are sources out there, somewhere, and I suspect he's probably notable enough to meet WP:BIO. But even so, if I assume good faith on all sides, I have to assume that a re-creation from scratch (from sources) would be better than an undeletion. Xtifr tälk 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nihilist anarchism – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nihilist anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

This deletion review is about the term "

nihilist anarchism" which is claimed to be a "neologism" by user Tothebarricades. I dispute this with sourcing and notes. Others claim this is in "essay" form, which is incorrect. It is an expression of the notes that I placed during the deletion. I understand that cleanup was necessary for the article, but I also feel that attempts to achieve cleanup were not taken seriously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist anarchism and no attempt was made to engage my points while I was attempting a clean up, a summary of this can be found at Talk: Nihilist anarchism
and is detailed below:

  • According to the rules on deletion, users are to Be bold in updating pages

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold; it's all right. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.

Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be. Bring out all information that you can."

This is also asked of administrators and was not attempted. The "discussion" on deletion failed to bring up any direct points that were questionable. Original content was claimed to be the problem, but nothing was cited, so the entry could not be fixed to avoid deletion. No suggestions were made. Based on the rules for consensus, all are to agree, though administration determines "consensus", this did not occur. If specific points were brought up they could've been answered, like most entries, cleanup would've been possible. Information was verified with sources, original content was dismissed by notes and there was a neutral point of view that did not present bias, touching all the key points for deletion, removing a basis for it. Rough consensus was also not achieved. Dominance in discussion was not weighed properly, attempts to clean up were made during the deletion process and no conversation challenged my attempts to clean-up. According to the rules of Rough consensus Administrators are to determine dominance. However that dominance has some guidelines which were ignored ""dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course)." A general sense of agreement cannot be determined when there was no attempt to engage any of my points. "*Delete" over and over is "persistance" without substance. I offered a quality response to these calls, but there wasn't even an attempt to dismiss my points. I am logging administrative abuse because of this.Brokendoor 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting an undeletion and I am willing to be bold in cleaning up this entry. I can note the "neologism", I can change the name to "nihilist anarchy", I can shorten the entry by linking to the appropriate histories of the Russian

Post-left anarchy and Green anarchism. I can write up a critique of civilization using a variety of sources connected with the previous mentioned entries, which also plays a part in developing this tendency. Also, I can count in the influences from Postmodernism and other theories that fall around Existentialism and Nihilism
. However here I would detail differences between the theories as well as similiarities.

Basically, this disserves review at the least, reinstatement if possible and I am willing to work with administrators with this because I am proposing an entry in a practicing form of anarchy that draws influences from a variety of sources, which have been implied as similiar, but have only formented as both an influence (like most anarchist theories in the U.S.) and a specific tendency several years ago. The announcement that this tendency was real and defined occurred in "Nihilism, Anarchy, and the 21st Century" by Aragorn! an editor of Anarchy magazine and contributor to Green Anarchy magazine. John Zerzan and other editors of "Green Anarchy" also play a part in its developing growth and some (not John Zerzan) have identified as nihilists in this magazine and other journals. There have also been several articles written that are posted online that pretain directly to nihilist anarchy that aren't found at pistolsdrawn.org, such as High Priest Wombat's "Nihilism and Women" and Felonious Skunk's Contributing to Momentum Against Civilization. This is an attempt to expose this development.

Journals like

Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed discuss this tendency at length and they are the first and second largest anarchist magazine distributed in the United States. I also feel that WikiProject Deletion
or Deletionism caused a rush on the process which was unnecessary. This intentional project can be hostile to developing entries and it make me uncomfortable as a learning wiki-editor and I'll go on record saying that. Please consider my points and my attempt to create this entry. I would like to engage administration so that this can be made possible, either through reinstating the entry or giving details on some of the points I made above. Brokendoor 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it was unnecessary to drag WikiProject Deletion in this discussion, especially as its aims were grossly misrepresented. Bwithh 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am noting your point and though I disagree with this project, this is not the place to challenge it, though I am noting a disagreement with this project.Brokendoor 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement The internet and pop culture isn't what writes political theory and philosophy, so the point on it being a protologism can be noted, but it is not what is suggested. It did have sourcing, it did have notes. I really don't know where you are getting this from. The notes cite why these ideas are combined, sourcing various articles to prove this point, none of which has been challenged. The sourcing was at the bottom and there was no attempt to be bold and add "citation needed" at any point in this process. I was attempting a cleanup and was disrupted by the rush to delete. The AfD comments explain this, why you didn't engage any of my points just shows that this consensus process is fast becoming as much of a farse as the AfD was. Most of the material for "Pistols Drawn" is distributed face-to-face, making it a phenomenon that isn't lived on the internet. Also Elaragirl, I've already made note that I do have bad faith in a bunch of bored administrators that practice zealous deletions when they have no idea what is actually being discussed and they fail to follow the first guideline, which is to attempt an edit or engage the talk section for an edit. If you want to make an argument out of it, then do it somewhere else. This is not the place for it. As far as policy, I challenged POLICY and none responded. Your responses are the closest to a real engagement, but as you can see, it is rather easy for me to deflect everything you say because the deletion was without merit. As I stated and I'll state again, editors and administrators are to "be bold" and use "rough consensus". A 5 day process without discussion is not a valid reason for deletion. This is just following the structure offered by consensus and time was the only thing adhered to (actual consensus was avoided for a majoritarian volume of response). I challenged original content, I've exposed sourcing. If this is "pop wiki" let me know, because website hits aren't a valid reason for dismissal in any editing circles I've ever encountered. There was no OC, this is a false statement.Brokendoor 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submit I am giving in on this discussion with points noted apologia presented. I do feel I could do a rewrite and fully cite this new rewrite. Once I post it, I only ask for any challenge brought up be in the talk section and AfD be held off until a full discussion is engaged. Claims of OC will be dismissed with a more focused approach on how this term exists. Anarchists have been using it for years, I am an anarchist. Anarchists tended to not announce the term "nihilist" because of the connotations of nihilism and anarchism to the bombing and assassination campaigns of the late 19th century and early 20th, especially in the United States. Red scares and white terror will "disappear" a tendency only to see its resurgance decades later. The term anarchism and anarchy went through these very same problems, people mistaking these terms with their neologisms. We are a tendency of individuals in the anarchist movement and we are influenced by who we say we are, we have announced our existance and our tendency is one of the fastest growing radical tendencies in the United States. Attempts to dismiss as a neologism again are unfounded. With proper citation and more depth in explaining the connections, I hope to dismiss claims of original content. Thank you for your time with this review. I don't know if I am allowed to close a review, but I am.Brokendoor 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid AfD, plus few ghits, nothing on Gnews, only two articles on JSTOR (spanning half a century), nothing on Factiva. There appear to be no sources for this outside of the pistosldrawn website. Feel free to rewrite in your userspace any time, and bring it back here, but you will need multiple references from independent reliable sources, in this case that would probably be peer-reviewed political science journals. Feel free to ask for help and advice on individual sources, people like to help. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shrubya – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shrubya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Someone deleted this as "unlikely typo". With 31,000 Google hits, the name "Shrubya" is not very "unlikely" to be typed in, and this is no typo! --Wiwaxia 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tangent Though I must thank you for your support, I don't feel that this tangent is relevant to this discussion and would like it if it were not explored on this page to speed this process.Brokendoor 06:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put this on 2007 January 21 because this is a nomination for undeletion being made on 2007 January 21. Not everything nominated today is required to have to do with nihilist anarchism. Wiwaxia 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies Your subject wasn't tagged for review and made me think it was a response to mine. Nevermind.Brokendoor 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stirling Newberry – closed, was on DRV last week – 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stirling Newberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I don't see it meeting any speedy delete reasons; not

db-attack}}. My !vote would be keep, but allow the subject to submit it to AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry – Speedily closed, still at AfD – 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (remove current deletion|AfD)

This article was just created and got a deletion notice just five minutes after it was created[77]. This article didn't meet the Before nominating an AfD requirements and is completly User:Woohookitty over reacted [78]. This article is just going to be deleted for not being given a chance to be looked over by other users to clean it up. I had hoped this article would work out after I created this article but User:Woohookitty had to change its path without giving this article a chance. --Gndawydiak 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't appear the AFD has run its course yet. Suggest waiting for an article to actually be deleted, before requesting it to be undeleted. --Haemo 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

20 January 2007

Eye of The Keeper – Deletion endorsed – 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eye of The Keeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Eye of The Keeper was deleted by Mistake. I cannot find my original posting in any records. It was posted by me, Mv7000. If you can find it, please undelete it. All information is truthful and verifiable at www.eyeofthekeeper.com Thank you. 74.96.112.217 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geody – Deletion endorsed, unprotected – 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Geody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The administrator User:Bogdangiusca (who features the logo of the Italian terrorist group Red Brigades in his user page) deleted and locked this article, without even voting about it. Geody is a geographic search engine widely used especially together with

Talk:NASA World Wind were surprised it was removed and then happy when it was recreated). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltener (talk • contribs
) 19:58, January 14, 2007

