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

MySpace Secret Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted after it was improved after people requested it to have sources that confirm its notability. Article has sources and is under the criteria for a notable article and is supported by an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion, the improvements did little to sway existing opinions, and delete arguments continued to appear even afterward. Valid AfD. --
  desat 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The improvements were made AFTER the deletion talk page was over.65.11.27.42 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • In that case, endorse G4 deletion. The recreated version is almost no different from the AfD'd version. --
    desat 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse AfD, endorse G4. Valid debate, valid close, reposted content substantially similar, no new evidence presented. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually new evidence was shown. Check the links on the bottom the last one is new and it is by a reliable third party source on the topic.The minor changes were the only changes necessary and i believe that since it meets the criteria it shouldnt be deleted. It shouldnt be merged because there are also MySpace Secret Stand-Up shows. 65.11.27.42 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Multiple reliable sources are needed, so the link 65.11 refers to isn't enough on its own. The rest of the links are press releases. I tried Factiva and found passing mentions and more press releases, so while I'm open to be convinced otherwise, that one article isn't enough to justify a second AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says it only needs one or more sources so it is in the criteria.65.11.27.42 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which criteria would that be?

WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works..." --pgk 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse per everybody. Pretty much the same article that was validly deleted by AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says you need one or more nontrivial sources so as far as i can see bring it back.65.11.27.42 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You need multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject. Some Wikilawyers interpret two as multiple, one does not even meet that standard. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have found multiple (2) non trivial sources tht prove this article is worthy and plan onexpanding it. They are listed here: [2] [3] Now theer are three reliable souces and 2 press releases and if you google it smaller name sites have thousands of articles on it and now its fully international with 7 different countries in 3 different continents 65.11.27.42 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per comments by Sam Blanning, and others, above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you not read the comment above. But it doesnt matter anymore...Martini833 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Martini833 created
  WP:RS; they're just articles about artists that mention MSSS as the place where those artists started their careers. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Unholy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wrongly deleted by

• Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a challenge of the redirect deletion, not the article deletion we discussed before. Overturn. Attack page? For a party disbanded in 1916?? No applicable speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ  01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and List on RfD per
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn the G4 speedy-deletion and list to RFD. A redirect is not substantially identical to an article. Do not undelete all the properly deleted versions of the page. I do share Anþony's suspicion that this is unlikely to survive scrutiny, though. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Dixie Mafia where the terms are used interchangeably in sources cited.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator is challenging the deletion of this being used the redirect to Dixie Mafia and not the original article that was AFDed. --70.48.174.169 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete just the redirect. Clearly not a valid G4 deletion, since the redirect was never deleted at RFD and G4 only applies to recreations of stuff deleted at xFD. Possibly send to RFD though. --W.marsh 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ  01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and List on RfD per
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Anthony Vassallo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted using PRod:non-notable footballer according to WP:BIO, but the player although not playing for the senior national team, but still playing top level for Malta, although Maltese football may be at semi-professional level. And there is discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players on going.

I put this not Deletion review, because it does not proper process of AFD to delete it under discussion. Per previous Afd results, please for top level football already notable. Ongoing discussion of Notability discussion should not became a reason of Current deletion. Here the player DOB and match record as of 2005-2006 season. [4][5] -- Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty underwear fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as being non-notable, when it is clearly notable. If Dearcupid.org is not a reliable 3rd-person 3rd-party source, then what else is?? Out-of-process deletion. Kingshockaz 2000 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse valid AfD, with a clear and unmistakable consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AfD

)

I started to write an entirely new article in accordance with all Wikipedia requirements. Please unlock the page so I could publish it. The page has already its versions in NL and PL wikipedias, only on EN is locked. Merewyn 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per the second AfD, found at
  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), unless the reliable sources that were asked for are provided. The fact that the article is on NL and PL is irrelevant; the various Wikipedia's are independent and have separate criteria for inclusion. If you think you can address the issues that were raised in the second AfD, I suggest that the best thing to do is write the article in userspace, and then bring it here for consideration. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per second AfD. You can prepare a version of the article that satisfies
  Resurgent insurgent 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion AfD consensus was very clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Controversy Nobody yet answered my
  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), then in fact it is VERY UNFAIR, the games you must pay for will always win - because of large amount of advertisement hits. Freeware will be always discriminated this way. Give the fair and clear rules for your requirements and stop demanding to cite the shop catalogues as reliable sources. Merewyn 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Google hits are not a criterion for article inclusion. Non-trivial coverage by independent fact-checked sources are what qualifies a game topic for inclusion. The catalog is not independent, and advertisements are not non-trivial coverage. If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so, then you should add those to a draft and bring it here or to the AfD's closing admin. If you can't find such sources to cite, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's core policies; see
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. Barno 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Re-Comment How should I state it more clearly? Your "independent" sources write about the commercial games because this is what the PR is paid for - to get as much attention on your product as possible, while nobody is interested in selling the Freeware. Therefore, judging by the amount of advertisements is a measure of NOTHING but the financial resources of the producers.
      Why is BattleMaster so special? This game started 1 January 2000, exists continuously for SEVEN years now, which makes BattleMaster one of the oldest and developing of the BBMMORPG games. The major difference between BattleMaster and many other games is that one cannot win BattleMaster. Game mechanics and playing worlds are deliberately designed to make total domination impossible. As a result, some player realms have existed since the beginning of the game (7 real years) while other realms have been formed and destroyed. Since all realms are controlled by players, the game has its own developing history [6] as lived and written by all the players, the players that make friends not only in the game but in real life too, visiting each other even across the world. Please unlock this page and allow to write the article about it all. Merewyn 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please clarify:"If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so..." So an online game is only worthy to wikipedia if you convince enough media sources to cover it? Is that the only action available? What qualifies as acceptable media? JoetheLesser 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — JoetheLesser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment While I can certainly see the need for some notability metric with regard to online games, given the number of fly-by-night games played by less than a hundred people out there, I really have to agree to some extent with Merewyn here. If the criteria for free browser-based games are the same as those for off-the-shelf commercial games, you will never be able to include any, because, as the others have said, a free game without any advertisements will not be able to buy the publicity that games produced by the likes of EA, Bllizzard, and Sony can. Perhaps (though I admit to knowing nothing about the logistics involved) a new subcategory needs to be developed for such games, with criteria that do not depend upon mainstream, commercial coverage? --Dan Aris 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — Danaris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Support of the idea of subcategory for the freeware games. A freeware game (= no ads) that exists constantly 7 years and have over 1200 users playing each day [7] is worth noticing as a phenomenon. Merewyn 10:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Fair" is not the issue. We're not here to be fair! A large advertising budget gets your product noticed, and being noticed is the first step towards becoming notable. There are other routes to notability, but that's a quick and generally reliable one, like it or not. We're not here to fix the world's injustices—we're here to document some of its notable features. Xtifr _tälk 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps, then, absent a category that takes into account the nature of such a game, you could suggest some ways that those of us who play & like the game could seek to spread knowledge of it, and make it more notable? We want it to be more widely known--it's just we don't have bags of money, and we don't have any knowledge of the field. What sorts of mentions would be possible for such a game to get, that would be considered "notable"? --Dan Aris 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redeletion. The reposted version still failed to provide any evidence of independent sources (the core concern of the AFD discussion). Without independent sources, anything we write would either be
  original research. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources. By the way, advertising has nothing to do with it because advertising also fails our neutrality and independence standards. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - So, you all mean that I should start the Wikipedia article by buying enough of advertisments in newspapers?? The way to measure the notability should be really rediscussed, I proposed to start here: Reliable Sources for a game? Or advertisement catalogue instead of encyclopedia. Merewyn 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Advertisements are not independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we don't "all" mean that advertisements help get software a Wikipedia page. Just the opposite: see

  reliable sources carried articles saying the same things that you said, that would give us strong objective reasons to keep a BattleMaster article. If you think these criteria really should be different for freeware games, you're right to discuss that on the notability talk page, but wrong to insist we change it in this deletion review. You'll probably find lots of game fans who will support such a policy change, but if the guidelines are changed in a way that is contradictory to Wikipedia's core policies, they will be rejected and reverted by the broader community of editors. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to indulge the fans of every game that gets a little more popular than thousands of other games without getting mainstream coverage. Barno 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Listen, it's this simple: you need sources. Until someone has written about the game, we don't have sources. Get it reviewed, or written up, or something, then we can base an article on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about This?: External review fitting your requirements.

• Review at gameogre.com
• Featured Online GAME OF THE WEEK at gameogre.com —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Merewyn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

How about the sources I gave above? I have the sources for the article, so accordingly to your requirements this article should be restored. Please. Merewyn 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of reviews contributed by fans to a website open to anyone's contributions without any kind of editorial supervision. They don't count as sources for us any more than we could cite amazon product reviews. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides which sources count and which not? Why the sources mentionned above cannot count for BattleMaster while in the same time the Amazon or other eBay reviews do count for other games like e.g. Anarchy Online? Merewyn 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The log for this image indicates that it was taken by photographer Jeramey Jannene (a.k.a. User:Grassferry49, a.k.a. compujeramey on flickr), yet it was deleted as "no copyright tag". According to the url in the upload log, it is cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/100075920 which uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. If this is true, it should be restored and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I uploaded the full picture onto Commons and restored this one here. This isn't really a DRV topic. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Voting was fairly even, but a WikiProject stacked up votes of keep based on

