Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October

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

)

• Overturn, most of the delete votes were based upon the incorrect belief that Gaspar did not play in a fully professional league and thus failed WP:BIO. --Stormie 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion again minor leaguers who didn't reach past Double A aren't notable, it failed
  WP:SPORTS (which failed itself because of inactivity), but it wasn't failed by the community. Jbeach ^sup 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The argument made in the AfD is that it failed
    WP:BIO, at the very least, the debate should have been closed as no consensus. Smashville 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Let me reiterate that I'm not claiming that he is notable...I'm saying that at the very least, this is a no consensus close, as the subject inarguably passes
      WP:BIO...at the very least, this needs to go back to AfD where someone can prove a lack of notability. Smashville 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse (my own) deletion. Consensus to delete was clear at the AfD. Despite the fact that they meet the letter of
  WP:BIO calls for the deletion of minor league baseball players (as it should, IMO) rather than that they thought Gaspar never played professionally. Eluchil404 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • People citing a guideling inaccurately was the only argument made. The argument made was "fails
    WP:BIO" which it clearly does not. You even admit it meets it "to the letter". So how does that make sense? Smashville 19:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm still baffled as to how this would be a "clear" consensus when the only delete argument is based on the exact opposite meaning of the policy. Smashville 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BIO was not the only argument made. Three people (DrunkenSmurf, Jaranda, and MisfitToys) called for deletion on the explicit argument that minor leaguers are not notable without reference to any guideline or policy. Only the nominator used the flawed rationale of calling for deletion per the guideline. I believe that their arguments were more persuasive than those simply asserting that he met WP:BIO without explaining why that conferred notability in this case. More generally, I believe that the text WP:BIO is simply wrong in this area. There is no community consensus to keep minor league (at least below triple A which is what distinguishes the Gonzalez AfD) though in most sports the line is drawn with full professionalism. Because
      Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I follow what I believe to be the actual community consensus on this issue rather than the literal text of the guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'm not saying it's a bureaucracy and I'm not saying it to do it for the sake of the process. I'm saying there is clearly no consensus. There is a huge difference. The keep arguments were based in policy while the deletes were not. There is no way that there was a consensus to delete from that AfD. You also say that "in most sports the line is drawn with full professionalism". So - why delete favoring the arguments based on opinion instead of the arguments based on policy? Smashville 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Ignoring the contributions of Miamite and Truest blue who are no longer here because of Case of abusive sockpuppetry by Mrs random, the delete reasons were weak since they failed to address any of the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Did the text of the article include enough information to explain why the person was notable? Was the person the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and was that coverage enough? Neither of these questions were address in the AfD. A look at the deleted article shows that the article include enough information to explain why the person was notable. The importance/significance of Cade Gaspar was laid out in the article and no one at the AfD disagreed with this. Instead of then addressing the published secondary sources issue, the discussion went off on a tangent under the false assumption that a player in the minor leagues would not receive enough coverage in published secondary sources for a Wikipedia article. Also, no one in the AfD addressed whether published secondary sources would have wrote about Cade Gaspar for reasons other than his baseball playing. The weak discussion contained no mention of any of Wikipedia's four article standards (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, Biographies of living persons). No consensus seemed the appropriate close. -- Jreferee t/c 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted in September 2006, at which point in time Hoyte was a youth football player for Arsenal nowhere near the first team. Since then he has signed a full professional contract, [1] played for England U17s at the

While he has not played a competitive match yet for Arsenal, the result of discussion in recent AfDs such as Giannoulis Fakinos, Davide Facchin (et al) and Paul Rodgers (footballer) is that professional players that have been officially named in a first-team squad for a major club are considered notable. I supported the article's deletion a year ago, but all of the above mean I have now changed my mind, and I believe he is now notable enough for inclusion. Therefore I request the decision be overturned. Qwghlm 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support undeletion(s) per nom. ArtVandelay13 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support undeletion per nom. GiantSnowman 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse recreation; speedy close revised per below. Comment - I don't think we should reward Hoyte with a Wikipedia article for being so important. However, if there is enough reliable source material to create the article, then there sees to be no reason not to do that. Write up an article using the relaible source material, post it, then ask an admin to undelete the history. -- Jreferee t/c 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I had a sandbox article all set up for the purpose of restoring - see User:Qwghlm/Gavin Hoyte. Qwghlm 22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. It overcomes the reason for deletion. Someone just needs to move your draft to Gavin Hoyte then restore the history. -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now moved & sandbox page deleted. Qwghlm 11:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support undeletion per nom. Sebisthlm 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article

I made a good faith effort to discuss the speedy deletion with JzG. He suggested restoring the article, which I did, adding more references to help establish notability (e.g. cites for two New York Times profiles of the website) to respond to his concerns about CSD:A7. He speedily deleted the article again, on October 30. (You can read the transcript of our discussion here; it contains more details.) I'd like to see the article restored, either the first version that was speedily deleted on October 28 (restoring the history as well, if possible), or the improved second version with added cites and copyedits which was deleted on October 30. If the article still seems fundamentally flawed, I suggest restoring it and proposing deletion, rather than endorsing a unilateral speedy deletion decision.