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you had translated it in German, it wouldn't have counted double, of course. But this is not the case, these are blogs (and some of them are very popular) and websites owned by different people from all over the world, which means there's a global interest. Also, AboutUs is a wiki but featured pages are not, and there are quite a few of them. What bothers me is that people here consider a reliable source only websites and means of communication owned by a media tycoon. --Eltener 09:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per GRBerry. This can't hurt with more eyes seeing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about writing a sourced article in userspace? This had no sources and no claim to notability. Failing that, unsalt would be fine, it's not like Eltener is a
    SPA, we can have another look in a week or two and AfD it if it's not lived up to expectations. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 'undelete for discussion'DGG
  • Endorse per Samuel, and
    WP:TROUTwhack Eltener for making personal attacks in a DRV request. >Radiant< 11:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • unsalt per
    WP:TROUT Eltener per Radiant. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I wish you'll never have a friend killed by an act of terrorism. Probably if he would have called himself "the WTC bomber administrator" rather than referring to a less popular Italian group you'd have find outrageus as well, and considered him less trustworthy. --Eltener 09:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Camp Poyntelle – Deletion endorsed – 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Camp Poyntelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Non advertising material, want to fix it BRappy55 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Job for a Cowboy – Deletion overturned and replaced with new version – 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Job for a Cowboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Recently failed deletion

here. It was moved back to the page due to my mistake early today, as I added this review in RFPP instead of here, this resulted in it being moved back to the userspace. The two albums still have their pages, so the Band should have theirs so they all link together. There are less notable bands on Wikipedia, so these should also be added. I understand not all the information is cited correctly on the page, so if anyone could add extra cited info it would be useful aswell. Moreover, there have been different edits to that page, so an older edit, might be better than a newer edit, so may need to be reverted. AsicsTalk 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Actually
    WP:MUSIC lists that as one of the things that make it likely that the subject meets the primary notability criterion, which is multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Absent those sources, we still can't have an article, even if they have toured the globe a hundred times. So actually the sources all being user editable absolutely is relevant, in a way that touring is not. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Heh :-) I don't see too many crappy speedies, though. I think we need a minor change to process, mind, so that a speedy contested by an editor in good standing is rapidly userfied with a PROD tag. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, they need to be relisted. Hervegirod 12:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the European part of the tour comes from the Metal Blade web site, but this tour, as the US tour, can be found on numerous other metal sites, and other sites selling tickets as well. Hervegirod 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Noureddine Maamria, Dino Maamria – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD
– 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dino Maamria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Noureddine Maamria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Was nominated with a multitude of other players who failed to meet

WP:BIO (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn Woolford). The question of Dino Maamria's notability was raised in passing during the discussion, however I believe it was not fully addressed. Having played for Charleston Battery and Tunisia U21s he may count as a borderline case. Robotforaday 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

For the record, I have no problems with mass listings like this one, which was a fair way of dealing with a lot of highly comparable articles that had cropped up and fell outside the consensus of notability for football players. To deal with them any other way would have been highly unwieldy. A handful of the articles which were subsequently found to meet the notability criteria in
WP:BIO, and were indeed saved. I merely want to ensure that a proper examination is given to this particular article. Robotforaday 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
In fact, I tried to show that his non-notability might be (and was) disputed in the original afd- he has played for what might count as professional team in a fully professional league (Charleston Battery), and also has represented his country at U21 level. I do not know whether this will mean that he will be saved- but I think that it should certainly be discussed more fully than it has been, and if this means overturning and relisting the article in its own seperate afd, then so be it. Robotforaday 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Proteus (WAM-V) – Overturned per discussion, to be listed for AfD
– 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)
My bad. Listing it for
WP:AFD in a few seconds. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Deleted by

version in my userspace should be restored to the original location. Fosnez 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hell Yeah – Deletion overturned, relisting optional – 06:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hell_Yeah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Since the article was deleted and pretected to prevent people from recreating it, the band has launched a website, been on the cover of Revolver magazine, released two singles (one to the radio and two are on myspace), and their album will be released on April 10th. In otherwords, there is a lot more information out there now than there was previously, and as such the article should be allowed to be created. Tedivm 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further more, the band Hell Yeah is actually at the heart of a series of articles in the most recent (January/Feburary) Revolver Magazine, focusing on new releases for the upcoming year. While it may not seem it, Hell Yeah is very important to the metal community, as Vinnie Paul is coming back, and he is a legend of the scene [Pantera, Et all]. Atechi 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hell no. User:JzG/And the band played on... Wow, they made a website! That's not really hard these days. Neither is "publishing" singles to Myspace. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolver is a notable magazine (it's a Future Publishing title), but if the band haven't yet even released any music outside MySpace and the radio, let alone an album, I don't think having an article in it - even a cover story - is enough. (We usually require multiple reliable sources in any case, not just one.) They could still sink without trace, having never released any significant material, leaving us with very little of worth to write on them. Endorse deletion for now until they release something significant. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to
    WP:MUSIC due to the importance of the prior work of the band's members (who belonged to Pantera, Danzig (band), and Mudvayne, among other bands). The options for sourcing aren't great, but between the Revolver article, the band-member quotes in this IGN article, and the album release info in this MTV notes column (caution - irritating interface), I think there's enough for at least a workable stub. The AFD's close was acceptable given the lack of supporting information by the commentors, but with the stuff I found, I think the result should be overturned. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse per Samuel and JZG. >Radiant< 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - So (in order of least to most important) the band has a website, has singles out, has a release date for the album, its members had prior work in some of the most influential metal bands. This article is going to have to be created at some point, and it makes no sense for that time not to be now. There is no reason why this article shouldn't exist- the single is all over the radio, its clear that this isn't just some punk kids pet band, these are people who are signed to a label and have been doing this, professionally, for years. --Tedivm 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hit bull, win steak. The band is now receiving commercial radio play and media coverage, obviating the prior deletion debate. Silensor 13:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn looks like the deletion was hasty. Media coverage shows the notability of the band. Now with rotation on radio they pass
    WP:MUSIC.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn For me, the key argument is about a band formed from former members of notable bands. --Dweller 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or at least unsalt per above. I've stayed out of this until now, but it appears they meet standards now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or unsalt per above; they sound notable enough for a good-size stub. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and undelete this one please they are notable enough now with our music guideline yuckfoo 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Norman – Filmnews2007 has reposted this yet again, and removed the PROD tag, so it's now at AfD – 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Matt Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Significant article on a film-maker who is notable Filmnews2007 06:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Could you please review your deletion of an article I put up that you deleted.

Article Matt Norman

Below is the opinion of another administrator? Thanks in advance.Filmnews2007 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original message Re. Please tell me why you have deleted my entry - third time?

Hello. I believe that the article in question is Matt Norman. I did not delete this, but after checking the deletion log I can inform that it has been deleted three times by three different administrators. The reason stated for deletion was the speedy deletion criterion A7. This criterion states that an article may be speedy deleted if it provides no assertion of notability of the subject. After viewing the last version of the article I believe that it did assert notability. I recommend you to take this article to the deletion review and try to have the deletion overturned. I hope this helps. Regards,--Húsönd 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • He also created an article for the film and added several links to other articles. But I am ill-disposed towards the spammer subculture right now. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD Notability is asserted.--Húsönd 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. Give him his day in court. Herostratus 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon you have to be kidding me. I ask that you please undelete this article Matt Norman and Salute - The Peter Norman Story(film) that I spent hours doing. To say that it has no notability is wrong. Please search the web and tell me if you truly think that this is not a part of history that documents the truth of what happened during one of the most dramatic moments in history. The person that made this film is actually the nephew of Peter Norman. I am getting sick of re-writing these articles knowing that they are being added to Wikipedia purely for Historic study. I suggest you actually look over the links and do a little searching of your own to find the notability of this film. Hate to say this but if LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Fox Sports etc etc etc think that this is the most important sporting and history story of the past decade then why is it that you have deleted it??????? Enough is enough. Please re-instate this! I feel like i'm editing these pages full time because there are a few people as administrators that know nothing about this part of history and the importance it has on our world. By the way, I was kind enough to go to the film-maker www.theactorscafe.com to get all information required. You may also get any information from his company by emailing him. I wouldn't like to be the person (GUY) who calls him a student film-maker. That was in very poor taste. If you still believe that this is not part of our history and not important enough for you to add to Wikipedia then yes I agree delete it. If this is deleted I'm afraid that I have lost all respect for Wikipedia and it's contents. I have looked through Wikipedia and found hundreds of actors, directors, films, bands with no credit at all that have been left alone. I am appauled by the lack of knowledge and the refusal by your administrators to open your eyes outside of Wikipedia. I truly thought this place was for people of all ages and demographics to study the world. To me you are showing that its for the world to study your own beliefs and not that of others. Do some research, on history, the olympics, black power, civil rights and you'll find that this is the only film and film-maker that has bothered to get all three men involved in this event together to tell the true story of history. I spoke with the film company about your responses and they personally said "if its not important enough for them to add then let them embaress themselves when the film comes out theatrically around the world in the coming months". There must be one administrator that is old enough to know the contents of this story and the amount of history which is about to be re-written because of it. That surely gives Notability to the subjects relayed in these articles. I'd also like the links that were removed from Tommie Smith and John Carlos re-instated. For obvious reasons.?????