• Overturn and delete. I tend to agree with AM. The arguments to deletion boil down to guidelines on
  WP:OWNership ("We at WP:GAA have organise our category very well", "It's a silly nom by someone who doesn't understand the subject", "Totally ridiculous suggestion", "we should respect the GAA Project as they know the topic better"). Just because there's a Wikiproject doesn't mean other people (not to mention standards) don't get a say in this. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • An unfair characterisation of the objections, see below. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I should have said that several of the arguments to keep boil down et cetera. >Radiant< 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gross over-categorisation, bizarre result. Overturn and delete.--
  Doc^g 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and delete, creating a Wikiproject does not give carte blanche to ignore general Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And in my experience, the more specific and narrow the focus of a Wikiproject, the more fannish and less reliable its opinions (in general—there are notable exceptions). If the arguments had been based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games guidelines, I would probably have endorsed the decision, but as it is...no. (Of course, if the Sports and games workgroup guidelines were being followed, I suspect this would have never made it to DR.) Xtifr _tälk 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Neutral because of closer's comments below. I'm still uncomfortable with the excessive deference shown to a minor Wikiproject, but overall, I find it too close too call. I think lists would be a better choice, but I wasn't in the CfD. Xtifr _tälk 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment. Though some of the objections were unreasonable and implied
  ownership
  by the WikiProject, by no means all of them were. Some concerns I thought reasonable were raised including:
  • By their nature few players would end up in many of the categories. Peter Canavan has the most with six categories, few players would approach this and this hardly compares (as one delete !voter did) with Babe Ruth previously having over 100 categories.
  • Upmerging would result in large unwieldy categories.
  • The previous baseball discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Subcategories of Category:National League All-Stars was partially based on the fact that Articles were being written about each All-Star game. Such articles were not being written in this case.
• Given the arguments presented on both sides I did not feel sufficient consensus had been reached. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Wub's expanded comments. Tim! 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure Wub's expanded closing comments show that this decision was within admin discretion. Xoloz 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Comment: the only part of the article that could be considered an assertion of notability was the statement that it was a company that failed during the dotcom bust. The article didn't even state what the company did... not that that's necessarily unusual for a dotcom, but it seems a little poor for an encyclopaedia article. --
  talk) 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse my own deletion. Looking at the "purpose" box on this page: "where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question", of course I haven't been approached regarding the concerns on this. Define "established" being here a long time doesn't mean it meets out standards, and doesn't afford a free pass. You say it asserted the notability, can you please tell me what that assertion was, per Bainer the being a failed dotcom isn't notability, there were 1000 upon 1000 of them. I'm sure many of them are "good examples" of failed businesses. "got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise" pity none of it is reference in the article then. --pgk 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't see that part - I should have consulted with you first. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – Its name comes from the March 2000 merger of
  US Web/CKS and Whittman-Hart is a clear claim to notability. yeah next time check with the deleting admin first, but even if you've never heard of marchFIRST (dumbest capitalization ever?) you just need to click through to USWeb. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure that makes things any clearer. Maybe it's just my pedantic reading of the wording but it doesn't say the company is a result of a merger, just the name (which could mean anything a break away of the original founders etc. though I admitedly didn't look that far).
    WP:CORP, but being a spin off of even a notable company doesn't immediately confer notability. To add to the confusion of this supposed merger followed by bankruptcy yet the Whitman-Hart article suggests, Whitman-Hart is still a going concern which suggests there was no merger. Maybe I'm missing something but the original article does nothing to enlighten me. My reaction is still endorse the deletion, though I'll happliy restore to someones userspace if they want to bash it into better shape. --pgk 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse speedy deletion - marchFIRST was an
  dot-com boom of the 1990s that eventually failed and was sold is hardly a claim to notability - but no prejudice against a better article, and you can have this one back to start from if you like. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wouldn't that be a GFDL issue? The intro to the old article wasn't good, but the timeline was fine assuming references can be found. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So undelete the history once there's another article in place. Problem solved. —Cryptic 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no claims of notability as written initially.
  Resurgent insurgent 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If that were the criterion, then we should remove the rule about speedy deletion of recreated articles after they've been deleted, because if whoever writes it first doesn't get it right for whatever reason, the encyclopedia loses. Kinda silly... Carlossuarez46 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) And also remove "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." from the purpose box above to conform to the apparent practice. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete looks like it certainly was notable at some point, if only briefly. I found a Cnet story saying it cut 1,700 jobs at once, which at the time was 30% of its workforce, meaning that it emplyed over 5,000 people! That was not a small company by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company was certainly notable. IT wasn't Enron, but in business circles it was certainly among the more spectacular collapses, in particlualr because the company had just previously acquired
    Mitchell Madison. What this is here is simply the haggling over whether notability was asserted in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment How would an undelete be better than adding the article content into one of the other two related articles? IMHO that would seem to be the best thing to do, whether or not this article is undeleted. -- llywrch 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. The company got a fair amount of press in its day and a well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written before it was inappropriately speedied). But it was a relatively short-lived company and I don't generally agree that "notability is permanent" so this should be tested against the community consensus in a full discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written' - did you look at the article? It has three links, one returns a "service unavailable" message. The other two are the companies this company may have been merged from (though I've still to understand how the companies merged, went bankrupt but the original companies are still currently trading...) neither mentions this at the destination of the link, they are generic front pages. Is this your idea of well-sourced?--pgk 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as above, is anyone actually willing to put some effort into tracking down some sources and bashing this into some sort of shape? I've already said I'll restore it into userspace for someone to do just that... pgk 08:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted some of the 905 Newsbank articles on the
    talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I don't know if the following links count as
  talk 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Most of those are those free IT trade magazines. I consider them a solid middle ground as far as reliability goes: They're generally quite factual and certainly quite a few steps above blogs and things, but since they're loath to report any negative information I don't consider them in the same line as the New York Times and such. I'd certainly consider them reliable enough for non-controversial information in an article. With so much coverage, I'd be absolutely astonished if MarchFIRST can't be turned into a decent and well-referenced article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per the current version of
  WP:CORP. All publicly traded companies in the US will be subject of multiple secondary sources; each must report quarterly results and file them publicly with the government (called form 10-Q or 10-K for the 4th fiscal quarter). There are dozens of organizations that collect, collate, and report on everything that gets filed: CNN finance, Yahoo finance, and many others are available free online. Many more are available by subscription such as Forbes, Fortune, and ValueLine. So, while it is not impossible that online content from a while back has been removed by these guys, the hard copies are still out there of these periodicals. A slew of information about the company can be found at [[9]], and a cursory search indicates that some stuff remains online from that period , see forbes, another mention by forbes, pr newswire, some lawfirm yakking about the collapse. I would suppose that the SEC, Forbes magazine are a couple of relatively reliable sources, so what's the problem? Carlossuarez46 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Without disagreeing with Carlossuarez46's specific findings in this case, I have to note that the broad interpretation of WP:CORP he/she opened with (that all publicly traded US companies can be assumed to be notable) is not the generally accepted interpretation. See WP:CORP's Talk page for more. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy at WP:CORP says notability can be established by write-ups found in multiple independent sources. It is inconceivable that any US public company cannot meet that, due to the extensive number of publications devoted to investing in stocks and bonds of companies (regardless of whatever the company actually does or produces, which will probably have a slew of trade or industry publications mentioning the company or its products) and US governmental requirements for reporting which generates thousands of pages of sourcing for articles. Although some people don't like the implication of the loosened WP:CORP, it's hard to gainsay its consequence. Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't AFD, the article was deleted by
    criteria A7 no assertion of notability. It is the article which is deleted, not the subject. Deletion isn't saying there is no way we can have an article on the subject, not that they actually are non-notable. What it is saying that someone without any knowledge of the subject on viewing the article has no clue as to why we have the article. The article was awful, as persistantly offered above I'll happily restore it if someone wants to knock it into better shape. No one has taken me up on that yet, so we seem to have the situation we are trying to overturn something not based on the basis of deletion, but leaving it in the same state it could be deleted again on the same speedy criteria. --pgk 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • But saying that it ought to remain deleted means you must believe that whatever was there cannot be the basis of an article. Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable (so in effect deleting the subject). Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is not asking you if you think it should remain deleted as such, nor is it asking you if the material currently in existance could be used to build a valid article. It is asking did the process of deletion work as it should, did the article as it stood meet the most basic standards required of wikipedia articles, the basic drive towards quality over quantity should tell us keeping stuff which falls far short of the basic standards by a long way hoping that someone, maybe some day will make it acceptable is a bad idea. "Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable" - no it isn't, the speedy criteria G4 does not apply to material speedy deleted. If you merely recreated a duplicate the original then the original speedy criteria would stand and could be reapplied, if on the other hand you addressed the issues of the speedy deletion (in this case non-assertion of notability) then the original speedy criteria wouldn't stand, G4 certainly couldn't be applied. The article has other issues which need to be addressed (lack of sourcing for example), but those aren't speedy criteria. --pgk 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And this is also the frustration of the requester here not discussing this with the deleting admin (me) first. The basic issues could have been addressed, the article would probably have been restored days ago and we'd have a better article as a result (not necessarily a perfect article) instead we have this drawn out discussion which really fails to address the fundamentals. The time we've all invested here (myself included) could have been used to a net positive effect in terms of article quality --pgk 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, old article is decent source to build off of and sources show it can be done.. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Night Gyr. Clear media attention, satisfying
  WP:WEB. Don't care if it's AFD'ed. I don't think that a draconian interpretation of "did not assert notability" satisfies the spirit of A7, for a company which is clearly notable anyway. Patstuart^talk·edits 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books

This MfD was a mass nomination of user subpages used by some users to collect other users' signatures. The list in the MfD was almost certainly non-exhaustive. It was closed by User:IronGargoyle as, to quote the important bit:

Keep pages from active participants (most, I would suggest any with contributions outside userspace) and Delete pages from completely non-active participants.

Gargoyle became unable to enact the close and made this post (again, selectively quoted):

I would suggest that any user with fewer than 100 mainspace edits would have their autograph book on the one-week bubble to avoid any ambiguity.

While this attempt at compromise is laudable, it is in my opinion unworkable. As I said at

Although it might seem an exercise in pointlessness to overturn a close where, because the admin left before enacting the close, hardly anything has actually happened (all but two of the links on the list are still blue), someone asked on

• Overturn and either relist individually or delete them all. I agree with Samuel Blanning that the way this MfD was closed is unworkable. I don't agree with the no consensus interpretation, although I wouldn't come here arguing against it had it been closed that way in the first place. What I think correctly resolves the issue Samuel Blanning raises above is to individually list each of the autograph books so that each one can be considered in the context of the contributions the user has made to the project. The only conceivable reason that any of these should be kept is under the assumption that they fall under the main purpose statement at
  WP:USER
  :

  Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.

  While whether the autograph pages serve this purpose can be debated (and was extensively in the MfD) individually for each autograph page to see if that page is indeed facilitating communication among participants. However, since this is really a lot of bother, I'd be equally fine with overturn and delete all. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close as "no consensus, default to keep" - MfD closures don't dictate policy. As Sam Blanning eloquently pointed out, enforcing an arbitrary edit count requirement is a ridiculous and unjustifiable chore. There was no clear consensus established in this debate, but it is worth noting that the sum of time, effort, and ill-will expended by editors in the MfD far exceeded any potential loss of productivity that not interfering with these signature books might have caused. Let's take a lesson from last year's userbox affair and discourage divisive campaigns against the friendly banality of otherwise productive contributors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with all speed The compromise is laudable, but unworkable, so get rid of them all. They dont deal with encyclopedic issues, they dont have any bearing on any wikiactions at all, and are a clear violation of
  M^ask
• Turnip --
  Doc^g 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and delete the lot of them, including the turnip. Sig pages are pointless to a 'pedia, and a rule that you can have a sig page if you have >100 edits is equally pointless not to mention
  WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and delete, but in any event do not relist. Actively harmful to the encyclopedia, in that they distract actual productive contributors into dealing with their inanity. —Cryptic 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no-consensus Relist clear cases for deletion per
  WP:NOT#Webspace (or even prod them). Agathoclea 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure and use some common sense. Is the user here to have autograph books? Delete them and tell the user this is an encyclopedia. Is the user here to contribute? Let them have their silly autograph books, they don't hurt anyone. Yes, yes, the 5 minutes they spend on writing "~~~~" on such a page could be spent in creating another
  FA, but who are we kidding with this kind of logic? No one wants to write articles in an environment that screams "Don't you dare to have some fun!" at you. --Conti|✉ 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• List in groups or individually as appropriate. (I think this = Endorse closure. DGG 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wholesale deletion will offend and/or sadden some good commentators. Wholesale keep encourages misuse of WP as a social site. Individualized consideration by the deleting administrator will take up a bunch of admin time. Individualized or group consideration on future MfDs will take more overall contributor time than signing the autographs does. So I don't think there's a good answer here. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial endorse: per Conti; admins are not robots: trust them to use a bit of common sense, and scrap the 100-edit criterion. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I agree with Conti above, but I'm not sure I'd also agree to the same conclusion. (Well, that is if I properly understand what Conti is endorsing. Thank God this is a discussion & not a vote.) If a Wikipedian has an account on Wikipedia just to collect autographs, I believe an Admin can delete the page, if that is the best solution. But I hope my fellow Admins would first try to convince the user to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful manner first. If the Wikipedian is otherwise a productive editor ... well, let her/him have their fun. -- llywrch 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dumbest nomination ever (I'm talking aboiut the MFD nomination, not this one). They're annoying and unencyclopedic, yes, but the ill will and massive process wanking that would inevitably follow from such a nomination is a hundred times worse. (Case in point: this DRV.) Seriously, people want to list them individually now? How many of those will end up back here? Just if you see an autograph book by an inactive user redirect it to the main user page and be done with it. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there's constant testing of the line between a
    MySpace page. Anytime the line between appropriate and inappropriate discretion on user pages is tested, these same "it's not doing any harm" and "this discussion is taking more time" arguments are put forward. The problem is that unchecked, a certain portion of the users here would establish a MySpace community here. That's not to say that there isn't some validity to those complaints, but it's a cost that will have to be paid at some point if we're going to enforce any limits on user pages. —Doug Bell 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's why anyone with a shred of common sense sticks to the battles that are actually worth fighting over. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, the last thing Wikipedia needs to do is drive away more good contributors over silly non-issues like we did with the userbox wars. Pages from people with no contributions to the encyclopedia can be, and are, nominated for deletion at MFD. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete all per
  User:Radiant. --kingboyk 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, delete and don't relist per all other delete votes. I can't add anything new that anyone hasn't already said. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