I appreciate your time. Thanks. - Anirvan 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, undelete and AfD at editorial discretion. Article didn't look like a speedy to me (at least in its last version, didn't look at the earlier ones) and things which have survived AfDs shouldn't generally be speedied anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn'. Articles that have been kept after an AfD should never be speedied. Smashville 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Undelete. An AfD would be appropriate in this case, since the article had survived a previous AfD and was actively undergoing improvement. I have no opinion on whether the improvements were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
  WP:NOTE, but that's for the AfD to determine. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Knowing that the article has had a prior AFD with an outcome other than delete is sufficient reason to overturn an A7 deletion. Such a deletion violates the terms of A7. The 1998
  GRBerry 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn if nothing else, being purchased by a notable company is a claim of importance. But considering there was a previous AFD, this should have automatically gone to AFD again if anyone wanted it deleted. The second deletion was especially spacey... sometimes I think the wording in
  WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is" needs to be in 72-point font for some people to get it. --W.marsh 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - CSD A7 applies at anytime. "over 125 million volumes available for sale" and "one of the earliest vertical search engines for books online" are an assertion of importance/significance to get past CSD A7 (but not by much). BookFinder.com lists all of its media mentions going back to 1998, see Mentions], which make it clear that the topic meets
  WP:N as was the consensus of the AfD. It's name has been in a few headlines: (1) The Times (San Francisco Bay Area), Avid Reader Turns Passion Into Start-up. A Love of Books and a Search for Doonesbury Titles Led Former Cal Student to Launch BookFinder.com (May 11, 2002); (2) New Media Age (United Kingdom), Case Study: BookFinder.com (October 3, 2002); (3) David Needle. www.internetnews.com (November 7, 2005) Abebooks.com buys comparison shopping site Bookfinder.com. (4) San Francisco Business Times, Berkeley's BookFinder starts two sites in Europe (September 27, 2006) (5) The Times (London) (United Kingdom), bookfinder.com ;The click;Wednesday (March 28, 2007) -- Jreferee t/c 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|DRV)

Circumvention of prior deletion decision, circumvention of image deletion process, deletion based on administrator's refusal to provide basis of speedy deletion from WP and information to support that claim, refusal to seek consensus regarding issue after prior Deletion Review was overturned →Lwalt ^♦ talk 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Larry Craig

The image in question was improperly deleted a second time by circumventing process for removal and/or deletion of images, against consensus in working collaborating with other editors of the article, and against findings in a prior decision and consensus in a prior Deletion Review posted on September 16 and closed on September 24, 2007. The image of the booking photo in question was released by the State of Minnesota as public data under Minnesota statute 13.82, subd. 26(b) (language of statute located near the end of the page). I had once posted a message for another administrator, who I thought would be knowledgeable about the proper use and classification of the image on Wikipedia (i.e., Wikipedia Commons vs. fair use), but the person never responded to my query.

The image was included in the article because of its significance, which was also the object of coverage in the article itself, for use as a secondary photo on the page to support content in its section. In addition, the use of the image also meets the Criterion #8 under Acceptable Images. The image was clearly marked in its caption to provide information about the nature of the booking photo, which was used as a secondary image to support content regarding a recent event. The same administrator mentioned that a "free" image was available (the subject's "official" U.S. Senate photograph, which is the primary image), discounting the fact that the booking photograph was taken in connection with a specific incident of significance on a specific date. Coverage of the incident was stated as reported by various news sources without analysis to maintain neutrality.

I posted a request for the administrator to seek consensus about concerns, as can be seen in the message on that person's User Talk page, with that person's responses included here and here. The administrator has since deleted these responses. The ongoing discussion (and request for information claimed by user and responses regarding the request for this information) can be found on the article talk page. According to this administrator, his claim for justification to remove or delete the image was in essence "Jimbo said so." The administrator has declined through inaction to provide proof of the basis for this deletion, and wants us to take that as the final decision without verification.

The nature of this second deletion clearly and purposefully circumvented process, and this deletion occurred one day after I provided a link to the prior Deletion Review discussion to point out the actions of the deleting administrator. Another editor for the article also mentioned that the concerns about the deleting administrator, who continued to show contempt in the unwillingness to work with editors. To get around disagreements of this administrator's point of view, the administrator simply deleted the image without further discussion on the article talk page, even though an editor asked a second to provide information claimed by the administrator. Both editors and administrators also pointed out the improper handling of the image during the first Deletion Review, with one actually mentioning that this same administrator is displaying the same contemptuous behavior in that case as has been witnessed in this case.

To my knowledge, no new discussions have occurred outside each of these forums about deleting or keeping the image through the

For your convenience, I'm providing links to other discussions related to issues regarding the booking photo, which can be found here, here, here, in addition to a message on the talk page for the image.