I have reedit Matt Norman article. I'm not trying to do the wrong thing here but can any of you please view it and tell me its simple enough to be used in historic content in regard to Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Filmnews2007 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cookie diet – Deletion overturned, listed at AfD – 06:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cookie diet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I remember looking at this article once and it looked like a regular article.... I came back to look up something today and its gone!! At least, I can't find it anywhere, I didn't see any deletion debate.... anyway, if its been deleted by accident or for no apparent reason, it should be brought back. Its reported on ABC [82], NBC [83], etc [84][85][86].... ////

PanDeist * 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Good article – Speedily closed, repeat nomination without new information – 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Good article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

Personally, I do not know the circumstances of the template being previously deleted, I feel that good articles do deserve some recognition as featured articles do (even though GAs are not at the same level as FAs). Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 January 2007

Stirling Newberry – Deletion endorsed, troll blocked – 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stirling Newberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Stirling Newberry claimed that a fair and balanced view of his biographical info on the web was "Attacking" him and "libeling" him even though it was verified through numerous third party sources. We can't allow someone to get their biographies deleted because it doesn't present them in the 100% positive light that we all desire. Turbulantsalad 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a simple search of him on Google, he's notable, and there's both positive and negative information about him out there, the article presented both. Turbulantsalad 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the deleted article is posted at Stirling Newberry/workshop

There are sources for the info. Look at the page. Turbulantsalad 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not
reliable ones. -Amarkov blahedits 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I seriously disagree with the ability of the subject of the article to demand it's deletion without providing sources of his own. This practice today was completely out of line. Turbulantsalad 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to provide reliable sources or not? --
Steel 00:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes I am, however, I want someone to look at the actual incident in question. How was this a valid use of power? Why wasn't there an AFD? Why are we having to hash this out here? Turbulantsalad 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because unsourced biographies of living persons must be immediately deleted. You must have sources for articles on living people. -Amarkov blahedits 00:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Newbie here, but... straightout cut-and-paste from the user bio. Breach of NPOV from both sides - on the one hand it was altered with pejorative verbiage such as "inane" - on the other it was cut straight out of the subject's own self-written bio. Balance isn't achieved by merely breaching NPOV equally in opposite directions. No citations, no sources. 66.183.119.135 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can IPs even vote? I believe you are Stirling Newberry not logged in, based on your history on the page. Turbulantsalad 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can vote here, and no, it isn't relevant who he is. -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eraser (software) – Deletion endorsed – 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eraser (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It is notable. I believe this software to be notable, I've heard about it many times, on many forums I've seen people that have claimed to use it, and seen several times people recommend it and mention it.

  • If you search on Google for "Eraser", not only does it appear on the first place, but also 2,3,5,10,12,14, etc, etc...
  • It has had 4,759,166 downloads just on SourceForge.
  • It is listed on 48'th place of Top Downloads (all time) on SF.
  • Mentioned in the media. It has media coverage. PC World Magazine article. Also mentioned in german magazine Chip Magazine where it got best file shredder award in a test. Just look at the huge press coverage list. Been mentioned in Wall Street Journal, New York Times, been distributed with CDs.
  • Been distributed on CDs shipped with magazines in Japan, Greece, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Norway, etc.
  • Mentioned in books. It's mentioned in the book Using Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, also mentioned on page 131 of the book "Identity Theft: Preventing Consumer Terrorism: An Attitudinal Approach".
  • It's even been mentioned on TV, on TechTV.

The notability is unquestionable. -- Frap 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Consensus clear in AFD. No information in appeal here.
    GRBerry 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Undelete it (Rm duplicate) Google says it's notable. Immediately after I mentioned the deletion in #wikipedia, someone was surprised it got deleted and said he have used it before. Search entries on Google, 1,2,3,5,10,12,14 are all about this software. Since Eraser is a word, for a software to get this many matches on Google, it indeed has to be notable. On the "Searches related to: Eraser", ALL entries are about this software. Eraser is unquestionably notable. -- Frap 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid AfD. Notable? Who knows, but this article certainly did not rise above the level of a directory entry (and
    WP:NOT a directory). Feel free to try again, establishing, from reliable sources, what is unique about this software. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    One bolded opinion per opiner please, though with the appeal nom changing this many times I've been tempted to reopine myself.
    GRBerry 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse deletion, valid AFD.
    desat 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Okay, maybe Google don't decide what is notable, but what about 4,7 million downloads just on SF, what about the mention in 2 books, what about mentioned in like 30 magazines, including LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal. What about being shipped on the CD with magazines in like 7+ different countries worldwide? If Eraser isn't notable, then 90%+ of the software on Wikipedia isn't notable. -- Frap 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing here which wasn't available in the AfD; you aren't supposed to come here just because you disagree with the consensus. -Amarkov blahedits 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not matter, because the AFD could be wrong. According to WP:SOFTWARE, it is quite notable. -- Frap 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
123 Pleasant Street – Deletion endorsed – 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
123 Pleasant Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AFD2)

This article survived a first AfD with an overwhelming majority of users supporting keep. A first DR was opened and closed in one day with participation only the nominator and one user. A second AfD was held, this time with opinions of both keep and delete. Delete had a mere majority but not even a super-majority, let alone a consensus. Article meets requirements WP:Local and has numerous cites, high G-hit count and one substantial source from a local print media with a circulation of 30,000 documented on a website. Editors of this article have committed to continuing improvement. This article should be undeleted because it has sufficient notability and verifiable sources to survive AfD, there is no honest consensus to delete and proper procedure has not been followed. Nominator is additionally concerned that deletion represents a thwarting of consensus Edivorce 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was in DRV on
reliable, but seeing as the delete !voter talked about a blog and the official website, which are definitely not reliable... ColourBurst 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rogers Ltd., Inc. – Restored and listed at AfD – 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rogers Ltd., Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I created this page based on a link on the Middletown, Ohio page. Rogers is one of the top 20 biggest jewelry retail chains in the US, and is also historically significant in the area (which is why somebody else thought it notable enough to be mentionned in the middletown page). If the page is undeleted, I will be sure to mark it as a stub and will keep expanding it. jh75

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atticus Clothing – Speedy restore of non-copyvio, non-General-11 revisions. – 11:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atticus Clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

A notable clothing company. I found an older version on answers.com and I think it was deleted because it sounded like an advertisement (a section of it was a copyvio from their website). If restored, I'll cleanup the copyvio and add a bit to it.

kollision 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brastel
– Deletion endorsed – 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brastel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)
  • It's also a copyright violation, see the "about us" pages at Brastel, "marketing" for example is virtually a cut and paste, jimfbleak 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted (obviously, copyvio), if you think you can write a neutral article demonstrating notability by coverage in multiple reliable sources, write one in userspace and bring it here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
christianforumsite – Requester appears content happy with rationale for deletion – 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christianforumsite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Can you please recreate the article on camp poyntelle i believe it was deleted for no reason. There was an article on christianforumsite which was removed because it lacked popularity. However, I am putting this site for review because it has grown much larger than it previously was and this site appears on top lists of Google, Yahoo and MSN searches for the keyword 'christian forum'. Hence this site can be associated with this keyword. Please check this out and its alexa ranking to see if the article that was one deleted, could be restored.

  • The site is www.christianforumsite.com
  • Alexa Ranking: [89]

131.172.4.45 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Constitution Society – Deletion endorsed. – 10:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Constitution Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

New article being written in stages Jon Roland 00:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly prominent organization, founded in 1994, whose website is at or near the top in searches on constitutional terms, and many sites and organizations link to its extensive collection of online reference material.Jon Roland 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the
    Steel 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above comment suggests that because some adminstrators don't think an individual is suffiently notable for inclusion, therefore the organization in which he is involved should be excluded. That is a non sequitur. The CEO of Home Depot (Frank Blake) might not be notable but does that mean Home Depot should be excluded?
There is also a problem with rapid removals of new articles, which are likely to be written slowly over a period of several days by people not yet familiar with the formatting conventions, policies, and other considerations. On behalf of others, I urge administrators to give contributors a fair opportunity to answer criticisms, which should be emailed to them since most people are not going to be actively checking the various talk pages.Jon Roland 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good thing I haven't mentioned notability then, isn't it? --
      Steel 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Are you arguing the organization is not notable? It is reasonable to require third-party validation of the notability of individuals whose names are not household words, but I find no such validations in a casual visit to the pages of other organizations in the field. Have you tried going to the search page linked above and entering the word "constitution" in any of the search engines linked there? Do you notice that the site of the organization appears at or near the top of most of them? That seems like notability to me.Jon Roland 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for your position that an article on the organization is "self-promotion"? How are you distinguishing the organization and its activities from similar organizations, such as the Federalist Society, the American Constitution Society, or the Cato Institute? Yes, I am the webmaster, and produced much of the content, but the overwhelming bulk of the content of the site was written by other people, even though I might have edited it. Most organizations have single individuals as webmasters who do that, and many publishers of the works of others have single editors who edit the submissions of the others.
As an interesting note on one of those other organizations, the American Constitution Society, they were originally organized as a "progressive" opposition to oppose the "conservative-libertarian" Federalist Society (mainly for lawyers although both accept nonlawyers as members), and first tried to get the name "Constitution Society", but discovered we already had it. Then they tried for "Madison Society" (Madison would have turned over in his grave), but found there was an existing organization with that name as well. They finally just tacked "American" in front of their original choice. We are the "strict constructionist" or "originalist" alternative to both of those, taking positions usually labeled as "libertarian". That would seem to put us in the same niche as the Cato Institute, except that their focus is on new work by their "fellows", and ours is on primary sources of constitutional thought by the Founders and those they read and who knew their thought. We thought it best to first lay down the historical foundations of constitutionalism before going to to applying it to present issues.Jon Roland 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the only undeletion reason given is that it's linked from many sites and therefore popular in search engines. That might make it an interesting case study for search engine optimization, but not notable for an article. - Bobet 11:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is important about being linked to from many sites is that the webmasters of those sites or their supervisors consider the organization and its activities, as evidenced by the contents of its website, as notable and worthy of the attention of their own visitors. There are no tricks of search engine optimization involved. Just the quality and quantity of the content. If you look at those links to it you will find abundant evidence of notability of the organization apart from its webmaster/editor.
Do the administrators have some prejudice against the content and positions of the organization or its webmaster? Is this about ideology? That may be unfair, but that is certainly the impression one gets from the above comments.Jon Roland 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Past success in search engine optimisation is not a reason for inclusion. Bring multiple non-trivial iundependent sources. No, actually, have someone who is
    not the founder, webmaster and CEO of the group in question bring these sources. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
So is that what it's about? Prejudice against me personally? Is anyone here even bothering to look at the site where all this evidence is readily to be found, or are you content to just make knee-jerk reactions? Okay. I'll ask around to see if any of our people are versant with Wikipedia. Probably not, since I think one of them would have mentioned it. Several know regular HTML, at least to save into it from a word processor, which is why they let me do the website, but this is a new system of formatting for us, including me. However, since the article is blocked, How do we submit it? Do you want one of us to submit the entire article here on the talk page?Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per no real reason given to undelete. Search engine rankings don't matter for our purposes, as it's possible to game them... so possible, in fact, that there's
    WP:COI issue here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, they can be, but it is also easy to examine a site to see that that is not what was done. It should also be noted that the high ranking has persisted since the search engines came online more than 12 years ago. This is not a new organization.Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is blocked, the only way to submit such sources is through this talk page. Here is the original article with some secondary sources added. More to follow:

(Copy and paste of entire article removed. --

Steel 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply
]

Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not sources. You still don't have sources. You have sites which link to it, but that does not make a source. -Amarkov blahedits 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, now you have me confused. As far as I can tell from your guides a "secondary source" is something written by someone else, but how is that to be offered if not in either a link or a quote as part of the article? Are you saying a "secondary source" can only be another member-contributor to Wikipedia? The guides don't seem to say that. Is this a communication problem, or are are you reading your own guides differently than a newcomer to Wikipedia does?Jon Roland 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source is a newspaper, magazine, reputable website which is peer reviewed and whose sourcing can be trusted, which has written an article/column/posting of which the subject of the article is the primary focus of the article. The source cannot be associated with the subject of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source also must provide information on the subject; it can't just link to the site. -Amarkov blahedits 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I am beginning to see what you want. Let's see if we can clarify the boundaries. According to the above statements, it would not be sufficient for a reputable site to have something like:
We have determined after thorough research that the four most prominent organizations in the field of x are
because it doesn't say anything specific about any of them. Similarly, it would not be sufficient to have the conference proceedings, distributed to attendees, have something like:
We asked one of the most notable organizations in this field, the Constitution Society, to provide a speaker for this conference, and they provided ...
because conference proceedings are not of sufficient stature in themselves, and it doesn't say anything more about the organization than that it is "most notable". Further, it would not be sufficient to have an extensive article on the organization in a professional journal that is no longer being published and available in only a few remote libraries and not available through interlibrary loan to verify it.
But it would spoil the esthetics of most articles to submit the evidence required within the article itself. After all, the articles of the organizations listed above don't have that. Presumably the evidence was presented through another channel, such as this talk page. I wouldn't want to clutter the article on the Constitution Society with evidence of its notability. I don't mind submitting it to the administrators directly, however.
But how do we present evidence that is not online or accessible for verification? Is there a way we can send images of pages of the sources? Or snailmail paper copies?Jon Roland 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have established notability. That is not in question. However, you still must be able to
source the article, which it seems you can't do. -Amark moo! 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not easily, because, as I said, we don't keep a scrapbook. I have heard about such sources, but almost never inquire further, or ask for a copy. I don't even have copies of most of my television appearances (Dateline NBC April 25, 1995, interviewed by Stone Phillips, several appearances on C-SPAN, etc.). That may seem strange to others, but our organization and its missions differ somewhat from those of others. It has been our policy to disclose only certain things, after some discussion, and to keep many of our most important activities, members, donors, etc., strictly need-to-know. When part of one's mission is to expose criminality in government, one acquires powerful enemies, and other efforts that have been careless about security have paid a severe price. So, for example, when we issue press releases about some subject, we focus on the subject and hold back on what is going on behind the scenes by our people. We help organize meetings, but usually under the names of other organizations not well known to be connected with us. If we want to hold a national meeting, we just all agree to attend one, such as the annual gathering of the Federalist Society, and caucus in a hotel room or restaurant.
So, although this has been an interesting exercise, I am not sure it is a good idea to pursue it further. Perhaps it is better to just let others write the article, if they wish to do so, and, except for selected information such as our website, to remain somewhat in the background. Thanks for the consideration of the administrators, and please visit our site as ordinary visitors without an editorial mission.Jon Roland 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One final point, for the benefit of future reviews. You might check all the links to documents on the Constitution Society site, and to the Society itself, in many articles in several languages which were submitted by other contributors, who it would appear consider the site and its organization notable enough for the purposes of that article. This is also a counter to the charge that the high ranking of the site is the result of "gaming" the search engines. The Alexa rank for Wikipedia for the Society's website is 15.Jon Roland 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2007

WT:USC
– 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)
An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect"...These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". Guide to deletion --JJay 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your implication, that is not the
deletion policy. -Amarkov blahedits 01:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Please...it's linked from the top of the policy page. If you think something contradicts that quote, please point me to the page. But so far, your belief that a redirect recommendation in an AfD close is equivalent to a delete result is completely unsupported by policy. --JJay 01:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to delete it, but still have a useful page at the title, then it should have a redirect in place of the article. It doesn't really matter what guidelines, policy, or whatever say a certain thing means, if that is not how it was intended. -Amarkov blahedits 01:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: 1) There was no consensus to delete the article in the present case. The closing admin did not close the article as delete; 2) The situation that you describe, i.e. consensus for deletion achieved during an AfD discussion, but also a desire to create a redirect for whatever reason, is generally handled differently. In that case, the article is first deleted and a redirect is then created without the page history. --JJay 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. I believe that closing as redirect is usually equivalent to "delete, but make it useful". -Amark moo! 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can and frequently does believe anything they want to believe. But does that make it true or supported by policy, practice and reality? You are certainly entitled to believe that a redirect is equivalent to "delete but make it useful". You might even want to make that explicit in your future AfD participation. I would find it hard to argue, though, that
United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. Rather, it would seem that certain editors believed that undoing the redirect and restoring the article was even more "useful". Nothing prevents that action, and the only way of resolving the situation, in the event of conflict, would be a subsequent AfD nomination that results in a conclusive "delete" or "keep" outcome. That is the approach that should have been taken by the nom here (after talk page discusion). Barring page protection for a redirect, this can't be resolved on DRV, unless the close is overturned as delete.--JJay 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MSM-07 Z'Gok – No consensus closure overturned, article deleted – 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MSM-07 Z'Gok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It's high time admins started ignoring

Deletion! 21:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. – Deletion endorsed – 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

There was an on-going discussion of the controversial deletion of the MWHS Mami Wata Healers Society Page of which the admin has not presented convicing evidence that the article was in violation of wiki policy or in need of iimprovement. Although there was a "concensus" of having the page deleted, we believe this effort is being spearheaded by one of the admins in retaliation for us contributing heavily to an article he has written. The MWHS has presented legal and foreign documents of its legitamcy and its notability to the Diaspora communities.None of the "voters" are of the Diaspora nor of the the religions of which we pratctice. When we went to post more discussion, the arricle was removed compleltely without our being offically informed of the final discussion or outcome. We cannot notify the admin because we do not know who deleted the page. (posted by Syrthiss, as Mwhs (talk · contribs · count) had not moved the template outside the commented area) 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ragnarok Online jobs – Deletion endorsed – 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ragnarok Online jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was created to make the

Dungeons and Dragons or Final Fantasy articles discussing classes for deletion as well as removing all mention of characters or classes from the articles in question in question. And before someone comments, the subsection on "Bandit" was both inaccurate and vandalism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Is what was in the article this? If so, reluctant endorse because there's generally nothing wrong with the closure or the consensus at the AfD. The important thing is that the information is preserved, which appears to be the case. If the consensus of editors at the main page still think it should be broken off, then that consensus should probably be made clear on the talk page of the other article to try and protect against a G4. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am led to believe thus by User:Prod I have not actually seen the article, and thus do not know. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to Badlydranjeff's question, plus a largish number of fair use images, as mentioned by the AFD nominator. (There may have been a word or two changed here or there subsequently, but the same paragraphs of the same numbers of lines exist.)
GRBerry 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Then, in this case, I utterly fail to see the problem. The information is readily available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, this is not AFD II. The AFD proceeded, and was closed, correctly (with, IMO, the correct result, Wikipedia isn't a game guide). As an aside, the presence of other game (guide / cruft / valuable information / call it what you will) does not justify the presence of the article in question. Articles are assessed on their own merit at AFD.
    ► 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is deletion review, and according to policy is the proper forum for discussion problems with an AFD that has proceded. The presences of other "cruft" is not the justification used for the review, simply an aside to the point. The point is that the job system is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of the game according to the company and thus an attempt to remove such material represents an affront on having a quality article on the subject. Should we write an article on the United States but leave no mention of George W. Bush in it too? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt to remove material from Wikipedia which is critical to Wikipedia being accurate and complete violates
Bad faith. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You are actually the one assuming bad faith from the nominator here, in my opinion. This is what was on the main page before it was split: [91]. If the content of the page was that, I think I would have voted for the deletion myself. -- lucasbfr talk 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the next logical question is why should Wikipedia strive to be incomplete? Why remove material which is both accurate, relevant and necessary for Wikipedia to represent the subject? Is there some policy stating that necessary information must be removed? (If there is, I'd assume it would be in humour, a la Wikipedia:Assume bad faith.) Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that the information is not necessary. The fact you disagree with this is noted, but doesn't override that consensus or mean that people who disagree with you are acting in bad faith. --Pak21 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was entirely unambiguous. This isn't the place to complain that you don't like the consensus. -Amarkov blahedits 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to discuss incorrect deletions per
be civil. I will not tolerate your harassment. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Um... what harrasment would you have to tolerate? And I'm fully aware that you think it will make Wikipedia better, but the AfD shows that consensus is that it does not. -Amarkov blahedits 00:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, it has. Within the
Captain Kirk? Something that is integral to the accuracy and completeness of the article should not be removed so hastily. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