• Undelete The article had previously been deleted and
  Davesmith33 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the AfD was unanimous, and its problems couldn't be solved just by rewriting. Why not toss it in as a sentence in Top Gear? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main
    Davesmith33 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse. Honestly! Top Gear Dog is a dog who appears on Top Gear. It's a one-joke joke. And it wasn't that funny either. Plus, it's a pretty useless dog... A short para in Top Gear is quite sufficient, unless and until the dog becomes a worldwide celebrity with his own dogography. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy and Andrew, you fail to take into account a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main
    Davesmith33 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Ah, the endless Wikiconundrum: what to do with cruft purged from the main article. However, it is a recurring theme in the show, so at least a sentence would be worth having. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that if the overwhelming consensus on the talk page was that Top Gear Dog is too extremely minor of a show element to be mentioned there, that's all the more reason it shouldn't be a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is

• Endorse. The TGD article was deleted orginally for lack of notability - being nothing more than a short-lived in joke. It was nominated for speedy deleteion on the same criteria. The general consensus of editors (that is every one except
  WP:POINT. DrFrench 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. "Too minor for Top Gear" and "Too major to not have its own article" is a direct contradiction. Chris cheese whine 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS2pcGAMER, you are contradicting yourself there - "While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability." But is Jon Bentley more "notable" than TGD? I'm sure more TG viewers know who TGD is, than Jon Bentley.
    Davesmith33 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Bentley has no relevance to this debate. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) but it probably would make sense to post a redirect in order to prevent the page from further recreations. Rossami (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I figured that it should be noted that
  Top Gear (current format). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

MyWikiBiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2

)

See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other related AfDs:

• Gregory Kohs - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (2)
  - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (3) - Delete

• DRV - Deletion endorsed

• Very, very weak overturn and relist. Should not have been speedied after surviving an AFD. Very, very weak because only one of the sources there is even remotely
  desat 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist, but unless some new information comes to light the decision should be delete. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are a number of related AfD's missing. Anyone can add them? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Added all of the Kohs AfDs. There doesn't seem to have been another AfD for MyWikiBiz, so I'm wondering why this was the "2nd nomination". WarpstarRider 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Found it. It was MyWikiBiz.com ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh, RESTORE. Regardless of why Kohs was LEGITIMATELY banned again, for legal threats, we'd already shown in DRV, AfD, etc. that
  MyWikiBiz for that article was notable. It was unilaterally deleted by User talk:JzG. - Denny 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Really, tired of unilateral deletions against consensus.
  WP:IAR is not a license to just ignore everyone else and do whatever you want. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Should not have been speedied. I suppose it is reasonable to relist a nonconsensus for another AfD soon afterwards, doing a Speedy is really deliberately defying the rules based, I suppose, on one's personal opposiution.DGG 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - if you're an admin and you're unhappy with the way an AFD turns out, you should be coming here, not just disregarding the community's discussion. Wikipedia is not censored, least of all for "things that annoy JzG", and JzG's personal interaction with Kohs should have made him stay out of the situation in the first place. This was in extremely poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Milto LOL pia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Aren't these deletions done with the approval of Jimbo? I know Gregory Kohs was blocked by Jimbo for refusing to stop spamming. Corvus cornix 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not according to the log. It had passed DRV + AFD. The deletion was IAR. - Denny 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, don't relist. Seems like we just can't figure out how to apply notability to people that annoy us these days. --
  talk 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by desperate grasping at straws for reliable sources. This is worth all the trouble to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Relist - With a note that "sources" presented at the last AfD, which swayed editors towards saying it marginally met
  WP:CORP turned out to be obvious duplicates or derivatives of the one independent source we already had. Danski14^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist - I support the idea of the article's deletion as non-notable, but the closure of the AfD should have been appealed here, to deletion review, not undone by a unilateral deletion. It would be nice if we could treat this DRV as if it were an appeal of the original "no consensus" decision, in which case I would vote to delate, but I'm sure there will be people unwilling to look at it that way. So it seems that there is really now no choice but to start again. Put it back on AfD. Sigh. Metamagician3000 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UNDEL: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately can be invoked here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn yet another arbitrary JzG unilateral deletion, something he says he has no intention of stopping. I'll be glad when some admins have a little chat with him. He is driving good editors from the project with these ongoing antics. Jokestress 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has he done this? Perhaps RFC if its an ongoing issue? - Denny 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of an admin coming under fire for making a hasty decision. It's easy for any good editor get the admin tools. It's a challenge for that editor to become a successful sysop. And once those tools get revoked for abuse, they're hard to get back. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn; obviously out-of-process. Guy, I would have expected more of you. No opinion on relisting. Ral315 » 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Repasky McElhinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb.

• I can't see the deleted article, but if the article itself did not make any claims of notability, then the deletion was proper. If you want to rewrite the article to indicate what you said above, and can provide proof of your claims, then please go ahead. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Click on the "cache" link above. The article doesn't lack in assertions of notability, but comes across as a bit advertorial. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the deletion is sustained, I ask an admin to post the content of Autocoitus as of its last revision before the speedy delete to User:saizai/Autocoitus for my archival use, since I don't have access to it, there isn't a gcache copy, and I don't want to look for the links again in case it comes up later. Thanks. --Sai Emrys 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Got it myself; never mind. --Sai Emrys 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:

• Reliable sources - Amateur porn is a reliable source for whether a sex practice is conducted or not. Additionally, the article at last revision had other (text) sources, e.g. LPSG.org threads.
• Claimed impossibility
  WP:PN
  - The sources cited conclusively prove otherwise. If the editors voting for deletion on this ground were not inclined to view that proof, that is their problem and not one of the credibility of the source.
• Neologism
  santorum
  ; they are sexual neologisms but nevertheless kept.
• Censorship / revulsion - Irrelevant and inappropriate reason to delete on Wikipedia; it is a sexual act and can sustain an article just as much as autofellatio, anal sex, pegging, scat / coprophilia, etc. Yes many people will find it offensive or unpleasant. So what?
• ghits - Autocoitus = 65 (not 15 as claimed in VfD); self-fucking = 19,200; selffucking (no space) = 6,360; selffuck (no space) = 16,100; self-fuck = 33,100, including many forum threads about the practice.
• Rename - I'm fine with renaming the article to something like self-fucking. Autocoitus is simply the most obvious clinical term. Best would be to have one redirect to the other.
• Notability
  WP:N
  :
  • "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
    • About as much detail as autofellatio
  • "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
    • Multiple sources cited.
  • "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
    • Sources cited all specifically about the topic.
  • "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
    • Ergo Pornotube and [lpsg.org] sources are perfectly legit
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
    • In this case there is no need to rely on the honesty of the sources, since they are self-proving.
  • "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
    • AFAIK this is not an issue here --Sai Emrys 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ridiculous" is not an argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible or a joke page? --Sai Emrys 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ridiculous as in patent nonsense, or more specifically a nonsensical attempt at an article. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AfD was closed properly. In addition, there were absolutely no sources. PornoTube is not a
  desat 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Pornotube was not the only source listed in the article. Additionally, it *is* a reliable first-hand source, given that it is not being used as some sort of social commentary but as documentation of a sexual practice. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • desat 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • "... in some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed," - this is one of those cases. This is not a case of citing a YouTube discussion as authoritative source for what they're discussing, but of citing primary source evidence for the viability and existence of the practice the article discusses. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the off chance that this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part, allow me to explain. In an article on a topic whose notability has been established by reference to reliable secondary sources, we may on occasion allow primary sources as references to individual facts. So if a video is hosted on YouTube, and does not violate copyright, and contains a section which verifies a fact, and if there is no better source for it, and if we can cite it precisely (time in and so on), then a YouTube video may be allowable as a source for a piece of detailed information. PornoTube and XTube, needless to say, are considerably more likely to host copyright violations, but that is beside the point: in this case they are being presented as sources for the main premise of the article, and in a way that requires the reader to join the dots. This is a novel synthesis from published sources, aka
          original research. What we do not have is reliable secondary sources which establish the notability and existence of this concept, and the terminology you use to describe it. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • As noted in the original UDR, the terminology is not under dispute nor a good reason to delete rather than simply retitle. It odes not seem to me that this is
            WP:OR; the article says "some people do X" and the source is a clip that clearly shows someone doing X. That's not exactly "analysis". How would it be more credible if, say, Savage were to write an article - citing those same videos most likely - that says "some people do X"? Can we then point to him and say that he is a better source - as a secondary - than the primary source? How does that make the article better or more authoritative? --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Endorse deletion. You've managed to conclusively prove that it exists and is possible, and nothing else. That is not an encyclopedia article. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what grounds exactly? If it's something I addressed above please refute my comments rather than just reasserting it. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, compare to autocunnilingus, which isn't even known to be possible. --Sai Emrys 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod. This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.DGG 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.DGG 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the consensus at its AfD was clearly delete. The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD. Just wanted to clear that up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List as AfD per
  AfD to confirm deletion. As it is now only sysops can see it so I don't know if it actually does meet criteria. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • History restored behind {{
    desat 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Ugh! I'd vote delete BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what grounds? Personal disgust (i.e. censorship)? --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please
          Resurgent insurgent 10:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • All zie said was "Ugh". That sounds like simple disgust to me, even in good faith. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The most recent version had zero sources. The most recent version which did have sources had zero
  reliable sources. Corvus cornix 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See below. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Ridiculous... lack of
  Resurgent insurgent 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please use this version for comparison. Note multiple sources. Last revised edition had sources edited out for unspecified reasons without responding to the discussion about that on its talk page. --Sai Emrys 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrators: please give the same partial undelete to its Talk page as is on the main page, and post a link to the most recent revision here for reference (per above). Thanks. --Sai Emrys 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes we know... the first admin who commented - before the history was undeleted - already mentioned your "sources". Sorry, they are not the type of
    Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh FFS. A PornoTube video is not a source. An XTube video is not a source. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some guy saying "bush bombed the two towers" on YouTube is a source, but not 'reliable' on *what it claims* because it has no editorial review. So you can't point and say "look, bush bombed the two towers, RandomVlogger92334 said so!". But you can point and say "look, some people thinkg bush bombed the two towers! see, right here!". Here it is being used for the latter. No different from any other primary source documentation of a practice; you're not accepting some random vlogger's word for something existing, but seeing proof of the thing itself. If you disagree, please rebut the *merits* of what I said rather than simply reiterating "but it's not a source". Note the quote above from
      WP:RS re exceptions. Just 'cause it's on YT (or PT) doesn't mean we're obliged to pretend it doesn't exist. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse deletion. BUT! I would say don't salt this... yet. The article is along the same lines as
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- therefore, as of right now, internet forums and videos do not qualify as reliable sources, and it should remain deleted until actual Wiki-endorced sources emerge. Rockstar915 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That source might come in a month. Or one year. Or never. Why not just keep it deleted?
    Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think you misunderstood me -- my point was that we should keep it deleted. But since it's a page with recreated content, often similar pages get salted. I was just saying that we shouldn't salt it. Rockstar915 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was read entirely correctly at the AfD, and not a single reliable source has been added to the article since it was recreated by the original author. Sorry, but 3 guys fucking themselves on pornotube does not an encyclopedic article make. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This was deleted through AfD less than two months ago, and the article that was speedied was virtually identical to the article that was AfD'd. Valid G4. WarpstarRider 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There is obviously some dispute about N and whether there are RSs, and the place to discuss this is AfD. WP should not be blind to the outside world, and material which would only be expected to be documented by blogs or the like, is appropriately documented by them. Using a little reason, In what essential way would the situation be different if a few porno books were found instead of the videos? Direct observation is not necessarily OR. Interpretation is: reaching a conclusion on whether the material is real or faked would be OR. . Saying this material is part of at least web culture and documenting that is appropriate use of sources.. The fact that there are a number of them is N. I already !voted to relist at AfD. where the above argument can be used. DGG 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion as reposted content. Neither the deleted versions nor this discussion have presented evidence that justify overturning the very clear decision of the AFD discussion. Nor did any deleted version ever rise above the level of an unsourced
  dictionary definition. Rossami (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Strongly so. Even with good faith in mind, many of the comments appear biased. Notifiability has been established, and the sources are better than for a lot of articles on WP. The presence of porn vids (VHS, DVD and downloadable, it seems) does not serve as a reliable source for the contents of such an article, so it can be stubbed if necessary, but it does document that this is a topic, and that the article has as much of a place on WP as other stubs, pages on music albums, pages on characters in fictional works, and so forth. I doubt a similarly sourced article about an equivalent topic that had nothing to do with sex would be as likely to end up being deleted as one that is related to sex. A "wtf?" topic? Yes. A non-topic? No. I concur with the points raised in objection to the delete. A move would be okay, if nobody objects to the unencyclopaedic tone of the article name. The article can be stubbed, just like a ton of other articles on WP. Any replies should be directed to my talkpage, if possible, as I don't watch Deletion Review (I hit the article via an internal link). Zuiram 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read
    desat 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• What the ... Keep deleted, nonsense, ureferenced, etc. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator who deleted this article did it without reasonables reasons Wadim 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Was previously AFD'd for reasons of notability. Deleted three times since as being a recreation of deleted material. Article has been around for years and yet has no sources other than the subject's Web site. I protected the article as a deleted page becasue the author claimed he would keep re-creating the deleted article from a saved file on his computer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not the original author. I had to recreate the article from material in Google's cache. In any case: Europe United is an active organization with more than 500 members. It's Web site is active too, just check it's forum [10] and this should be enough. All that deletions and protection is censorship for me. Wadim 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no evidence of
  notability given. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion of all unsourced articles about "emerging political parties" even if they have got 500 members. Which is fewer than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, by the way. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want info about big parties, buy Microsoft's Encarta. Wikipedia is different (or it should be). If you censor any info about small and new organizations, you are against democracy and freedom on Internet. Wadim 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read
      WP:NOT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Censorship, democracy, freedom... but you missed the First Amendment! If you're going to do the whole freedom of speech thing, you have to do it properly. It doesn't work, of course, because Wikipedia is not free speech and never has been, but please at least check all the boxes! Guy (Help!) 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per above, valid AfD, and - judging from the last comment by the nominator - as a
  desat 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reject deletion I stated it on the talk page on Europe United, but there is a heck of a lot more parties that are smaller and have done less yet still get a page on Wikipedia. Europe United's status as the first (or near first, there is also
  unsigned comment was added by Mikebloke (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Are we getting any hits on google for this? Any reliable sources? I'm amazed at how just one person can bring a page down. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the look of the page, thanks to the cache, the page should be redirected to United Nations (Europe) since that what I thought it would be about. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BuickCenturyDriver, who are you claiming was the "one person" who "brought the page down"? The AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not blaming anyone in particular and I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm just amazed at how long ago the page was and yet it only took one user to knock it off. All it took was for one person to nominate for AFD and that knocked off the page. I'm also curious as to whether the one that was previously deleted was the old version. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AfD was unanimous in 2005, 2 years ago!!! Europe United was created in 2005 and perhaps it wasn't notable that year. But today is 2007 and the party is still active, with enough members. I think that some administrators forgot what Wikipedia is about. If an organization exists and it is active there should be an acticle about it in Wikipedia. If you don't like this, use Encarta!!! Wadim 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand what Wikipedia "is about". We're an encyclopedia, not a web host. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "We're an encyclopedia..." so... Wikipedia is your property. hm ok, ok Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a repost of properly deleted content. No actual evidence has been provided either in the deleted versions or in this discussion that this party has now achieved the notability that it lacked when the AFD discussion was held. No sources were provided other than a link to their own website (which fails to qualify as an independent source). Rossami (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AFD was valid, protection was valid. No indication of notability was provided. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Afd was decisive way bsck then, no new evidence was brought to the new article (google cached version), nor to this DRV. Google seems to bring up unconnected geographical locations when "Europe United" is searched. Still nothing obvious two years later, think that it'll have to wait a fair while longer before there are enough sources to write this from. _{And crying cenosrship rarely helps get an article un-deleted....} Inner Earth 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that Wikipedia's administratos try to delete information about this political organization. Maybe in USA that is normal, but in Europe we call it censorship. Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting an article about a
      non-notable organisation has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Hey! We are not talking about "3 old men that meet every week in some bar to drink beer and play chess" (perfect example of a non-notable organization), we are talking about international political organization! Wadim 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can convince me if you provide evidence of notability by independent third-party coverage (e.g. newspapers, tv programs) of this organisation. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Europe (& in the USA, & the rest of the world), we don't scream censorship, we read the guidelines and try to make descisions based on reasoned arguments - if it's notable, it will have been covered in the European press - so show us! And international organisation could be me and some friends who come from different countries - we're not notable just because we're international (nor because we have our own website). Inner Earth 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. There was a straight by-the-book AfD in November, 2005; all participants voted to delete. Asking for a Deletion Review for an unsourced article is not reasonable until sources are provided. The article (at least the version of it on answers.com) still has no third-party references, though the problem has existed since the original AfD. Political parties, of all things, should be easy to find press coverage for, if they are at all known. Otherwise how will anyone vote for them? The version of the article I saw said that Europe United was just a political association, not a party at this point, so perhaps no-one has ever voted for them. The party's web site doesn't mention any elections in which they have run candidates. Wadim's suggestion that he will just keep recreating the article borders on disruptive editing. EdJohnston 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said: "If you just ignore this note and delete the article, I will simply copy it from my computer again.". By the way, the note was ignored. In any case, I give up. I still think that this deletion is some kind of censorship, and I'm happy that Wikipedia's administrators only control Wikipedia, so people can find what they need on other Web sites.Wadim 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Notability not established. Previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion. Adambro 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Deleted without consensus: vote was 9-7 but closing admin claimed 12-7 James S. 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW it was 12-7, counting the nominator and counting an Archive comment as == Delete and counting a "Comment This kind of stuff is meant for blogs..." as == Delete. Also FWIW my closing was based, rightly or wrongly, on the theory that:
  • If most everyone agrees Entity X is harmless, Entity X is kept.
  • If some believe Entity X is harmful, but others think it's helpful, Entity X might be kept depending on the balance of various factors.
  • But if some believe Entity X is harmful and others think it's harmless but not helpful, there's no real reason to keep it, and that was the situation here in my view. Herostratus 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I'm not even looking at the item, haggling over vote counts is an insufficient reason to contest a closure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Vote count is not a reason for deletion, but that means it also isn't a reason for overturning a deletion. And as Herostratus said, if nobody believes that something is helpful, and some people do believe it's harmful, the logical thing is to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. It's not a vote. The closing comments state the reasons behind the evaluation of the arguments and the decision to delete. I see nothing wrong here. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - "voting" outcome alone cannot be determinative. It's not actually meant to be a vote. Metamagician3000 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gonna have to go with this here, he's a sysop and he (other sysops) can read it anytime. I wouldn't say it's harmful though. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks the cache, I know this article waa a discussion. Not too many were interested. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The decision was within reasonable admin discretion and was well-explained on the page. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, policy and popular opinion both leaned towards the decision made by the admin. --
  talk 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

administrator's only reason was that the page constituted copyright infringement, which is simply not accurate. ABAORG 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's national media office, and a practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by administrator SwatJester or someone using that member name. The reasoning offered for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and a legal expert on copyright infringement, I would like an explanation behind this line of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned and operated by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys from all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his national activities as president, his involvement in the Clinton administration, his work for the Dukakis and Weld administrations in Massachusetts, his work as ABA judicial reviewer for federal court appointees, and for and his work with Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association. The ABA has received several inquiries already re: the deletion of the page (why it was deleted, how students and other inquirers can now access that information on President Greco, etc.)

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. We believe it to be a valid and important addition to the growing Wikipedia.org family of knowledge.

Sincerely, J. Nichols

• Endorse and speedy close Copyright violation is of this page at his firm.
  GRBerry 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore If the ABA Media office claims they wrote it, then the page at his firm was probably copied from the article, not the other way around. However, why is the ABA "maintaining" articles on their membership? James S. 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. (1) if they copied their web page from our article, why are we not credited? This is required. (2) When they say they wrote it, they probably mean that they wrote it on their web page first and copied it to Wikipedia later. (3) If the material on their web site is not copyrighted, they need to make this manifest, otherwise we must assume its under copyright. No predjudice against anyone re-creating the article, written in their own words. Herostratus 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as deleting editor I deleted it as a blatant copyright vio of that page. It was clearly a valid copyright deletion, the copy pasting being incompatible with GFDL attribution. Also, I should note the WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:USER implications of
  ^{On Belay!} 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion Obvious
  WP:OWN the article. alphachimp 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per above but also there is no proof that J. Nichols is who he says he is. Consider the following posting that I made on
  WP:ANI
  .

  Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:[email protected] them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If the text is released under GFDL and the images are multi-licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons, then there would be no basis for the article's deletion. The ABA must understand that doing so would enable the text to be edited by anyone. A disclaimer on the talk page or an update of licensing information on their web page should be sufficient. However, the article itself does not clearly establish the notability of the subject with
  multiple third-party non-trivial sources. Killa Kitty 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse The suggestion that they maintained the article sounds like they were using us for free web hosting - well we don't do that. Also, we have clear policies on using copyrighted material and its fine as long as the rights holder contacts OTRS and provides the relevant release. Surely not a problem for them to do if they are who they say they are. Personally, if the guy is notable, it prefer an independantly written and properly cited article but call me old fashioned in that respect.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as per several of the above. If this is a legit communication (which i tend to doubt) and if the ABA is prepared to relase their text under the GFDL then it can be recreated. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unknown John Bolton MBICSc 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koda Rohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

• Endorse deletion. The deleted article just said they were a Japanese author and gave no further information. As such it made assertion of notability and was rightly deleted. That said, the speedy deletion does not prevent a new article being started if any editor wishes to
  be bold and create one that does assert notability and is supported by reliable sources. WjBscribe 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. The deletion was entirely proper as WJscribe says above, but I see what Kusunose means. Let's give him/her the chance to expand it before closing this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong undelete Extremely notable author. I've undeleted for now, and added to the article a bit including a reference. Definitely an article Wikipedia should not be without. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, obviously valid Articles-7 - remember that the question is not whether the author is notable, but whether the article asserted this, which it didn't. Close this review as moot following recreation with assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Talk:Friendship Circle (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Friendship Circle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason given was "and the only contributor was 'Zalman613'" However you did not even give a chance for anyone else to comment. 12.26.60.132 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the reason given was "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". >Radiant< 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Friendship Circle (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Friendship Circle|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the reason clearly given there, no reason was given why that is not of major importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.60.132 (talk • contribs)

• That was the talk page. Talk pages for pages that have been deleted are usually deleted as well. And it looked like someone was just trying to recreate the article content on the Talk, which is not what Talk pages are for anyway. (Though I'm only going by the snippet of content included in the deletion summary; I can't actually see the deleted page's full content.) WarpstarRider 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an admin. than restore the talk page and you will see. The point that it said there was, that the organization is fundamental in changing societies look at the inclusion of special needs children. Knowing about that, through that post, is a part of people being aware of the this type of thought or at least to know that it exists in a large way. That explains clearly the importance and significance of the subject, the deleter does explain why that is invalid. 12.26.60.132 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I speedied this. This article does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It is also heavily POV, contextless (international? US? Israel?) and is a mission statement, not an article. having reread, I would still delete. jimfbleak 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per
  conflict of interest - created by a user called Zalman, and Rabbi Zalman Grossbaum is a leading figure in the group. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Direct cut-and-paste from a website. Not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per CSD G11 mainly and also A7. An attempt at a
  sourced article on this subject would be one thing, but this was a cut & paste mission statement. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• That's a copyvio, first rewrite it then we can debate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central station metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Four lane ends metro station.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Haymarket metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Ilford road metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Jesmond metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Longbenton metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Monument metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Northumberland park metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Regent centre metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:South gosforth metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:St james metro station sign.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IfD

)

Rogue result. Images have no encyclopaedic value, and are essentially textual content pretending to be an image. Last time I checked, we don't use images for this sort of thing (e.g. we don't use "

• XfD isn't the right place for this. A discussion about whether these are the logos of the stations or just text on a goldenrod background should occur at some relevant page, not IfD. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (Comment from the closing admin) "No encyclopedic value," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The actual wording of the nomination is "serve no purpose, purely cosmetic," again fairly subjective claims, which many others did not agree with. The images are public domain and were being used. There was no reason to delete them.
  talk 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)}[reply
  ]
  • Again, I put it to you that 3
    WP:ILIKEITs and 1 straight vote are not a consensus, and hardly support the claim that "many others did not agree with" the nomination. As for the wording of the nomination, I think it's not a big jump to infer "unencyclopaedic". I still challenge anyone to defy this claim (it has not once been addressed, not in the debate nor in the accompanying talk). Chris cheese whine 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There is no requirement that a free image be used for encyclopedic purposes to remain on Wikipedia. -
      talk 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • IfD begs to differ. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Ifd is not a policy. But even at that, the images were being useful in the article namespace so they could be considered encyclopedic. -
          talk 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • OK, now you're just making excuses. They were not being useful. They were being used where it would undoubtedly be better to use text, and purely to fulfull a cosmetic role. The
            WP:MOS is clear on the point that we do not blindly follow the styles of others, and the point that apparently we should use the same typeface as on the signs carries no weight whatsoever. Chris cheese whine 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Here is my re-cap for non-deletion:

• • The images should not have been in use. There was no real opposition to the proposed deletion. "UE" clearly is a policy reason to delete, otherwise it would not be listed in the instructions as a viable reason. Chris cheese whine 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Increasing the cosmetic appeal improves Wikipedia. I've seen templates that use images te recreate route maps which is much better than providing them in voluminous writing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Where were these used before they were nominated for deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images were used in the infobox for each station such as in this example for West Jesmond. DrFrench 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse decision The proliferation of those images is annoying (starting with this particularly obnoxious example) and some policy/MoS directive needs to be created to keep Wikipedia from turning into Geocities 2.0, but I can't read this from the discussion. This reads more like an "I'm unhappy with the outcome of the IfD" nomination to me. ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion suffered from an overparticipation of those with an interest in using them, and underparticipation of outside parties, hence I'm unhappy with the outcome in the sense that I believe the closer failed to take the
    interests into account. Chris cheese whine 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion. A photograph of the place would be encyclopaedic, a mocked-up version of the station sign is not. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you mean overturn and delete? The original decision was to keep. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I don't see the value of substituting the text "West Jesmond" with a picture that says "West Jesmond". I know it might be typeset in a rare and non-reproducible typeface, but still it offers little enhancement over plain text. Replace with a photograph of the respective station if you must. (Oh, and the image server is having a bad day - I can only see the alternative text despite having purged both the article and the image description page.)
  Resurgent insurgent 10:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse keep; this is an editorial decision that should be decided by the contributors on those pages, not on DRV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has. There is no consensus to use the images. Hence I proposed them for deletion. Chris cheese whine 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has not. If so, please provide a link to the relevant discussion by the contributors to those pages. The definition of consensus is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community. The group that particpated in the IFD agreed that the images should be kept. No other group has discussed the text versus image issue in the infobox headings -
      talk 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • We do not need a discussion on the merits of text vs. an image containing the same text in much the same way that we do not need a discussion on the subject of whether or not grass is predominantly green. There is no consensus discussion anywhere which is so enormously compelling as to override this common-sense fact. Chris cheese whine 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank God you are here to show us the errors of our ways! -
          talk 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]

        Also, as far as I am concerned, the user who created them and their buddies calling

        WP:ILIKEIT is not a consensus. Chris cheese whine 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

        ]

        • More so a consensus then one person saying
          WP:IDONTLIKEIT
          and using the guise of "unencyclopedic" as a human shield.
          • Now I see the problem. For a while, I thought I was on Wikipedia, but evidently I've stumbled onto Myspace. Chris cheese whine 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are on Wikipedia, and generally speaking, falling back on insults when your arguments are failing isn't very convincing. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep The IfD result was fair, it just seems Chris is upset about that result. I cannot see any strong reason for deleting them. I'd also ask that he doesn't keep removing images prior to the IfD outcome, doing so is pre-empting that outcome. Adambro 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep per User:Crotalus horridus. Deletion reason boils down to "I don't like them," and all User:Chriscf is doing to explain himself is to add exclamation points to that sentence. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know I have asked for this before, and I have noted your responses. You all said that the page led to nonsense, and what I claimed (that there was one a pretty informative article that was as good as any other article) was not true. (original request on January 13 2007) I know for a fact that somwhere in the history of the page you will find the version I was talking about. Full of true information about the movie, and quite a long article at that. tDCM is a very popular flash movie, and if you can find the proper version, I'm sure it would be a great re-adition to wikipedia! I am willing to work with an admin to halp him/her find the right version! Please contact me via userpage if you can help me get the proper page restored! —The preceding

• Endorse deletion, the problem wasn't that the page was nonsense, it's that there was no coverage of the animation in
  the notability standards. Until some one can produce reliable sources that prove otherwise, the page stays deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Taylor Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Because it is vitally important to the success of this website, it will attract many new viewers and it is a good contribution. Victorvondoom2007 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jessica9.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Jessica9.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was listed for speedy deletion yesterday on grounds that the user that uploaded said she was 9-years old. This is not valid reason for speedy deletion. I removed the tag, but it was deleted anyway. The user's user page has also been deleted, for the same reason, but Wikipedia doesn't have any such policy - in fact that policy was explicitly rejected: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Nssdfdsfds 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse regardless. Editor has only two edits, the first of which was to add this image to child. We already have plenty of images on that article. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong. The user had three edits. The other edit was to create a userpage (which has also been summarily deleted - not just blanked). A user is entitled to have a picture of herself on her userpage without it being deleted. The picture can be removed from child if it is not one of the better pictures on there, but there's no reason to delete it.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There does not appear to have been a valid reason for a speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I suspect the account was a trolling attempt of some kind, although exactly what the point of it was I can't tell. New user creates an account, making sure to specify their supposed age (9) not only on their user page but in their user name as well, then uploads a picture (supposedly of themselves?) and adds it to two articles, Child and Girl. Does not seem like something a real 9-year-old would likely do, IMHO. In any case, both articles have plenty of pictures already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, I can't think of any reason why it should be a troll. What's it supposed to be trolling? If you were trolling, you'd probably be posting to lots of pages pretending to be "9-year old Jessica". You wouldn't upload one picture and go away. Seems like the user is exactly what she seems, a 9-year-old girl who wanted to add something to wikipedia, but found that her images and user page were deleted without anybody getting in touch on her talk page to say why.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily endorse deletion, I have blocked the uploader as a sock of
  desat 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ok, well spotted, close this one as it's the same image then. Nssdfdsfds 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