-- →Lwalt ^♦ talk 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was included under a claim of fair use, but we already have a free image for this article (and one which does not carry prurient or pejorative overtones). The image does not belong in the article, per
  WP:BLP, because there is no evidence that the image is in and of itself significant (cf. the Hugh Grant booking photo, which was in every newspaper in the UK and many around the world). Its inclusion serves no purpose other than to inflate still further the size and prominence of the section on the subject's arrest, which is already around a third of the article, well in excess of what will I think turn out to be its final historical importance. We do not use fair use images where a proper free image exists, and we certainly don't use them to illustrate the mere fact of having been booked. This is not a picture of the events in question, the arrest, a trial, or anything else, it's just a routine booking photograph, which adds precisely nothign of encyclopaedic merit to the article. Lwalt seems very keen on the principle of being able to include this, but has failed to make, so far as I can see, any credible argument as to why we would want to include a booking photo on an article that already has a recent and perfectly good free image which adequately identifies the subject. I am not the only one who thinks this. I do not like hypocritical queer-bashing politicians either, but I've seen enough OTRS complaints to realise that sometimes righteous indignation is counterproductive in the context of an article. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Bad faith insinuation removed. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to agree with Guy's view. The image itself is simply not encyclopedic enough to outweigh the
  WP:BLP concerns it presents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, Keep out of article -
  WP:CSD#I5. Note to closer - Please remark on the consensus in this discussion regarding whether the image belongs in the Larry Craig article. The matter has been batted around too long and we need some closure on this issue. -- Jreferee t/c 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - I'm inclined to agree with JzG at this point.
  FCYTravis 19:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Per
  GRBerry 21:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn playing around with deletion rules to skirt consensus and get ones own way. By someone with a conflict of interest. Consensus to remove the image should have been established on the article talk page. --W.marsh 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd endorse any of JzG's decisions, and I don't see any difference here. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know whether this decision is consistent with other mugshots or not, so I won't comment on it directly. I will comment on this: JzG says that the arrest is "a third of the article, well in excess of what will I think turn out to be its final historical importance". An awful lot of smart people, including many writing in very reliable sources, would disagree. Larry Craig was a completely unremarkable conservative Republican from a state with virtually no national political clout until this incident made him a national figure. History is much more likely to remember him for this than for the handful of insignificant legislative votes in which he played a role. Forgive me for saying so (I'm a huge JzG fan), but I'm not sure the political irrelevance of Idaho's U.S. senators might be readily apparent to a citizen of a smaller country with a parliamentary system. . . If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me off roundly.
  Chick Bowen 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment As the state from which a Senator hails is relatively tangential to his clout (among other things, Craig is a former chairman of two committees, and the 14th most senior Republican Senator), and since the design of the Senate explicitly and deliberately gives smaller states outsized power equal to that of Texas or California, I'm not sure you're calculating his importance correctly. Regardless, the incident is what he'll be remembered for, but I don't think that
  WP:NPOV#Undue weight allows it to bloat to 1/3 of the article. He spent 26 years in Congress, after all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fair enough, of course, and this is a debate for another day and another forum, but just to make my point clear--it's not Idaho's size that makes it's senators irrelevant, it's its political outlier status. At any rate, I've said before that I am not comfortable with our dependence on mugshots, and a copyright debate is worth having. But a BLP issue? I don't see it.
  Chick Bowen 05:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The mug shot does not illustrate his bathroom activities and does not illustrate the contradiction between his anti-gay stance and his bathroom activities. The mug shot does convey Craig's brush with the law, but the crime (infraction?) was minor and not a main topic of the article. The unwritten desire to use the mug shot in the article is so that the mug shot's stigmatizing effect will attack Craig's image because of Craig's contradictory beliefs/actions. BLP violation pure and simple. -- Jreferee t/c 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, keep out of article. I guess it's ineligible for Commons. But it doesn't really serve any purpose in the article. I do think process was subverted with this one, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore BLP concerns? It's properly sourced, he was convicted - even pleaded guilty. Whether it goes in Craig's bio or a separate article about the conviction and its repercussions in US politics is for editorial discretion. Am I alone in thinking that politicians have a very small BLP protection, i.e., what is contentious to the private Joe is part of the rough & tumble risk of running for office and feeding at the public trough. Carlossuarez46 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV decision, overturn unilateral speedy deletion Blatant misuse of admin tools to push an editorial viewpoint. The image has been restored by prior DRV, so any speedy deletion is clearly out of process. If you can't live with the fact that controversial decisions are made by community consensus, feel free to leave the project, Chapman. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The copyright notice at the top of Minnesota statutes refers to the image and codification of the statutes on the Revisor's web page, not to the data which are the subject of Chapter 13. Section 13.03, Subd. 1.[9] provides that All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute . . . Section 13.82, subd. 26[10] provides that booking data, including arrest photographs, are public. This is not a fair use case. As to the other issues, I take no position.
  Kablammo 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

One other note: Section 611A.021[11] mentioned above refers to the right of a victim to keep data private; it gives no rights to an accused. While there are certain exceptions to release of data (e.g., protecting an ongoing investigation,13.82, subd. 26, protecting identities of victims, confidential informants, etc., 13.82, subd. 17) they do not apply here.

Kablammo 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse per JzG, he spoke my mind. ^
  ^{[omg plz]} 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The booking photo is really only necessary if the photo itself is of importance. Nobody needs to see it in order to understand that he was arrested. A clear violation of
  chat} 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of data which are public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Much of the discussion above assumes that the image is not free, on the assumption that there is no explicit licensing. This is turn assumes that the image is subject to copyright-- you don't look for exceptions to use non-free content if the content is free and therefore not subject to copyright. The data in question here are however free and are not subject to copyright. This is because data which are public under the Minnesota Data Practices Act are not copyrighted. As stated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration (who administers the Data Practices Act):

. . . a fundamental principle of the M[innesota] G[overnment] D[ata] P[ractices] A[ct] is that anyone may use public data, for any purpose.