17 January 2007

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy
– Deletion endorsed – 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Rename and edit I hope will overcome problem. Also many other pages link to it and need it for information

Article was deleted because it's name was "Analaytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy". Restoring the article with a new name "Analytic and Continental Philosophy" is proposed. Any content disputes can then be handled by normal editing. Lucas 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. The AfD was closed properly on an apparent consensus to delete (not just to rename), and many other concerns aside from the title were presented: for instance, that the article was unsalvageable original research, that it had NPOV problems, and that its hastily produced "references" didn't actually appear, when checked, to support the claims they were attached to. Since then, User:Lucaas has re-created the article by cut-and-paste at least once. I'd suggest finding a non-Wikipedia outlet for this non-encyclopedic material. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an expert in philosophy. But perhaps my opinion still counts: keep deleted, at least in this form. An article about the differences between these two schools may be warranted, but as I already said several times in different places: I'd recommend starting a new article from the scratch, by somebody who wasn't involved with the original one. - Mike Rosoft 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -
    T • C] 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn' The claims of POV are editable, there are 13 major references and 40 editors work involved. I quote here from a well known US philosopher, Babich:
there is a difference between analytic and continental approaches to philosophy not only because it is obvious and not only because as a professor of philosophy I live on the terms of a profession dominated by this noisome distinction but because the claim that there is no such distinctive divide is politically manipulative.

Seems that wiki is even more conservative than mainstream media and printing where alot more has been said on this issue; it cannot handle interesting or controversial issues if it just deletes by majority vote, since after 5 days of delete review 4 were for keepoing it, 7 against (which was coordinated), that is not even a 2/3 majority but it was deleted still. The act of suppression I take as a serious infringment. Editors have been able to work on this article and remove any particular point they see fit. There is no reason to delete it there have been many reasons to revise it.

Also the article has received references from outside wikipedia, also one person on the talk page said it was the most informative they've read in philosophy wiki (which mostly just trots out old saws) It is referenced from many wikie pages, Analytic, Continetal, Philosophy, etc. --Lucas 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn My vote for deletion was conditional, only to delete the name, not the content. Content can always be fixed. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice against rewritten recreation as renamed article. Concerns about sourcing, original research and title in the afd appear to be valid. Closure seems ok. Totally rewrite and properly source the article in article space to deal with problems and the subject can be re-introduced under a new title. And no mysterious editorial comment pictures, please Bwithh 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • how can I discuss what I cannot see?DGG 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See the page
    GRBerry 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh my goodness, what a mess. The AFD is properly linked above. We've had
    WP:OR and broad brush problems that the AFD found in the deleted article. So, if the AFD closure is endorsed, also endorse the G4 deletions, if it is overturned they are not relevant. Also, as noted in my response to DGG, we need to delete the 2007 versions of the page User:Lucaas
    .
Now let's move on to the main issue; the AFD close. I'm going to say that it was within the reasonable limits of administrator discretion, and therefore endorse closure, because I'm accepting the decision that we are better off leaving recreation of material on this topic to other editors or another time.
GRBerry 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Irish Tenors
– Edit history restored behind recreated article – 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD
)

Was speedy deleted as "not notable"; But, the Irish Tenors are definitely notable. Others were working on this article and had placed the {{

wheel war, but think this is a clear case. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd – Deletion endorsed – 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Give us achange to prove that the actual site is notable, don't delete the friggin' talk page! 80.222.183.225 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion review, you've got one right here. Any non-trivial coverage by reliable sources? Endorse deletion of orphaned talk page per
CSD General-8. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Starblind, I don't know what it is with you, but you seem to really take pride in destroying this article. Do you have some sort of personal vendetta? Or is the power just getting to your head? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 71.67.161.6 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
Oh, darn, you caught me. It's all part of my master plan, you see. It was based on three steps: Step 1: Keep
sources off Wikipedia. Step 2: ??????. Step 3: Take over the world! Granted, I'm not absolutely certain what step 2 is going to be just yet, but step 1 is going swimmingly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Typical. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 71.67.161.6 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
He was featured on MTV. Way to contribute a useless and outright wrong, "I agree" post. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 71.67.161.6 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
According to fans of the Angry (Nintendo/Video Game) Nerd, he appeared on MTV for a few seconds.
WP:NOTE states non-trivial coverage, meaning something more than a quick cameo on a TV show or mere mention in a print source. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spazio, Tempo, Eternità – Userfied by deleting admin – 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spazio, Tempo, Eternità (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Proxy listing for Marce1979 who re-created the page with:

please recover this page, i have started my translation before the deletion and when i have saved the page is already deleted.

Was deleted by

Flyingtoaster1337 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland – Deletion endorsed – 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

After many discussions with User:Metros232 who deleted the links section on the main Cumberland, Maryland page against that pages' talk page, I moved the links to it's own page to find some middle ground with User:Metros232, instead it was nominated for speedy deletion. These links pertain to Cumberland and the Cumberland Metro Area, are informative and have further information on topics discussed in the main page, and have been discussed in the Cumberland, Maryland talk page and the consensus was to leave them be. I would like the page deleted to be undeleted, at best the links be allowed back to the main page...but undeletion will work for me. SVRTVDude 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
rec.sport.pro-wrestling – Deletion endorsed – 10:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD2)

deleted despite consensus TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The original deleltion proposal was made in bad faith by a banned Wikipedian user named Chad Bryant, who had a history of edit warring the entry and harrassing the editors who tried to keep the entry clear and concise.
  2. There was No consensus to delete. This wasn't even close. I can understand if a consensus is 70-30 or so to then delete but this wasn't even that.
  3. The closing admin ignored the linked sources establishing the notability of the entry.

TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I count 11-8 in favour of deletion which is hardly a consensus to keep. Though it would be "no consensus" by the numbers admins look at arguments and policy/guidelines when assessing the debate. The closing admin concluded that there was only one independent source covering (rather than mentioning) the topic and that the article therefore failed
    WP:WEB. Given that a majority of user who commented agreed, I have no choice but to endorse the admin's closure. Eluchil404 09:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

There have been many entries that go through AFD and are kept as "no consensus" with an even larger margin of voting. The fact is the entry listed its sources (more than one) to verify notablility which the closing admin IGNORED. Coupled with the fact the whole process of this AFD was started as a bad faith nomination by a banned user who had been trying to ruin the entry for over a year. The entry even went through a period of clean up supervised by TWO admins who concluded the entry was properly notable, cited, and sourced. TruthCrusader 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment While the review nominator here is correct that a recent AFD was started by a banned user, that is not this AFD; the one started by the banned nominator was speedily deleted. The admin who determined that that AFD had been started by a banned user also determined that it needed discussion not messed up by that banned user. So they nominated it again and semi-protected to keep the banned user from influencing it. (I did check the two comments noted in the discussion as having been deleted, and agree that they should be disregarded.) This AFD was one of the last dozen open from January 8. That made it clear to me before I began working the close that the consensus was not obvious, and is why I spent 45 minutes tracking down everything and deciding how to close.
The sources linked in the article were described in the article as mentioning the subject.
GRBerry 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello there. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems someone has usurped my moniker and attempted to use it in a negative manner on Wikipedia. Basically, what I'm saying is someone stole my identity and is using my name -- my REAL name, which may be verified through other independent sources by contacting me via e-mail -- and is attempting to attack TruthCrusasder on here, or at the very least make a little fun at my expense. This is unwarranted, unwanted and unnecessary and I can assure you that I will take steps on this site to have said user removed.
At any rate, I'd like to put my two cents in here by stating that I believe the article should have been kept, but edited to display and/or follow into the concerns brought by the administrator(s) who deleted the article. Granted, it's a Usenet newsgroup, but it's a fairly significant one and is not an obscure one by any means. There is numerical data to back up the number of posters, the group has been publically established on several previous occassions, and, well, just IMHO it's not as bad as it's made out to be. Granted, it has people like Chadbryant (who, btw, is probably sockpuppeting with Alexander Cain), but I can assure you that Mr. Bryant -- and even Mr. TruthCrusader, should one choose to look at it that way -- is/are by no means a viable representation of the group. I guess what I'm saying is yes, the place has kooks, but most houses have roaches, you just usually don't see them. The entry was indeed viewed by two administrators on prior occassions who came to the consensus between them that it was a legitimate article verified by outside sources and means and -- while annoying and controversial in its nature of producing the occassional nitwit -- met enough standards to stay.
And on that note -- anyone got any ideas how I can get Alexander Cain removed and/or turned over to my person? All inquiries as to the legitimacy of my identity may be answered at alexander_cain (at) yahoo (dot) com. I assure you if any trolling or otherwise mischevious behavior occurs out of that account, it is not me. I have had my identity stolen on the Internet before -- at least one occassion by Mr. Bryant -- and this is just another sad and pathetic incident of an individual who obviously mistook me for someone who gives a damn. --The Real Alexander Cain 05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above are typical from Chad "Chadlee" Bryant, who has worked tirelessly for YEARS to harass and ridicule me at every opportunity. I do wish someone could make him stop. Alexander Cain 05:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has become quite inane and I do not wish to remove from the discussion point of the entry with such interruptions; however, I can assure you that *I* am the real AC, NOT that person, and anyone who wishes to e-mail me (especially now that Wikipedia has confirmed my address) may do so to confirm it. I will be requesting a check user and a ban on the person above. Why Chad chooses to engage in such immature behavior on an entry like this is unknown; however, if you check his history -- that is, the history before Chadbryant was banned for his behavior and started creating sockpuppets such as that one to get around it -- you will see this is fairly common for him. --The Real Alexander Cain 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chad Bryant is unyielding in his abuse of Wikipedia and its resources. I do suggest that he be banned once again. This immature behavior speaks volumes about his mental health. Alexander Cain 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Skulltag
– No credible reasons advanced for overturning AfD and previous review, debate is becoming surreal. – 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Skulltag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|Nov. DRV
)