• Endorse, Radiant made the right decision to close as delete, seeing as the keep arguments weren't grounded in any policies at all. There was a total of one reliable source provided, and it was only peripherally related to the minigames. That tidbit can go in Nintendo#Controversy. Picaroon 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHAT‽‽ There was more than one reliable source. There were 5ish in the references section. If someone thought that those sources were unreliable, that should have been brought up during the AfD. That didn't happen. McKay 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my, how did I miss that answers.com link? Answers is practically the definition of reliable sources! We must overturn!</sarcasm> Picaroon 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So are you implying now that there were only 2 links? What happened to the other three I'm claiming existed byond that? Also, IIRC, there was reasoning provided for the answers.com link, and why we should treat that article as different than other answers.com links. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. [Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.]
  • "The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines," Where? Could you be more specific. All of the delete arguments had
    WP:CONSENSUS
    stating that the reasons were not founded on policy and guidelines. At best they had Essays saying listcruft.
  • "the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL" No, the keep arguments boiled down to "The content is
    Attributable
    ."
  • He also makes reference to two supposed quotes, that [Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.] don't appear as quoted:
    1. "no reason given for deletion"
    2. "it was kept in the past"

[Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.] Sure, while there are some who said that, I would not think that those are all the arguments, or even the bulk of them.McKay 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (modified 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) by McKay)[reply]

• • Whoa. Flatly accusing someone (in bold no less) of lying is pretty uncalled for. Yes you are supposed to
    Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• User:Dacium said both of those things, then other people cited his/her reason later in the discussion. Extraneous bold AND italic words! WHOA —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yes, I apologize, I stand by what I said, but I should not have done it how I did it. As Arkyan pointed out, this topic did have extensive debate. Anyone can see that I put a lot of effort into this AfD. When I saw that the result was "delete" I was very surprised, as I thought it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The purpose of the AfD is a discussion on whether or not the article should stay. But it seemed as if he was ignoring everything I had said in the article. I couldn't find any real substance in what he had said that made the article worth deleting. A couple of his arguments had quotes, and I wanted to see what he was talking about, but couldn't find what he was referencing. McKay 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: Per nomination. Henchman 2000 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ifyou look here you will find that he biased his decision on Delete. Henchman 2000 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of this list which belongs on GameFAQs or some such, and strongly admonish anyone who describes legitimate differences of opinion as "lying", an attitude which is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - closing admin made a judgement call on a difficult subject clouded with a lot of heated comment and debate. I support that decision.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. I really wish Radiant had not both deleted this article and nominated other such similar articles for deletion. I base this on my belief that whoever closes an XFD should not have participated in the discussion. If an editor has anything in particular to say, s(he) ought to note it in the discussion and leave the closing to someone else. That said, I find McKay's accusation of deceit to be inappropriate, lacking foundation, and in rather poor taste (especially with regard to the means of its expression).

However, let's consider the close itself. In terms of numbers, this was a clear "no consensus" with 12 keeps, 12 deletes, and 1 redirect. But, since AFD is not a headcount, let's also consider the arguments.

Arguments to delete. The two main arguments to delete were:

attribution

. Through the course of the AFD, steps were taken to address the latter problem and a number of references and two paragraphs of prose about the minigames were added. I believe the first was also addressed when the game guide content that was initially present in the article was removed, leaving only the list of minigames with brief descriptions. A game guide "contain hints or complete solutions", but the article that was deleted included few or no such statements.

Arguments to keep. I disagree with Radiant that the arguments to keep consisted only of "ILIKEIT", "bad process", and "it was kept before". Keep arguments included direct or implicit references to following (and I'm paraphrasing): "the minigames are the central focus of Mario Party"; "the information is encyclopedic but the main article is already long"; "the article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content (instructions/hints)"; and "the topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable".

Conclusion. I initially started this lengthy comment not knowing what I would recommend, but have come to a clear conclusion that the decision to delete should be overturned. I find the argument discounting the "keep" arguments to be inaccurate and also rather dismissive, though I note again that I do not believe the close was made in bad faith or that there is evidence to suggest such. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. He shouldn't have participated in the latter Mario Party list AfDs, but he made a good call in closing it, simply because no one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia. No matter how many people vote to keep based on "it's necessary and encyclopedic just because", the fact that they didn't shows that this closure was in good faith. Anyone remember Bonus Stage? 50% delete, 50% keep, but it was deleted because the keepers didn't assert that it was encyclopedia, notable, or necessary. Remember - this is not a vote. It is a discussion, and if the closing administrator feels that you have failed to prove your points, it gets deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50% keep, 50% delete = No Consensus. Henchman 2000 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD = Not a vote. The Kinslayer 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, while you are correct that the vote isn't everything, if he felt that the arguments provided against all of the delete votes were invalid, he should have said though. From my perspective it appeared as if they were ignored. Maybe they weren't, but if they weren't ignored, I think he should have stated so. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia? How about the list of things I wrote?

1. The minigames are the central focus of Mario Party;
2. The article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content;
3. The topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable.

• • An interpretation that these were only "ILIKEIT" or "USEFUL" is dismissive and inaccurate. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for further discussion, though I have no opinion on the article itself. It is obvious from the lack of agreement here that there was also no agreement at AfD, where the same arguments were used, and rather than discuss the merits here, it should be sent back for re-argument based on the current version. DGG 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion When closing an AfD, or judging any consensus for that matter, you need to take into account the value of the arguments in relation to policy. I think Radiant did this well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse self. To clarify a bit, I didn't quote people in my closing but listed some of the ideas people argued from. Actual quotes along those lines include "There is no reason to delete these articles" (Bowsy), "Nominator has provided no reason for deletion" (Dacium), "We have no reason to think that this article should be deleted" (McKay) and "Nominator should post links to past AFDs ... nothing has changed - so still keep" (Dacium).
  WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments include "Keep as this is a useful list" (Burntsauce) and "Mario Party has extended into quite a long series" (Valley2City). >Radiant< 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I should add that I've struck my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (2nd nomination), and that my nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames was intended to be procedural because it was noted that those party game articles should all be treated similarly. >Radiant< 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured you were paraphrasing. However, I think it's unfair to characterise those users' arguments as consisting of nothing beyond those quotes. See, for instance, these other statements by those users, which are claims with direct relevance to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and/or refutations of the reasons for deletion (material in parentheses is added by me):

1. Bowsy: "Mario Party is about minigames more than anything else." (notability)
2. Dacium: "Information is too big to fit in normal articles for games." (proper content organisation)
3. Burntsauce: "I see nothing that strikes me as "game guide" material here, and we can quickly remove it should it ever creep in." (WP:NOT)

-- Black Falcon 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The first is a
  encyclopedic
  .

  No, the logic isn't perfect. You are correct in saying "If X is notable, it doesn't mean all the Ys in X are notable" but it seems implicit that he's saying that the minigames themselves are notable. Sure, he should probably show why he thinks that, but his opinion is a valid one. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The second is also a non sequitur. If information does not fit in one place, it does not follow that we need a new place to put it. Guidelines like
  WP:FICT
  are relevant here.

  Yes, funny you should mention

  WP:FICT. I quote in part: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice." On some of the MP lists it was specifically ruled that it was too long and unweildy for the main article. Do you think a better guideline fits? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The third is a proof by assertion. Other people argue that this is game guide material. Indeed, if gamefaqs.com is any judge, I would expect to find exactly this in a MP game guide. Just because a good game guide would contain more information doesn't mean this information isn't game guidish.

  Ahh, now that's a

  WP:CONSENSUS states that without adding additional thought. I argue that consensus was reached in favor of keep. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• My point here is that I tend to discount fallacies when closing a discussion. >Radiant< 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  the purpose of this Deletion review is to determine whether or not policy was followed. The argument being made here is that policy isn't being followed. IIRC, the purpose of the closing adminstrator isn't to "discount fallacies" made in the discussion, but to gather the feel of the AfD to see where consensus lies. Not (like Radiant himself claims) make additional judgements on the content provided therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)

  • The purpose of the closing administrator is to weigh the arguments. Obviously, valid arguments weigh stronger than fallacies. >Radiant< 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And I'm saying that there aren't any fallacies on the "keep" side. I think you used a judgement call to say what was a fallacy and what wasn't. If someone thought the arguements were fallacies, they should have said so during the discussion. McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion - Still a game guide in my opinion. The Kinslayer 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion That article was absolutely useless, and I actually like the Mario Party series, but, that being said, I also know that a list of the minigames is totally unnecessary and I'm still feeling a
  Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Contrary to what you may think, the purpose of a deletion review isn't to say "Overturn, notable" or "Endorse deletion, still a game guide" Those are not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the process was followed. Particularly in the outcome -- Did the closing administrator properly follow procedure and determine whether or not consensus existed? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah sure why not. (Did you really think challenging my view was going make me say 'By gods your right, restore it immediately I say!'?). Looking through the AfD, no-one adequetly (in my view) rebutted the deletion issues, therefore the admin was right to delete. The Kinslayer 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you did exactly what I was thinking you should do. I pointed out that your argument wasn't valid for a Deletion Review. I was hoping that you'd go through the AfD, and the result to determine whether or not you think that the process was followed. I believe that the process wasn't followed properly, beacuse the closing admin:
        1. Didn't give an accurate summary of what happened
        2. Claims that he did some
           original research on the content to determine what consensus really was. McKay 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
           ]
           • So what, he didn't give an accurate summation of the events because you disagreed with him? He assessed your arguments, which WERE "I like it", "It's useful", and "Mario Party is notable, and the mini-games are important to MP, making them notable by association". None of which are appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

             We specifically denounced that those were what our claims were. His job was not to assess arguments, but to determine whether or not consensus was reached, and I don't think he did that. Consensus was not reached in favor of "delete". McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. I can't really disagree with anything that Radiant's said, here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. While some "Delete"-ers had IDON'TLIKEIT arguments, the "Keep"-ers had none at all outside ILIKEIT. I think it was a pretty clear cut case that the Keeps were out debated by the Deletes. Axem Titanium 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Falcon has shown that the "keep"ers had other arguments, can you discount them? McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me, I was not using
    WP:N which it does qualify for. And the deletes were out debated by the keeps anyway. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn which defults to keep. The AfD was allowed to run for the full length of time, yet no consensus was found for deletion inspite of substantial discussion. Thus it must be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the post above yours should have explained that 50% No keep and 50% Delete DOES NOT equal No Consensus and therefore a keep. As has been stated numerous times, AfD is not a vote, it's a debate. The Kinslayer 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    and what he's saying is that there wasn't consensus for keep. If there was consensus for keep, we wouldn't be having this little discussion would we?