. . . unless clearly specified by the legislature, the public's right of access to and use of public government data cannot be curtailed by a government entity's claim of intellectual property rights in those data.[12]

Unless the legislature were to specify that booking photos are subject to copyright (it has not), they are public and can be used by anyone for any purpose. There may be reasons not to use the photo in question, but copyright law is not one of them.

Kablammo 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn I thought we had gotten rid of
  WP:IFD process, assuming that there is a legitimate case to be made there. IFD will allow a demonstration of actual consensus of Wikipedia users on this issue, not just what one self-appointed judge, jury and executioner has decided. Alansohn 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

New Sources, Greater Notability. Sources of notability:

• http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?CDID=A-6510105-12907&KPLT=2
• http://mashable.com/2007/08/21/yuniti
• http://www.killerstartups.com/Social-Networking/yuniti--A-combination-of-MySpace-and-Facebook
• http://www.bizreport.com/2007/09/social_network_allows_for_user_validation.html

Also, notable feature/document being used on the internet, ability for users to hide their age, providing greater safety for younger users:

• http://www.yuniti.com/parents_guide_to_social_networking.php

Please see DRAFT: User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft) -- Marquinho 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Endorse close - The AfD close was a few days ago. My read of the close was that the article did not and would not meet
  WP:DRV and request that Yuniti be recreated using your draft article as the next edit to the article. -- Jreferee t/c 01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Page complete. Input/editing/criticism welcome. User:Marquinho/Yuniti (draft) -Marquinho 02:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) *Thanks for the info, will do. Could I have you do some reviewing and editing once I'm complete? Thanks! -Marquinho 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IfD

)

No consensus to delete - deleting admin was the only "delete" vote, citing only his subjective evaluation of the image's "quality" as rationale for deletion. See

• Endorse deletion - The image was deleted with the reasoning "It's a lineup family photo which does not illustrate any point in particular. This photo is not encyclopedic quality." The person who uploaded the image listed it for deletion at IfD because people are placing the image in selected Mormonism articles where the combination of the article text and the image raised serious
  WP:CSD#G7 Author requests deletion applies. -- Jreferee t/c 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment The BLP concerns should be solved simply by removing the image from
    Anti-Mormon wasn't getting anywhere. Come to think of it, he should be able to expect this removal. In fact, recognizable images of real people really don't belong in articles about controversial subjects without clear and positive references tying that person to that specific viewpoint or term. If a free image of Michael Jordan were included in the Nigger article as an example of a "black" person, he'd be well within his rights to expect its removal - which would not necessitate deleting the image from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as a whole. Likewise, we wouldn't delete the images of every Black person from Wikipedia just because somebody might later include them in Nigger. Reswobslc 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion Although my !vote in the IfD is listed as "Keep", I was ready to change it after the subsequent discussion at the IfD and
  Anti-Mormon, and it is unclear (not to mention contrary to the testimony of the user who posed in and uploaded the image) that the people involved were engaged in any anti-Mormon behavior. In fact, it is not clear what the people are doing at all, which is what makes the picture un-encyclopedic. A year ago, one of the current "Keep" !votes called this image "not appropriate," citing many of the arguments now being given by FCYTravis, Jref, and myself. Finally, it is common courtesy to delete an unnecessary image at the request of a person pictured in it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion Too many reasons to fully enumerate, but they include
  GRBerry 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment At what point do the terms of the GFDL (
    WP:NOREVOKE) begin to count? Does licensing one's contributions "mercilessly" edited or redistributed by others mean anything. And what part of the IfD looks like a consensus to delete, with only one person out of six saying "delete" and a second weakly agreeing? Reswobslc 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

WP:IAR). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NOREVOKE clearly applies to this image. It's freely available on cc-by-2.5, and I can post it with captions proclaiming the subjects to be anti-Mormon. Feel free to add it to open source image libraries. It's still around. Perhaps they misunderstood the license. However, it's not encyclopedic. This is not a snapshot repository. As such, endorse deletion (as a speedy/IAR deletion, "consensus" was not relevant). Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn. Unfair vote, the decision to keep the image was unanimous and fair. It is not fair to delete an image even when everyone was obviously going "KEEP! KEEP! KEEP! KEEP!". This shows how even though Wikipedia is trying to turn themself into a democracy, it still seems more like that our government doesn't care. I want it back, but under the promise that it will ONLY be used to represent positive Mormon ordeals and events. Not in the Anti-Morman article. Period. ViperSnake151 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, democracy is a buzzword for mob rule.--19:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaltCip (talk • contribs)

• I cry Shenanigans! This is BS. The author of the image gave up the rights to the image, and when he finds out that it is being used in a way that he disagrees with, it suddenly is fit for deletion? What about when it was originally posted? Why were there no complaints then? This is a POV decision, and the arguments presented are a smokescreen. Strong KEEP!!! Not to mention you had one whole day of "debate" and then deleted it? Total Bullshit! Bytebear 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and undelete. Should have been left to another admin to close the discussion after ravis had contributed to the IFD. I don't think there was consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyone reviewing the IfD should also look at this thread on BLP/N, where FCYTravis gives his reasoning (IMO) more convincingly and in more detail. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Vernard Poslusney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please note that aI am not the user requesting the undeletion (I am one of the deleting admins), but apparently User:Example555 is struggling with the process. This is the text he was trying to paste: -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) A lot more notable than some other pages I’ve seen here. He has three main memorial websites, one with 5,559 hits in its one year of existence. I contacted the Webmaster, who is willing to supply a statcounter log showing multiple hits from 24 countries. He says the log would pop your eyes out. If you do a search on google or yahoo, about 20 pages come up on him.