Premature deletion despite posted info saying article was going to be updated in minutes.Catman847 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had this posted a mere 3 minutes before it was proposed for deletion. Doesn't it seem that most normal people wouldn't be wanting to delete an article after it was only on for 3 minutes? It seems like the person proposing the deletion was waiting for this to pop-up so they could have it deleted. Also, the Keep-Delete vote was ignored (5-3 in favor of keeping).

  • Read Wikipedia's
    speedy deletion criteria. An article can be speedy deleted if the page was previously deleted in a deletion discussion, which has happened with Skulltag. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I did, and i found something very interesting in it. You might want to read this.
Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation.
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:WoS game – No consensus closure endorsed – 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:WoS game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

I realize it's taken me a bit to bring this to DRV, but I don't think it's too late. This template was closed as "no consensus". However, I believe that many who spoke in the discussion failed to understand the nature of our copyright policy. We are deleting YouTube links left and right because they might have a copyvio, whereas, this site nearly always has proven copyvios of downloadable Nintendo games: see [104], which is linked from our Bubble Bobble article. I added this link at the end of the discussion, but no one had time to look on my argument before it was closed. Patstuarttalk|edits 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from closing admin: My decision in this case was slightly more complex than simply viewing a mix of delete and keep votes, and then labelling it "no consensus." Patstuart made a good point when he cited

WP:IAR against consensus in order to benefit the encyclopedia, but in this case I did not feel the template in question fell within those bounds. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Bubble Bobble on the ZX Spectrum was published by

British Telecom. World of Spectrum has explicit permission from British Telecom to distribute their material: see http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showwrap.cgi?permit=houses/BritishTelecom.pmt (you'll have to copy and paste the link to bypass the anti deep-linking script). While there is an issue as to whether BT were within the rights of their licensing agreement to grant that permission, I think this shows that the issue isn't as simple as is being made out. Yes, a lot of the material on WoS is formally a copyright violation, but I'm not convinced that means we should delete the entire template, which does have legitimate uses. (Disclaimer: I am one of the maintainers of World of Spectrum). --Pak21 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sure I understood the copyright notice. Sounded more to me like he was saying that BT had nothing to do with this software but to "exploit it", and that they're "no longer involved". But I concede I could be misreading the text. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep: While I agree with Pak21 that the case for Bubble Bobble for the ZX Spectrum is not a clear cut, along with a great many other titles, I removed the link a week ago when the issue was raised - just to be on the safe side. This is what should be done for any links which editors believes are copyvios, whether they are templated or not. The people responsible for the site to which the template links, do a great job in obtaining permissions, and it's incorrect to asume that a violation is in effect just because it is possible to download a particular game from WoS. Permissions have been granted from many individuals and companies (http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/). BTW: Bubble Bobble is not Nintendo property, but Taito. --Frodet 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus close This was within reasonable range of admin discretion, given the discussion. It is not transparently obvious that any given link is necessarily a violation, so I can't see a policy requiring deletion of the template.
    GRBerry 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lil' Sonic – Deletion endorsed – 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lil' Sonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was deleted as CSD A7, but its creator wishes to dispute the deletion so I'm listing this on his behalf. He wrote on my talk page [105]:

I understand that you needed to know why he is notable, but to clear things up, I am Lil' Sonic. Many rappers ask why me, as the youngest producer who has been given good reviews by signed musicians like Jin and Jojo didn't have a Wiki telling all about me, how young I started etc.. so skeptics would know how long I have been performing etc.. In fact a fan was the one who informed me that the page was deleted.. and that they thought their computer had a problem or something, then I got your message.. Can this please be reversed? I notably was the youngest and currently the youngest hip-hop producer in New England. That has to count as something, also because I make music that is compared to the best of the best, not to be bigheaded but i'm told this on countless occasion, please review my request and take your time to decide on any action. Thanks.

Google hits for "Lil' Sonic": [106]

Flyingtoaster1337 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • ...which is functionally equivalent to "John Doe is a famous blah" - without even a hint of a source, and in the case of someone sixteen years old, it fails the O RLY? test. Do you really think that when a sixteen-year-old creates an article saying how famous he is, we should allow that as an assertion of notability? Really? A credible assertion of notability would be signed to a label or something like that, not "I am famous". Guy (Help!) 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, it isn't, but we're running around in circles here. Do I really think a 16 year old rapper has the ability to have produced various stars along the east coast? Yes, I do think so. It's not out of the realm of possibility. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods

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

16 January 2007

Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) – Article recreated with references – 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted under

CSD A7. The criteria used to justify deletion was inappropriate for the article in question - also the article documented the forthcoming release of what is in my opinion a notable single (first in three years) by a notable artist. I asked the deleting admin for his reasoning behind the deletion but have received no reply as of yet. Kurt Shaped Box 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - lasgane? :D
    inp23 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I assume you're talking about the Canadian singer? I can see cheese and more cheese, but where's the meat? ~ trialsanderrors 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recipe for pop-punk stardom appears to require no more than seven stone of mutton dressed as lamb. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
G.ho.st – Deletion endorsed – 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
G.ho.st (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

new text as follows TareqM 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:G.ho.st, prounounced ghost, is an online operating system that provides users with a Virtual Computer space. Ghost is an acronym for Global Hosted Operating SysTem which captures the key idea that the operating system is hosted in a data center and available globaly through any browser, in contrast with traditional operating systems which are installed locally on a specific computer.
The main benefit is complete portability of the operating system - a user can access their desktop, applications and date from any computer with a browser and Internet connection. Another benefit is collaboration - given that everything is online there are increased opportunities for synchronous communication, streaming information, sharing data, applications or even entire desktops.
Technology
G.ho.st uses Java and the Spring Framework on the server side and OpenLaszlo compiled into Flash (and in the future DHTML) on the browser (client side).
External links
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GamerWiki – Endorse Deletion. No consensus to overturn deletion. – 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
GamerWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Now a substantial size (significantly larger than Encyclopedia Gamia) with mentions in The Guardian (UK) and the Accenture Digital Forum in addition to GameCentral on UK teletext and within Retro Gamer (UK magazine). Tim 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion for now, as a "mention" in The Guardian isn't the sort of susbtantial coverage that passes WP:WEB (and consequently presents verifiable information on which to base an article). We're looking for primary-subject articles here, folks, not mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - a passing mention in the Technology section of The Grauniad of a Wiki containing 750 articles is not major press coverage in a Journal of Record; the article also has no
    reliable sources to demonstrate notability. (aeropagitica) 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • GamerWiki does not have "750 articles", as you would see if you were to visit it. I also should clarify what I mean by a "mention" - it was part of a review of videogaming information sites, and as well as the URL had a small writeup on the purpose of the site. You have also ignored the other sources I stated above, being two videogaming magazines in the UK. If deletion stands, then I propose that the vast majority of the
    List of Wikis are also deleted. Tim 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • GamerWiki was recently mentioned (Dec 2006) in an Accenture "Digital Forum" newsletter as a notable videogame information source. -- Tyagi 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nothing rising above the level of trivial passing mentions, as yet. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GamerWiki has had a consistent presence in the List of Largest Wikis since the second half of 2006. Notable fact: It is the largest, dedicated, videogame wiki. At the time of writing, it is the 108th largest wiki. -- Tyagi 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... why is being the 108th largest wiki notable? I would estimate that the highest reasonable estimate for number of wikis is a couple hundred thousand. And then you have to realize that 99% of those wikis will be tiny, bad, or otherwise unknown. -Amark moo! 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Around 50% of the rest of the top 100 wiki are Wikimedia Foundation projects. As a dedicated videogame wiki, unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation, GamerWiki could be notable due to its size. -- Tyagi 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bud Delp – Non-copyvio versions restored – 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bud Delp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame Horse trainer - I'm going from memory as it was a few days ago but I believe this article had a copyright violation notice and someone must have deleted it without seeing that I had come along afterward and edited it properly and removed the copyright violation tag. Please undelete this and I will double check it to ensure it meets proper standards. Thanx. Handicapper 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the re-write. As the template says, you have to leave the copyvio notice in place and start the re-write at the temporary subpage or elsewhere, so that the copyright infringement is properly deleted from the page history. —Centrx→talk • 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Monkeys in space
– 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Able and Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
)
Deletion discussions: Nominations
1 2 3 4 Review 1
Last nomination: 5