• Comment - Nobody wishing to keep this article has provided any sources which show notability of the mini-games outside the context of Mario Party itself. Can anybody show otherwise? I don't consider coverage in game guides or primary sources to be enough for this, and I don't considering copying and pasting portions of the main article to be enough either. Editorially speaking, it makes no sense to fork articles like this. Overall, people wanting to keep this article did not have strong arguments. One group claimed the nom didn't really give a valid reason for deletion (maybe, but it was quickly followed by a decent reason for deletion, so that doesn't really matter). One group gave various reasons for keeping, most of which were variations "it's good, I like it". Black Falcon attempted to source, but as I pointed out, this just resulted in forking content from the main article. --- RockMFR 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How did we not have strong arguments, the deletists didn't have strong arguments anyway, they were saying "I don't like this article, I don't want it here, I know, I'll use a lame excuse to try and make it seem like something is wrong with the article". On the other hand, we were saying, "This is a notable subject, it is sourced and you are using reasons that aren't true to try and get the article deleted". Which is better? Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - 50/50 is a clear consensus to delete when the reasoning of the 50% urging us to keep can't produce a reason related to our policies and guidelines for why we should do so. It's not all about the numbers. Chris cheese whine 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, we used
  WP:ATT. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Deletion Done well, and an Admin who has the brass cajones to actually read the arguments and realize the the Keep votes amounted to nothing more then
  M^ask 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

An admin who fails to understand how AfD works and makes an opinionated closure and who fails to realise that the entire nomination was a

WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument most certainly does NOT deserve points. Henchman 2000 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The nomination may well have been inspired by

WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be considered above actual Policy related arguments when summing up a deletion debate, then I hope your never an admin. As has been stated numerous times, numerical counts of people supporting or opposing a proposed deletion is NOT the point of the AfD. Even here in the review, the people wishing for the article to be restored haven't been able to muster a better argument then "Admin had no right to delete the article, the people saying 'Keep' was at least equal to people saying 'Delete'.' The Kinslayer 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No personal attacks, Kinslayer. If youare saying

WP:N, which we are doing at the moment. Also, the admin did have no right to delete the article, as there was too much cloud and mist to form a consensus from. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It wasn't an attack, it was a comment on the logic you seem be displaying at the moment! I think far too many people throw NPA around needlessly just because they don't like the holes that are appearing in their own arguments, so they use it as a smokescreen. As for the too much cloud issue, only you and a very few other people hold that view. The admin at the time felt the issue was clear enough to judge, as do a large majority of the people in this review. Most of the cloud and mist, it has to be said, came from people stating 'Keep' with no reason or very weak reasons (this also happened, although as far as I'm concerned, to a far lesser extent, with some of the people saying 'Delete'.) The Kinslayer 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Closure as delete was within admin discretion, and the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments. WarpstarRider 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin City Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company history is very notable. It is probably most regarded legend in the US fan history. Twin City Fan is the parent company of the oldest fan company in US history: Clarage, and the largest private industrial fan company in the US. More interestingly, the Barry family has successfully run the company for 3 generations. The first generation, Ben Barry is considered the founding father of moderm fan industry, who founded Barry Blower, Barry Chicago Blower, PennBarry, and last Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. 63.252.184.178 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fancruft! Just kidding. Overturn deletion A quick Google News search shows this to be a notable company, including being involved with some court case that made it to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment made me smile :) Anyway, overturn and relist in light of evidence for potential notability, but relist so a consensus as to whether or not it's sufficient can be reached. The prior AfD didn't have much debate on it either way.
    Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn. The article starts: "Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd is a group of industrial
  fans companies, comprising Twin City Fan & Blower, Aerovent and Clarage. Today, Clarage is the oldest fan company still in operation independently." That last line is a claim of notability entirely ignored by AFD and if Clarage is notable, then why isn't the umbrella organization it falls under? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Does not seem to meet
  WP:CORP. The article itself is completely unsourced, and reads like an advert (or at least something from an "official" company history). Being owned by a family is unremarkable; and the claim that Clarage is notable as the oldest "independent" fan company makes no sense, since Clarage was apparently bought out by this company, thus making it non-independent and unremarkable. The Google references are all either company home pages, commercial references or product directories, and one or two local business news stories like "Twin City Fan opened a plant in our city". No significant third-party coverage at all, and nothing to back up claims that this company is the "most regarded legend in the US fan history". --MCB 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Given the lack of an assertion of notability, endorse deletion but without prejudice. Chris cheese whine 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. My review of the Google News hits turns up several mentions of a single legal dispute between the former owners, a fair number of reprints of press releases, some recruiting posts and a surprising number of duplicate hits about their name change. The South Dakota Supreme Court case mentioned above appears to be a routine worker's comp dispute. I'm not finding enough to meet the requirements of
  WP:CORP. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial, independent sources can be found. Rossami (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion AfD was ill-attended and soft on substance, but so is this nomination to overturn. No problem with a better article if better sources can be provided. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaPret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AFD)

Person is notable. I provided creditable press releases, magazine articles and websites and ASCAP records. Several Admins with hate for the group Profound Intent in which the Rapper-Songwriter is a member continues to vandalize the article and submit it for speedy deletion. The performer has recorded with Yung Joc, written for Tatyana Ali and has participate in a nationwide release in iTunes called Play the Field. His name is found in not just recent searches but content dating back two to three years ago. He is also well linked to singer Teairra Mari.

I even tried to start the article over and improve it and they deleted it while I was in the process to ensure that it would be approved. I've seen articles on Wikipedia with no references at all, I still don't understand that.

He is also signed to an indie label South Capitol Recordings which is parented by Block Entertainment. Once I made the label a link using [[ ]] those admins then went to the label page and added a deletion tag, however the article not started by me, had been there for sometime until I listed it has his label. I'm shocked the ASCAP article has not been put up for deletion. He and his group was briefly mentored by Kelly Price, I even supplied a picture.FranklinRose 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Profound Intent and LaPret have been through multiple valid AfDs - [13][14][15] - and the deletion logs for the pages in question - [16][17][18][19] - show a total of 15 deletions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia articles are created on notable topics, not the other way around. Profound Intend has no releases other than a single. LaPret, as a solo artist, has no releases at all. If a group is notable, it will release. If it hasn't managed to release yet, it is not notable in any respect. I deleted a number of attempts to continually repost this content. I've previously advised that this set of articles should be created after the subject becomes notable, not before. Nobody hates Profound Intent. What's to hate? Nobody knows about them. I hate them because I deleted the article on them? We work on consensus here, and the consensus is that this group and LaPret are not yet notable. Stop worrying about whether there's an article on LaPret and go make a release. If it becomes popular, someone will write an article on the subject. I am very disappointed over the rampant attempts to repost this content despite consensus here, most recently today resulting in a block of FranklinRose. How many times do we have to AfD, speedy delete, and DRV this person/group? --Durin
• Endorse deletion, exactly what Durin said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, evidence was provided of minor notability, but not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. There's little more to say. Xtifr _tälk 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, no reason given to overturn it but "I disagree with the consensus". If you have new information, I'd be happy to see it. -Amarkov moo! 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party Advance minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Does not fail

• Closers note I see no other way to close that AfD than the way I did. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, fails
  WP:NOT like the closing admin said. You are quite right that it's silly to not delete the others as well, so I've put them on AFD. >Radiant< 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, after you sort out all the comments it's clear that the consensus was to delete.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant endorse I don't agree with the decision to delete, but I can't see any other way the debate could have been closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate could've been closed as No consensus, seeing as that is what everyone expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henchman 2000 (talk • contribs) 18:07, March 28, 2007

• Endorse, closer was quite right. The article shows three primary (read: unreliable) sources, two of which require
  WP:FISHING cover that. Thanks to Radiant for nominating them. Picaroon 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Primary sources aren't neccesarily unreliable. If they're used to backup non-controversial information and are not needed to determine notability they can be quite reliable. If celebrity X says their birthday is March 2 while all "reliable" sources say March 1, it would be silly to not believe the primary source. (Just a comment on the reasoning, I am not commenting on the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I do agree with the decision to delete, but that doesn't matter either because the decision was clearly based on policy. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Despite the merits of the article or lack thereof, the discussion was closed appropriately. However, this should in no way constitute a precedent for other similar articles. If such a precedent was desired, the articles should have been nominated together. If any editor wishes to recreate the article in part or in whole while also addressing the issues raised in the AFD, s(he) may request userfication from the closing admin. -- Black Falcon 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, depending on whether we overturn the other article here on Deletion Review. It would see reasonable to discuss them together. DGG 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a reason to discuss this further a new discussion can be made. Overturning a closure is done when there was a procedural problem with the closure itself, from
  WP:DRV "This page is about process, not about content". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse Deletion - "it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists." is not a very compelling argument.
  WP:OR are. The Kinslayer 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, the DRVer's reason to undelete is completely incoherent and does not cite any form of applicable policy. "The closing admin is silly" does not constitute an undelete reason. The clear consensus was that only the Delete people had opinions based in policy. Axem Titanium 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compelling arguments, but I'm still a little unclear. Could you please elaborate for the sake of those of us who find the debate a little less self-evident? The Kinslayer 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In my book, a failure of
  we don't do. Nomination seems reasonable, but lacking evidence to support it. Chris cheese whine 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It would be a failure to the above if it didn't cite any sources relating to the minigames, but it does. Henchman 2000 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki vandalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted due to unverifiablity. I'd like to try and develop an article in userspace and then move it to mainspace. See User:Miltopia/Wiki vandalism - if an admin is willing to move it there, that would be wonderful. small note: In the event it's determined the old history shouldn't be uncovered, please do not delete my subpage, since it won't be posting of recreated content. Milto LOL pia 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably a better idea to come back when your article is written, since your subpage has nothing in it. Wait, never mind, I misread your request. I could userfy the page history, but I'm honestly not sure you want it, since it was quite obviously a vandal magnet. Try starting something from scratch first. --
  desat 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It is highly unlikely that a valid article on this can be developed which is not both self-referential and obvious from the combination of "wiki" plus "vandalism". I suppose if Miltopia wants to waste time that is not our problem, but the deletion consensus was as much in respect of the subject as of the article. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to userspace, I think this could get some good sources.
  eg92contribs 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion for now, but if you can come back with some reliable sources on the topic, might be worth reconsideration. But find some reliable sources first, please! Otherwise, there's really nothing to talk about. Xtifr _tälk 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse without prejudice to a good article on the topic. Chris cheese whine 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

• Overturn: Article about the webcomic, it was speedily deleted (A7) 5 minutes after
  Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists, an anthology that published it by the same admin. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, neutral on a list. The book as a reference certainly gives enough information to constitute notability at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Could somebody just tell me what the claim to notability is supposed to be? Only, that looks a lot like a valid A7 speedy to me. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that the speedy of this article inconjunction with Attitude 3 seems to me that it was just done without much thought - if an article is important enough to be featured in a book about online cartoonists, its importance is not in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, I'm still trying to work out the supposed claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, article consists of two sentences - what it is and that part of it happened to get published in
  desat 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How on earth does a redirect make sense here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's part of the larger compilation. There's no information about this particular comic, and the previous article had pretty much nothing to build upon. It's a simple solution. --
      desat 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn, relist. I cannot view the text of the article, so will not comment on its content. My suggestion to overturn and relist at AFD is mostly for the sake of courtesy. I am aware that a speedy deletion that is contested need not be overturned, but when editors other than the article's creator also request undeletion, I feel it's a good sign that more discussion (and an opportunity to develop the article) is warranted. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion. The entire text of the page was "Fighting Words is a political webcomic by Ben Smith. Material from the strip is printed as part of Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" plus an almost empty infobox and some minor wikification. There is no reasonable assertion of notability in that text and the page has been unchanged since May 2006, leading me to conclude that no expansion is likely. Rossami (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion, redirect it to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists. --Dragonfiend 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the deletion/relist issue, but I'm opposed to a redirect. The link between the Attitude vol. 3 anthology and
    Fighting Words isn't strong enough that a redirect would be representative.Epameinondas 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You may be right -- it just seemed that since the information in the deleted Fighting Words article ("Fighting Words is a webcomic by Ben Smith that was in Attitude 3") is already in the Attitude article, that a redirect would work. --Dragonfiend 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn - no valid reason offered for deletion. Reasons offered were "not encyclopedic" which is pretty meaningless in an AFD debate;