2) Did it ever occur to Karanacs that the blog posting was copied from one of his memorial web sites? Does anyone do research anymore?

3) All Wikipedia links were copy and pasted, who types out http://www etc. anymore? - 4) Was my page deleted by a child? This is why I concluded the article is being toyed with by young children: Lucasbfr: “Hi mom. I don't expect anyone else to come here anytime soon so hello to you. Yeah I know, I need to keep my room clean.” Wikipedia should set some age requirements for editors, an on-line encyclopedia should not be a playground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example555 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 October 2007

• Lucasbfr's comments on his userpage was intended as a joke (and he's an adult). Also, I endorse deletion. The subject does not meet
  reliable source policy. Most of these websites are self-published sources, and I could not find any detailed works on Vernand Poslusney in newspapers or books. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just looking at the next deletion; Sky_Eats_Airplane, Andrew Lenahan writes: “million trillion gazillion”. Yes, it must be true, this articles can be deleted by gradeschoolers. Why do I feel like an adult trying to reason with 2 year olds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Example555 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its mind boggling.

Example555

Take a look at the AfD again and even my endorsement of deletion above. The article does not meet

WP:NOT. If something is covered on the Internet, that does not meet it's notable for Wikipedia. Certain policies must be met, and many editors have agreed that these policies aren't being met for this particular article. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Example555

I already did. For one thing, the article fails

WP:BIO. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Egad. Endorse speedy closure - Personal attacks and non-sequiturs can hardly be considered a rationale for DRV.--WaltCip 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the problem, how about some valid rational than threats?

Example555

He's saying you're the one making the threats, not the other way around. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm having trouble seeing anywhere that you are right. For one thing, you haven't even remotely established notability. You've been told to see
    WP:BIO
    . Let's examine your argument...:
    • 1. You argue
      WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
      and then state that because a nonverifiable, nonreliable source has a low number of hits in its entire existence, it is proof of notability? I'm sorry...but a hit counter is the furthest thing from notability. And - 5,559 hits is an extremely low number of hits for a website. And google hits? Come on...even if you were going to use this...20 hits is not notable. I have 700 hits on my own name (and they are all me). I'm not notable.
    • 2. You are claiming a source that was used from an nonreliable source was actually a copyvio from another nonreliable source. Blogs and "memorial pages" are not reliable sources.
    • 3. I don't even understand this argument.
    • 4. A personal attack is not going to help your case.

The AfD was done correctly - it was unanimous and it was open for the required amount of time. You have not been able to remotely establish notability for this person. In addition, if you continue personal attacks, you will probably get your account suspended. And a lack of civility is probably going to keep anyone from wanting to help. Strong Endorse. Smashville 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you can show a proof that this person is
  notable, we may reconsider the deletion but for now your rationale does not cover this part. For the record, this article was deleted 4 times: The two first times with our deletion process, the 2 latter because you were reposting deleted content without any discussion. The copyright violation was never discussed, as fas as I can see. Finally I am not a child thanks (which explains why it took me so long to write these lines, I am at work). I am sorry if my poor grammar disturbed you, I am not a native speaker and I ocasionally make mistakes. But I'm always happy to learn from my spelling and grammar mistakes. (and I know the joke on my userpage sucks, I'm too busy/lazy to work on it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse unanimous deletion, the argument advanced by the appellant seems to be an attempt to forum shop at best and specious at worst. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD, no process flaws. Article, and nomination here, do not evidence encyclopedic notability. 6K web page hits in a year is nothing. 600K hits a day would also be nothing as that isn't what we are interested in. What we need are
  GRBerry 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion the third time wasn't because of any of the nonsense you said, but because it was already deleted the second time through the AfD process. Gaming the process by acting like you didn't understand the difference between proposed and speedy deletion didn't help. You also aren't winning any hearts through your tactic of insulting Wikipedians. You might as well just leave and whine to everyone about how unfair Wikipedia is. JuJube 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example555 In the process of compiling information, I was again alarmed at many of the shocking articles traversed. From a plethora, I’ll only quote one as a reference, found while researching celibacy:

Example555

• Okay, I think we can close this now. JuJube 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This band has a last.fm page with 278,900 plays scrobbled on Last.fm http://www.last.fm/music/Sky+Eats+Airplane so the band has a folowing Zombi333 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion please see
  reliable sources to create an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse A7 deletion, the article qualified for it - even deserved it. Whether they have a following is irrelevant, whether there are
  GRBerry 13:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per the use of
  WP:RS.--WaltCip 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as a textbook example of why we extended A7 to include bands. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

for discussing proposed page! This was for discussion of my proposed page. Restore the page and see what links to it. Jidanni 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. it is hard enough plowing thru this forest of instructions so I ended up not asking you first. Jidanni 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas H. Chance is the author of the preeminently authoritative analysis of Plato's dialogue Euthydemus. larvatus 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Uh, I get 12 cites for his "Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy" on Web of Science, or for his whole academic output for that matter. Any evidence for its authorativeness? Endorse until then. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know of a more authoritative study of this dialogue? More importantly, Wikipedia's criteria of notability for academics are definitely satisfied by publication of a significant and well-known academic work. Thus I quote: "Wikipedia editors should consider not only the absolute number of citations (as provided by a citation index) but also the number relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important." Please do so. Larvatus 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • In other words, no new evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only a new reference to standing Wikipedia policy. Please address my point. Larvatus 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
        • Larvatus, the burden of evidence lies on you here: it's up to you to demonstrate that the study is authoritative, it's not up to Trialsanderrors to demonstrate that it's not. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion No new information. His analysis was mentioned in the article, and didn't sway the AfD commenters, who voted unanimously to delete. In other words, nothing's changed, valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As proven above, deletion ran counter to the black letter law of Wikipedia. Larvatus 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • The only thing Wikipedia has that's even arguably "black letter law" are the Foundation issues. Everything else is either a direct consequence of those, or descriptive results of low-level consensus-forming debates such as this article's afd. —Cryptic 06:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected. Even so, this deletion clearly runs counter to standing policy statement on academic notability. One or the other has to go. Larvatus 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
        • I'm sorry, just where is this policy satement on academic notability? Corvus cornix 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here it is. Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
            • No, that's a guideline, not a policy. And which of the notability criteria in that guideline does your professor meet? Corvus cornix 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Having published a significant and well-known academic work. Larvatus 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
                • I'm not sure you've proven that his work is significant and well-known. Corvus cornix 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please see below. Larvatus 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • Oh, well that's different then... or would be, if the "black letter law of Wikipedia" weren't something you just made up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Unanimous AFD, no new information or arguments here, no procedural problems.
  GRBerry 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse unanimous deletion. Deletion review is a place to explain how the deletion process was followed, not to run to the other parent for a better answer. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion review is a necessary way station before arbitration. Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • Um, what? Stifle (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Unanimous AFD. In reply to the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) quote, if a Wikipedia reliable source doesn't say it, you can't include it in a Wikipedia article. Even if he is important, you can't write about it in a Wikipedia article without the information being based on independent reliable source material. Comment - The H.W.Wilson Company's Ancient Philosophy (Waterfield, Robin; March 1995; Volume 15; page 191) reviewed Chance's book "Plato's Euthydemus." Also, there is Google book search and Google scholar search. There might be enough reliable source material for an article on Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy (book). -- Jreferee t/c 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it make sense to cover the book but not its author? Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • I can never make sense of what
      WP:OR, and other article standards to cover Thomas H. Chance in Wikipedia does not make sense. -- Jreferee t/c 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • dependent on original research in covering this matter? Larvatus 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply
        ]
        • Notability is necessary but not sufficient to have an article. Quoting directly from the guideline you seem keen on linking to in every other sentence: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see
          ruleslawyering, endorse. —Cryptic 02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Sorry about gratuitous legalisms. Please see the sources identified below. Granted, they pertain to the book and not its author. Do you think it would make sense to cover the former but not the latter? Larvatus 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
        • Are you claiming that the University of California Press has no relationship with Thomas H. Chance? Only reliable source material that is independent of Thomas H. Chance and those associated with Thomas H. Chance counts towards meeting