This is a pre-emptive listing on deletion review, as I anticipate that at least one adminstrator who disagrees.
brenneman 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • relistI do not think there was consensus, & I think it was obvious from the debate that there was no consensus. There were several main topics that need further discussion:
  1. Whether the publisher alone is sufficient to make a webcomic notable?
  2. If not, are special standards needed?
  3. Can sources other than the usual RS be considered as Reliable for topics such as this.DGG 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Che-Lives – Deletion endorsed – 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2004 VFD
)

regular editors were unavailable, page notable as per google rank and BBC articles on che referencing the forum as proof of his popularity [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MKULTRA Pop Culture – Cruftmungous fork is justly deleted, debate can continue on the parent article – 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MKULTRA Pop Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

improper use of AfD

Wyatt Riot 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jon Roland – Endorsed by multiple people, patient explanations to the subject-and-author can be continued on his user talk page. – 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jon Roland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was resubmitted with different content to satisfy the established requirements for notability. The original article was created by someone else as a stub, apparently based on the subject being a candidate for public office in the upcoming 2006 election. Although one can understand that after the subject has been a candidate and not won his level of notability might cease to qualify him for inclusion, there are many other notability criteria the subject does satisfy, which can be easily verified by a web search. For example, he has been the subject of a chapter of a book written by a prominent journalist, Jonathan Karl, then a reporter for the New York Post, later a correspondent for CNN, and currently a frequent on-air reporter for ABC News.

Furthermore, the subject has a prominence based on his work as editor of the digital editions of most of the more important works of constitutional history, law, and government, including most of the works of the Founders, the works they read and cited, and commentaries by their contemporaries. These online editions are not mere copies of work done by others. They are authoritative scholarly edits (some in progress) that have caused others to cite those versions as authoritative, and in some cases, unique. Most of the other copies online of these works began as copies of his work, often without attribution. That work has led to the site being linked to by many other sites, which has put the site at or near the top of search engines, and led to recognition as a leading constitutional scholar, evidence by being invited to write articles for encyclopedias, speak to conferences, and submit articles to various journals.

It is suggested that on future deletion reviews, the subject be contacted and afforded an opportunity to respond to arguments for deletion. That was easily done for the subject here discussed, and was not done. The reviewers should also take the time to do a search on the name, which would have yielded abundant material to support notability, or to follow the links provided by the contributors, which often provide justification by reference that are not repeated in the body of the article, in an effort to keep the article concise. Jon Roland 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the statement that I have had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for "notability". I don't keep scapbooks of such things. I selected one that came to mind, and was by someone the administrators are likely to have seen on television. I don't have long periods of time to add content in response to such demands, but must find time between other projects. Yet you consider a few hours since I added that content as "ample opportunity"? I can and will add additional sources when I find them, but that could take several days or weeks. Further, nowhere did I suggest that living persons are more notable than dead ones. I never discussed anything like that anywhere. My scholarly work is all about bringing to the public the works of notable persons, most of whom have been dead for centuries. I am loathe to assert my own "notability", preferring to let my work speak for itself, but when someone creates the article as a stub, and many people discover it and ask for content, then they tell me it has been deleted, I feel a need to set the historical record straight. It is not about "Jon Roland" but his work and the work of others in the Constitution Society. Unfortunately, the tendency of too many people to argue from authority rather than considering work on its own merits is difficult to escape. Dismissing the worker disrespects the work, in this environment. I also object to the summary deletion of the article on the Constitution Society, which it appears is somehow related to this action by the administators. The Constitution Society is a real organization with real members and real activities, the evidence of which is online for anyone to examine. More people read its materials than read all the textbooks in all the lawschools, and its influence is real. That has to count for something unless there is an ideological agenda at work here. Jon Roland 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "ideological agenda" is that articles must be about subjects which are
neutral in such a situation. Seraphimblade 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay. With some interaction of this kind I may get a sense of the standards you are applying as you understand them, something that does not really come across by merely reading your guidance documents. For example, you now seem to say that "all" content must be verified by those "reliable sources". That goes well beyond your guide documents, which only seem to require validation of notability by a third party, not all content in the article. That is a very severe requirement. I don't know many scholars who could get affidavits that they did all the work of editing a historical writing, much less of all the other things they do of importance. They don't always have witnesses. They just do the work, publish it, and readers review their work and decide for themselves how well it was done. It is not as though there is anyone else who is suspected of doing the work. And what is the validation that the work was done according to scholarly standards? Cites in other works, or by other sites, with favorable comments, of course, but much work of that kind can be available for years before anyone comments on it, other than to make use of it for his own work. There are fashions in history that lead its practitioners to exhibit herd behavior and focus on hot topics to the neglect of those that others might consider more important in the longer term. But being out of fashion does not invalidate the merit of the work. That should always be evaluated on its own merits, not on who does it, or or what others say about it.
As for verification, what is so difficult about just going online and reading it? It might be more fun to try to find it on a library shelf, but in the age of the Internet online publication is displacing paper publication, which is no longer the sole standard for credibility. Yes, I still write articles for print publications, mainly because I get paid for it, but frankly I almost never read the printed editions. I read the copies online. And I suspect, so do increasing numbers of others.

One more point: If it is your intent to allow deficiencies to be corrected (even if you don't take the time to notify the submitter of such deficiencies to give him a chance to do so), then how is he supposed to correct deficiencies if there is no article he can edit or his submissions are blocked by a protected status? I can understand if the hassles of administering a site like Wikipedia make you somewhat impatient and disposes you to make summary decisions, but there comes a point beyond which impatience becomes abusive. I have been intervening in several cases against judges who, perhaps in a mood of impatience, have been riding roughshod over due process protections and the rules of judicial procedure and conduct. Become too arbitrary and the public is going to start rejecting Wikipedia the way they are beginning to reject the justice system. Jon Roland 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we have review processes, as you are currently using. :) However, a judge is hardly "arbitrary" to say "Hey, in order to work with your claim, I need to see some evidence." It's the same when we request sources-we want our readers to be able to see that what they're reading in our articles is, in fact, true. We also want to see that there's enough source material out there on a subject that we can have a good, comprehensive article on it, from verifiable information. If it'll take you a few weeks to find those sources, come back in a few weeks with them! No one's out to get anyone, but just like anything, we do have some rules, and we try to follow them. One of those involves recreating articles after they've been deleted-it's possible, no decision here is forever, but there's got to be some evidence that it'll be better then it was when the community decided it should be deleted. That's not arbitrary-indeed, what would be arbitrary is to allow someone to recreate the same article over and over against the community's expressed wish, with no way of allowing the community to have input on whether the old decision should be reconsidered. Surely, as an attorney, you do realize that such review processes are quite important, and not always instantaneous? Seraphimblade 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rather arrogant to write in the third person, don't you think? Endorse deletion as clearcut vanity -- Samir धर्म 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, constant allegations of an ideological agenda whenever a page you create is deleted does not help. -Amarkov blahedits 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A judge, however, if he follows established due process, rules of judicial procedure, and precedent, will set a date and time for an evidentiary hearing. He doesn't just render judgment sua sponte and without due notice. It is now clear that I am going to have to maintain copies of the edit windows for things I submit so I have something to work from in making revisions and resubmitting. But I can imagine most people don't come to this realization until they have been burned in this way. If, as you say, I can resubmit when corrections are made, how am I supposed to make them if the article is blocked? Or if the revised version is summarily deleted again, within seconds, apparently without the revisions having gotten due consideration? And do you ever allow for some reasonable grace period on the creation of new articles, to allow time for them to be composed carefully, and the content you demand be added at a leisurely pace that most of the world operates by when they have other demands on their time? Why not allow the author to finish his edits before deleting the article? If he has the article open for editing (and you have the ability to detect that condition, which a good revision control system has), that should be a clue he is still working on it.
It is not arrogant to refer to myself in the third person. That is the way I think of myself when writing about myself as the subject of a discussion. It is common practice to do so to maintain the kind of detachment needed to be reasonably objective.
And if you are going to respond to a suspicion of an ideological agenda by punishing the complainant, that is precisely the kind of abusive behavior that proves the complaint. Judges do that, too, and it doesn't bring confidence in their judicial integrity.Jon Roland 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're treating this as a legal proceeding. The issue is not if your article got due process, the issue is if it should be undeleted. Since you appear to have no secondary sources, at all, it should not be undeleted. -Amarkov blahedits 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of you has already aknowledged I have one, the book by Jonathan Karl, who devotes a chapter to me, and who, besides being a correspondent for ABC News, has credentials as a historian in his own right. He is notable enough to have an article of his own, although I don't know him well enough to write it. He has interviewed me by phone and on television, but I didn't have much time to ask about him.Jon Roland 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter to me what "one of us" has done; we are not a homogenous entity. Regardless, even if you had such a chapter, I would still endorse deletion, because that's not enough to establish notability, nor to verify article content. -Amarkov blahedits 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does indicate you are making hasty decisions and not even reading either the submissions or the comments carefully. Those of you who have volunteered to be administrators are to be commended for your willingness to do so, but whether you buy into the fact or not, you are actually operating in a judicial role in a private law arena, and as such, the rest of the community has a right to expect proper judicial conduct from you. I would hate to see the Wikipedia experiment dissolve into contention in real courts over property rights in the articles about living people or organizations, defamation, neglect, or historical inaccuracy. None of us want that. But if you neglect to practice your judgment like good judges, that could happen. If you were editors of a private publication, only the publisher would have to be concerned about that, but when you create a kind of public utility or commons that has a real impact of the lives and fortunes of people, that situation changes. No academic department or law review journal could be as arbitrary as some of you have been today. A little collegiality would go a long way.
There is also a problem with verifying "all content". Not all important subjects are investigated by large numbers of people. Some, especially in the early stages, are known only to a single investigator. For example, I have done significant research on letters of marque and reprisal. You have a somewhat deficient article on "Letter of Marque" that I contemplate correcting. However, there is almost no publshed scholarly literature on the subject, and I suspect at this point I may be the world's leading expert. Am I barred from adding my findings because there is no one else to verify them? Yet it is the one measure which might have made the incursion into Afghanistan constitutional, which I at least consider important. Yet when I asked a deputy to the U.S. Attorney General, charged with managing the legal issues involved in that engagement, to explain the topic, he admitted he didn't know anything about it. This was a nominee to the the federal bench parked in the AG's office pending Senate hearings, and he not only knew nothing about a critical subject in his area of responsbility, he disdained learning anything about it. That is the way we get the public officials whose decisions affect our lives! But the topic is also not fashionable in academia, so getting an article published in a professional journal is unlikely. Self-publication is the only option. That doesn't mean it lacks validity. It just puts the burden of verifying on the reader. Jon Roland 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to letters of marque-how, exactly, did you do research without looking at reliable sources? If you did primary research, that's great!
reliable sources, when publishing on Wikipedia, is not negotiable. Seraphimblade 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