• Comment - Instead of requesting that the history be restored, I thought I would state the following: The list included "people who at one point identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual but no longer do" and "people wrongly believed to have renounced LGB identity."[20] Also, there were three mentions of encyclopedic in the AfD, none of which linked to
  WP:NOT. For this deletion review, please provide links to policy. There might be room for an article on "Notable people whose sexual identification changed overtime prior to their death." -- Jreferee 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please point me to the official and exhaustive list of Valid Reasons that you've been perusing. Failing that, endorse deletion for the reasons given in the deletion debate. >Radiant< 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If this was directed at me, I never said that there was an exhaustive or official list of valid reasons. I said that the reasons offered in this nomination were not valid for this AFD. Otto4711 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse A number of reasons were given for deletion in the Afd, all of them valid. Anmong other, I questioned the assumption that a gay person would not object to being called heterosexual is probably false; there is further the problem that listing here implies the person was once gay. Therefore, BLP concerns make a list like this unmaintainable. The close was reasonable.DGG 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, it seems from the above comment that you do not understand the content of the list. The list was for people who stated that they were once homosexual and no longer are. There are people, for example,
  Richard Cohen, who made careers out of stating that they were once gay and no longer are. How can someone who states in a reliable source that they were once gay and now no longer are possibly be subject to BLP concerns? How can someone who writes books extolling their own transformation from gay to straight possibly raise concerns that it might be "implied" that they used to be gay when they write and sell books in which they state flat out that they used to be gay?! It's a ridiculous non-concern. BLP does not demand that biographies of living people be deleted in their entirety if there is unsourced or poorly sourced material. It demands that the unsourced or poorly sourced material be removed. Since the items on the list were properly sourced BLP cannot properly be used as an excuse for deleting the items or the list that the items make up. Also, at no point in the AFD was the notion that a gay person might get upset at being called heterosexual raised so why that's coming up here is a mystery. Otto4711 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. Most of the delete !votes used arguments that were subsequently rebutted, or which could trivially be solved without deletion, or which are somewhat week (e.g. "Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay" or "This doesn't provide useful imformation" (AKA
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "Delete per BLP" -- BLP would only require the article to be sourced, which a number of contributors suggested it was). The keepers were outnumbered, but only by a small amount. I don't see consensus, no. JulesH 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Kind of a tough one. Nom makes a good point that many of the delete !votes were weak but I believe the points were still valid. Also concede that the consensus was weak, so while I will endorse the deletion, I would also not mind seeing it relisted to generate more consensus one way or another, but not flat-out overturning.
  Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you don't mind seeing it relisted then maybe you should vote relist instead? Otto4711 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I still endorse the deletion. As I stated I view it to be something of a borderline case, where my support is behind the closing admin but I would not oppose relisting. Consider it a "weak ensorse" if you must.
  Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The deletion of a list of this nature which is not footnoted to reliable sources on every single name, which this wasn't, should be automatically endorsed per
  WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only problem with this statement is that every single name on the list was sourced, either in the article itself or in the linked page to the subject's own article. Otto4711 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Linked in the article' is a smokescreen for endemic poor sourcing and not good enough for lists of this nature. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, so undelete the article and I'll move the sources from the individual articles to the list. Problem solved. Otto4711 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Poor debate, for sure, but the fundamental fact is that this was a list of people asserting a sexuality for which no reliable sources can be found any more. Heavy on "said to be", light on sources. And what, precisely, is supposed to be encyclopaedic about lists of people who might once have gone gay but don't any more? I don't see it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First, read
  Reparative therapy to get some idea of the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Second, the sourcing for people's former sexuality does not vanish with the change of sexuality. Source for John Paulk in which he identifies himself as a "former homosexual," which he also states in the book that he wrote (which as far as I know still exists and did not vanish in a poof of fairy dust). Source for Richard Cohen, in which he is identified as having transitioned from homosexuality to heterosexuality, which he has also written about in his as-yet-not-turned-to-fairy-dust book. Source for Michael Johnston in which he is reported to have given a speech about his "journey...out of homosexuality." The sourcing is there and the encyclopedic nature of the topic is there. Otto4711 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is no suggestion as far as I can see that any of these individuals have undergone "reparative therapy". Such a claim would certainly require robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you deliberately being obtuse? This was not "List of people who had reparative therapy" (although many on the list did in fact have it). This was a list of people who used to self-identify as gay and no longer do. The reparative therapy link was offered to show that the notion of gay people turning straight is an encyclopedic topic. "Ex-gay" redirects to that article. Otto4711 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Isn't this a subpage? I thought they were explicitly not allowed. JuJube 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is, undelete it and move it from being a sub-page. Otto4711 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes! There is obviously no consensus to delete in that debate - thus an explained delete closure just begs to be overturned. Given the lack of consensus, is there an overriding policy reason to delete anyway? Now, I'm torn - this is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. But then, if it is properly sourced, is it any more of a problem than any list of people by sexuality? If we get the wrong people on this, then we'll have problems, but same goes for the 'lists of gay people' which I suspect we have. POV issues rise here - but looking at it, it seems to me that the deletion argument is also guilty of that. Ok, my vote weak overturn as 1) no consensus to delete b) no overriding reason to delete without such a consensus. But I wont cry if this says dead. I hate lists - and especially lists by sexuality (or ex-sexuality).--
  Doc^g 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per Otto. Deletion reasons included:

I should note that while going over the AFD page for March 21, I skipped over this discussion because it appeared a clear case of "keep" to me. -- Black Falcon 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as closer, I think I made an error here (after looking at the debate again, and noting the problems here). Not sure if I should simply undelete this, or not...? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you can take unilateral action since its now at deletion review. But I'm still on the fence on this one. Per

  WP:BLP concerns? -- Jreferee 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I can't say as I find it at all reasonable to put words in the mouths of the people who !voted in the AFD. Had they wanted to raise the issue at AFD, they could have. To answer the specific concern, however, off the top of my head the membership criteria would be something along the lines of "for people who once self-identified as LGBT but later began self-identifying as heterosexual." The wording can be tweaked but it seems relatively unambiguous to me. Otto4711 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article seems to have been deleted because WikyBlog's notability was questioned.

1. User User:Kesh confused it as an "innovative use of Mediawiki" and not an independently developed project.
2. User:Retiono_Virginian "doubt[ed] it exsist[ed]" but did not refer to the links on the article to WikyBlog.com and the sourceforge project page
3. I find it somewhat ironic that DidiWiki used a reference to WikyBlog to defend it's own deletion.

   Note as well that, using DidiWiki's approach, the number of hits when searching google for "WikyBlog" is now around 88,000 in comparison to:

   • DidiWiki (30,000),
   • WiClear (46,500)
   • WikkiTikkiTavi (34,000)

   which all have articles on Wikepedia and have been deemed notable.

4. Moreover, a google search for "powered by wikyblog" returns over 27,000 results.

It is for these reasons of interpretation, popularity, and measurable user base that I respectfully request the undeletion of the WikyBlog article. Oyejorge 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD. Google hits alone are simply a rule of thumb and are not part of the
  desat 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - Unanimous AFDs are usually only overturned/relisted with the presentation of multiple reliable independent sources. This doesn't seem to have that. Wickethewok 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion valid unanimous AfD (and it was even relisted twice, and still got no support despite being open for 3 weeks!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD valid; noone of the above make it notable; also, I only get 27 google results (not that that's important...) JulesH 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The close by Punkmorten was certainly valid. As noted by Wickethewok, undeletion in this case should really be accompanied by the presentation of multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. -- Black Falcon 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was CSD'd under nn-bio after an

• Most recent deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23
• Last full deletion review (links to all prior): Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22

• Endorse deletion, again. Still no reliable sources which are really about him. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion yet again; however, you can write a new article in user space that cites
  desat 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • AMA) 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Repeating general plea for Wikipedia to bring their sourcing in line with the 21st century so obviously notable individuals can be covered properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating general comment that being in line with the 21st century does not make unreliable sources reliable. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's part of the problem, we're still considering otherwise reliable sources unreliable. But I've led us too far OT already. Just generally frustrated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse yet again. Viral marketing aside, no reliable non-trivial sources about this person. As with Dr Steel, I think we are being targeted by fans to try to promote a "famous for what?" subject into notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Yes, LA Weekly gives him a passing mention and Buzznet is clearly not reliable. But that still leaves iTunes and MusicEdge as reliable enough to base an article off. A number one at iTunes is clearly notable and there's sources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion deletion endorsed just a few days ago (see DRV March 24th). Suggest future DRV attempts be speedy-closed: a new DRV every 4 days is disruptive and unreasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's noting the DRVs on the article talk page. (They can't, of course, because of the curious use of PP.) I might have known what the issues were. Clearly there are issues so bad that they require extreme lengths to prevent the creation of the article. -
    AMA) 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It may be worth placing a note on the talk page - I'll do it once I gather links to all the DRV discussions. The frequency this appears on DRV is a reason why deletion is usually endorsed. --
      desat 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn per [25] this LA Weekly article (and photo). I realize that he's still borderline in terms of media mentions, but given the buzz (evidenced by over a million Google hits), I think the notability is close enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a passing mention, actually, despite the photo. --
    desat 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Regardless, if a notable magazine in a major city is making "passing" mentions by name and printing photos of someone, I would argue that they must have some notability. The Weekly determined he was notable enough to showcase in the photo. -
      AMA) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I found another mention in
        Slate.com [26]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Oh please. Both of those are "also-ran" namechecks and nothing more. His viral marketing campaign really is not getting result, perhaps he should hire a new publicist. Or get his kit off on YouTube, that seems to work. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • His viral marketing campaign did succeed in getting him a #1 spot on iTunes downloads, for what that's worth. Honestly, I don't care whether or not he has an article. I thought the Lonelygirl15 thing was incredibly stupid, but eventually it got to the point where I couldn't deny it's notability. I think JS is getting close to that point, if not already there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unfortunately, we don't include things because they are "getting close" to being notable. They have to be
              desat 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
        • Since when is reaching number 1 in an iTunes chart not notable? And how are MusicEdge and iTunes not reliable sources to attribute to? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse nothing here--
  Doc^g 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - passing mentions are still trivial no matter who's doing the mentioning. Chris cheese whine 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and redeletions. As several have already said, passing mentions are not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. As to the claim that he hit "#1 on the iTunes dance chart", everyone can be number one if you parse your selection criteria narrowly enough. iTunes alone lists 23 different chart types, each with 22 charts (by country). That alone does not convince me that the subject yet meets the requirements of
  WP:MUSIC. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, WP:MUSIC's relevant criteria is: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." That is not well defined... that is to say, what chart(s) qualify as "national music charts", though it does say "any national music chart". So... unless you are saying that the US iTunes dance chart is not "any national music chart", it would seem to fit. -
    AMA) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]