          WP:N. The independence requirement is one way Wikipedia separates itself from the rest of the Internet. The independent scholarly journals that reviewed Chance's book on Plato's Euthydemus or published references to it may have material that could be used in a Wikipedia article on the book. If the independent book reviews included biographical information on Chance, then that could be used in a Wikipedia article on the person. Book reviews do not usually include biographical information, but if you have information to the contrary, please post it here. As for academics qualifying as notable, I think you are confusing importance/significance notability with reliable source notability. If there is not enough reliable source material for the Thomas H. Chance article, then the biography will not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If a Thomas H. Chance article cannot meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, then it is deleted. A Wikipedia article is not a reward for being important/significant. A Wikipedia article is a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. -- Jreferee t/c 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Here are some previously written, verifiable factual references to Thomas Hugh Chance and his book on Plato's Euthydemus:
          • In The Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy, Blackwell, 2003, p. 69, Christopher John Shields cites Chance's book as the only authority on Euthydemus among 13 commentaries and discussions of Plato’s individual dialogues, authored by internationally renowned scholars that include John Burnet, E.R. Dodds, Terence Irwin, Richard Kraut, and Paul Woodruff.
          • Michael Cormack credits Chance's analysis of Euthydemus in his discussion of that dialogue in Plato’s Stepping Stones: Degrees of Moral Virtue, Continuum International Publishing, 2006.
          • In Plato’s Introduction of Forms (Cambridge University Press, 2004), at p. 318, R.M. Dancy argues in regard of Euthydemus 301a-b, that Socrates engages in a sophistical spoofing of a straightforward question by Dionysodorus, misreading it as a trivial self-predication, against Chance's analysis of Socrates' reading as a self-identity, at pp. 181-182 of his book.
          • In Acts of Hope: Creating Authority in Literature, Law, and Politics, (University Of Chicago Press, 1994), James Boyd White writes on p. 41: "In the Euthydemus, the effort is to distinguish Socrates from others who are similar to him in a different respect, namely the teachers of eristic argument, who succeed in confusing their auditors, as Socrates also does, but by logical tricks rather than dialectic. See Thomas H. Chance, Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and What Is Not Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), especially 13-21." White repeats this reference verbatim in "Plato's Crito: The authority of Law and Philosophy", published in The Greeks and Us: Essays in Honor of Arthur W. H. Adkins, edited by Robert B. Louden and Paul Schollmeier (University Of Chicago Press, 1996), on p. 133.
          • In Platonic Questions: Dialogues with the Silent Philosopher, Penn State Press, 2000, on p. 189, Diskin Clay discusses "the extreme case of the Euthydemus" as treated by Rosamund Kent Sprague, Plato's Use of Fallacy (1962), and Thomas H. Chance, Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and What Is Not Philosophy (1991). As far as I know, these are the only book-length treatments of Plato's Euthydemus published in the XXth century.
          • In Plato’s Craft of Justice, (SUNY Press, 1996), on p. 81, Richard D. Parry writes: "Now there is an ambiguity in the notion of good fortune in this passage. [Euthydemus 279d-280b] Good fortune can mean the chance occurrence that results in something good happening to one; it can also mean the good result itself." In a note to this comment on p. 118 Parry credits Chance's discussion of the relevant passage on pp. 57-65 of his book, wherein Chance makes the distinction he is exploiting in subsequent discussion.
          • In the Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, Blackwell, 1998, at p. 13, Charles Taliaferro writes: "Thomas Chance and I discuss various uses of the adversary method in philosophy in "Philosophers, Red Tooth and Claw," Teaching Philosophy (1991). Chance has published a superb study of philosophical method in Plato’s Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy."
          • Chance's book is cited in Ann N. Michelini, "Socrates Plays the Buffoon: Cautionary Protreptic in Euthydemus", The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 509-535, Richard D. Parry, "The Craft of Ruling in Plato's Euthydemus and Republic", Phronesis, Volume 48, Number 1, February, 2003, pp. 1-28, and Sara Rappe, "Father of the Dogs? Tracking the Cynics in Plato's Euthydemus", Classical Philology, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 282-303
          • C.C.W. Taylor, editor, From the Beginning to Plato: Routledge History of Philosophy Volume 1, Routledge, 2003; Chance's book is cited by G.B. Kerferd in the chapter on the sophists, on p. 269, and by Hugh H. Benson in the chapter on Socrates and the beginnings of moral philosophy, on pp. 347 and 349.
          • The Greek Sophists, edited and translated by Tania Gergel and John M. Dillon, Penguin Classics, 2003, cites Chance's book on p. xxviii, as one of two recommended discussions of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus.
          • Gerald Alan Press, Who Speaks for Plato?: Studies in Platonic Anonymity, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, p. 192, singles out T.H. Chance as continuing the tetralogical analysis originated in 1630 by Samuel Petit and extended in the XIXth century by A.W. Winckelmann and F.G. Welcker, into the present century.
          • Some reviews of Chance's book:
          • Christopher Kirwan, The Classical Review, 44, 1994, 400
          • Stephen Allen Stertz, The Classical World 88, 1994-1995, 224
          • Rosamond Kent Sprague, Journal of History of Philosophy 32, 1994, 127-128.
          • Robin Waterfield, Ancient Philosophy 15, 1995, 191-199.
          • Hélène Perdicoyianni, Les Études Classiques 63, 1995, 179.
          • M. Meulder, Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, 1995 73 (1): 175-176.
          • The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1993, p. 240
          • Bibliographic references:
          • Luc Brisson, Frédéric Plin, Platon, 1990-1995: bibliographie, Vrin, 1999, p. 113, entry 7639.
          • Luc Brisson, Benoît Castelnérac, Frédéric Plin, Platon, 1995-2000: bibliographie, Vrin, 2004, p. 111, entry 9479.
          • Andrew D. Dimarogonas, Synopsis: An Annual Index of Greek Studies, CRC Press, 1999, lists reviews of Chance's book on p. 79, entry 2779; p. 123, entry 3978; p. 130, entry 4195.
          • I hope that this list will suffice to establish academic notability of Thomas Chance and his book on Plato's Euthydemus.
          • Larvatus 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