To respond to your first point above, I mainly work with primary sources. In many cases they are single copies of old documents that will never be seen by any but a few scholars until I scan, OCR, correct, and publish them on the constitution.org website. My reputation as a legal historian is largely based on that kind of work. Like any historian I will then typically analyze the content of that and other works and draw conclusions. That is what you would call original research that you maintain Wikipedia is not the place to publish, but there is an important difference: Whereas most other analyses discuss primary evidence, they typically do not present the evidence for immediate examination. I do. The reader can examine the same evidence I did and come to his own conclusions from it. However, I do bring one more thing to the table: I did that kind of analysis for literally thousands of other works, probably more than any scholar will ever be able to read, unless he starts early and doesn't waste much time over decades. That can produce insights that don't come out by reading a few passages lifted out of a text.
Consider the subject of Letters of Marque and Reprisal (it is important not to omit reprisal). Then I find a statement that letters of marque and reprisal may only be issued to private parties. Even my colleague, Doug Kmiec, testified to that effect before Congress. The problem is, that's wrong! As it happened, almost all the letters of marque and reprisal were issued to privateers, because in a world of monarchs who may declare war on their own authority, there is no need to issue them to officers of the Royal Navy. But there is nothing in the theory of the letter of marque and reprisal, a kind of warrant, that restricts the issuance of them to private parties, just as there is nothing in the theory of search and arrest warrants that restricts the issuance of them to law enforcement agents. (I once almost had a search warrant issued to me as a private citizen because the local sheriff didn't want to serve it on a prominent citizen.) But you won't find a pithy citation on that point. You get it from gaining a deep insight into law as the Founders understood it, but because they took the fundamentals for granted, never really explained in concise ways that we could cite today.
So my problem is, I've found an error, and a serious one, and I am the only expert available to refute it, based on my primary source research. It's not that my research is inaccessible to others. I have tried to make it all available online, but the insights are not expressed in quotable quips. It takes total immersion in the subject. I've done that, and so can anyone else, but I have done it and they are unlikely to. I can cite the authority for my position, but that is a huge body of material that cannot be reduced to a single, short passage, except by my finding about it.
Why is it a serious error? Because the issuance by Congress of letters of marque and reprisal was the one way Congress had to comply with the Constitution concerning the incursion into Afghanistan. Now, I grant that not many people today care about strict constitutional compliance, until it is violated against them, but it is my general conclusion from the study of history that strict constitutional compliance is one of the most important things in human affairs. That itself is not a position I can support with "reliable" sources, because anyone may cite other "reliable sources" that take the opposite position. Ultimately, it comes down to personal choice. But if someone who made one choice grabs the podium, and no one challenges him, his position can come to be seen, mistakenly, as some kind of irrefutable truth rather than as disputable and disputed.
On the legal points you make, I am familiar with them, but I also know that what is provided for in GFDL licenses and other accession contracts is for a civilized world that bears little resemblance to what actually happens in courts, where, as the old saying goes, "A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." There is a reason why Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones, in a talk to the Harvard Federalist Society in 2003, said that the "American legal system is corrupt beyond recognition". If some lawyer smells money you may find your GFDL resembling Madison's "parchment barrier". I fight that corruption every day. It is the reason I don't seek a bar card, because honest lawyers are not allowed to challenge corrupt judges and prosecutors.

It is not just contributors who may have a justiable interest in what is published on the site. Consider the revelation of sensitive information about someone else than the contributor. Information needed to steal his identity, for example. Or revelation of the location of a protected witness, or of a whistleblower for whom it is the government that is the threat. The possibilities for "when did he stop beating his wife" aspersions are endless. In the words of Cardinal Richelieu, "Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."

Now I'm not saying one has to make business or editorial decisions on the basis of that corruption, but don't be surprised if it rears up and bites you. "Know everything, believe nothing, and be ready for anything." (And hide your assets.) Jon Roland 07:09, 17 January 2007
What I got out of all that:
  1. I shouldn't have to verify everything because it might be new stuff that only I know.
  2. I shouldn't have to provide secondary sources because I'm gonna give you the primary sources for analysis.
Both of those fail
WP:NOR. -Amarkov blahedits 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I am not arguing for special treatment of myself. In all of the above I have been arguing for equal treatment of everyone. I am not important. If I could have my work attributed to "anonymous" that would be fine with me. I once considered doing that, but it doesn't work. People demand to know who did the work, if only to tie the work together to a single author or editor. It is the work, not the worker, that matters. But I am also saying that you are not applying your own standards consistently or even-handedly, or in a way that gives the submitter a reasonable opportunity to respond to demands from editors. I have spent many hours responding to the demands of print editors for more cites, especially of law review articles, where editors seem to feel that one key cite is not enough, but want everything found in "shepardizing" the case, which can result in more footnotes than anyone who reads the article really wants, and cuts into the word limits for the article as a whole. We usually negotiate a compromise.
I have been taking a tour of many articles of interest to me, and I have not found a single article of any length in which everything is verified. Each of them, like the articles in any print encyclopedia, are a mixture of fact and opinion, some of that of professional grade and some of it not, with perhaps some cites that support some or many points, but not all of them. When I turn to the talk sessions involving changes to the articles, I do not find the discussants applying those standards consistently to themselves or one another, or exhibiting a level of subject-matter expertise that makes their comments a "peer review". I am familiar with the peer review standards of professional journals, and the lesser review standards of law review journals (3rd-year law students who have a lot to learn). My print editors don't even aspire to the standards you claim to uphold. They are content to look at the body of work of those they ask to submit articles, spot check their work, find what they examine to be reliable, and form the general opinion that the rest of the author's work is probably also reliable. That is a leap, given that print encyclopedias and journals can't be corrected as online publications can, but they do so in the recognition that corrections can be made in subsequent editions, or in the case of professional journals, that others will submit articles that challenge the findings of earlier ones. Many of my print article commissions are to correct articles written by others that have come under criticism.
You have also not responded to my questions. How do we resubmit articles to satisfy your demands when the article is blocked, as someone has done for the Constitution Society article? I see many other articles for other organizations in the field that are very similar to the version I last tried to submit. Indeed, mine was modeled on some of the others. None of the organizations I looked at had any third-party verifications of their notability. I do not see the same standards being applied to articles on organizations that you are applying to articles on individuals. Nor do I think that would be appropriate. It can't be numbers of voting members. That would probably exclude the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the only formal organizations for their parties with voting powers, organized as nonincorporated associations. Many important organizations are "private foundations" under IRS definitions, others are "public foundations" with self-appointing boards who have the only voting powers. A more reasonable way to assess notability, for individuals or organizations, would be to put up an article and count the numbers of page visits over some period of time, then give extra weight to some deemed notable by peers in their field. After all, 18th century legal philosophers are not going to get as many hits as rock stars, but those of us in that field can better assess their importance to the development of legal thought.Jon Roland 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, the solution here is pretty simple.

reliable sources (scholarly legal journals, major media outlets) that have covered you and your work and no one here will contest their validity or notability. If you can do that, which ought to be a fairly simple task, it will be quite easy to get the articles in question restored. If you cannot cite such third-party sources, you have no argument, period.--chris.lawson 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_16-31&oldid=1108885071"