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

dont know what is above article, nominated to speedy deletion --

• It was a very short article in a foreign language, looked like Turkish to me. Didn't look like anything encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on some google searching with the text of the deleted article, I'd agree that it was in Turkish. As it was in a foreign language, it is inappropriate on the English Wikipedia.
  GRBerry 13:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

I don't even know where to begin with this one...This may be the most out of process speedy deletion that I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Speedy deleting an article of a Minor League Baseball team as A7 is bad enough, but add to it the fact that the admin stands by it and has gone through and deleted all evidence that the page has ever existed. Every other professional baseball team in North America has an article on Wikipedia. It's the Cardinals rookie league team that has been in continuous existence since 1937 - information I got from the cached page, so it was there. It wasn't new or poorly written or in a weird format...it looked like every other minor league baseball team article on WP. Smashville 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a likely mistake. Some may not understand that a rookie league team is a professional team... it is a bit counter-intuitive, eh? — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but I did bring the same point up that every professional team in North America had one...and was told it was short, unreferenced and made no assertion of notability (I don't know what kind of assertion of notability was to be made...the page listed the league championships and the Cardinals affiliation, which for this sort of organization should be the only assertion that needs to be made...listing Major League alumni in all Minor League articles would be good, but that's a WP in and of itself). Smashville 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore possibly speedily. Being a professional sports team (even if not major league) is certainly an assertion of notability and thus it was an invalid A7. Indeed I would be very surprised if this was deleted after an AfD and so do not recommend listing at all. Eluchil404 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - As a minor league farm club of a major league team, it should have at least gone through the AFD process, or had notability tags added first. Also, was it instantly deleted without even allowing time for a hold to be added? That info is not accessable to non-admins, so I don't know. The whole deletion seems to be a lack of good faith, esp by an admin, who ought to know better. -
  BillCJ 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore Articles on minor league teams clearly make an assertion of notability, but the level of notability can be debated. The article should be restored, and if necessary, sent to AfD. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. The particular circumstances of this case suggest that the article deserves more discussion or a chance to be improved. That said, I think that the original A7 deletion was valid. The article stated that the team is "affiliated with the St. Louis Cardinals", but didn't state what the affiliation is. Also, although it did state that the team is a "rookie league team", the phrase is counterintuitive, as it brings to mind an image of a neighbourhood baseball team for local children. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those issues could have been easily fixed by anyone with a passing knowledge of US major and minor league baseball. A notability tag would have given a knowledgable editor the cahnce to fix it, which by the way, is what I understand notability tags are actually for. If an admin doens't know anything about baseball (not a bad thing in any way), I would think he'd at least ask for an opinion on the Baseball project talk page. But simply jumping in with an apparently-instant deletion is not really a well-thought out decision, and while it may genuinely be good faith, it is reckless. I am OK with taking it to AFD, while giving the article a chance to be improved. -
    BillCJ 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You're right, of course, and I was commenting from my perspective, as someone whose knowledge of baseball is essentially limited to the understanding that it involves diamonds, bats, and balls of sufficient weight and rigidity to cause bodily damage traveling at high speeds. (OK, so I may be exaggerating slightly.) :P ... I feel that the article should be restored and was only trying to suggest that the deleting admin should not be accused of having carried out "the most out of process speedy deletion ... ever seen on Wikipedia" (quoted from the nomination). The deletion probably was somewhat hasty, but the article didn't really give much reason for pause (at least to those editors unfamiliar with baseball). As for your final point, I do not think that an automatic AfD listing is necessary. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, gotcha. Also, I wasn't proposing or suggesting an automatic AFD nom, just that I was OK with it happening. I'd rather just see the article restored, as I believe its issues can and will be fixed. -
    BillCJ 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Restore and do not submit to a further AfD. Minor league baseball teams are notable. The issue with the phrase "rookie league" could be addressed by writing it like this:
  explains what is meant by "affiliation" in this context. --BlueMoonlet 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - "A rookie league team based out of Johnson City, Tennessee" conveys no importance/significance and the bit about the General Manager was written in a way to give the General Manager importance/significance, not the team. The team plays its home games at Howard Johnson Field ... yawn (excuse me) ... conveys no importance/significance. The criminal conviction of their General Manager was not specifically sourced. On the other hand, they've been around since 1937 and play with the Appalachian League, which seems to provide enough importance/significance. I can see where the deleting admin was coming from and don't see any need for such DRV nomination drama. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is there DRV nomination drama? Minor League Baseball teams (specifically those within the official Minor League Baseball organization) should be automatically notable. The admin wouldn't restore so I took to DRV, which is the exact reason DRV exists. Smashville 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore only if the BLP violation is removed seems close to a
  WP:COATRACK to get at someone; while notability is probably asserted (barely, given the weasel words - they play with so & so; well I study with Green Day, suddenly, I'm notable too?) the BLP issue needs to be resolved or removed; because it appears in all versions from the start, it may be best to have this re-created from scratch. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I can live with the BLP restrictions and a clean page history. Having access to the rest of the article's content would be a great help though (copied onto a clean page would seem the best way, but I'm open to any other method). I can do some clean-up and editing, but again, I've never even seen the page, and I'm better at editing, not writing from scratch. -
    BillCJ 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

File:Palma.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a public photograph obtained from the United States Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act [13]. It was listed on the page as such but was deleted by a bot as having no source information. It is since been copied over by a completely unrelated picture. The source was the service record of the veteran and the image is PD per the release law of FOIA. Independent verification of this can be gained by calling 314-801-0800 as military service record photographs are public and can be published without restriction. I will be the first to admit I have had problems with images in the past, but this is not one of them. This was legally obtained and is public and I ask it be undeleted. OberRanks 13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ober, you can just upload it under a more expressive name once your

☎ 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse Specific source never stated, just a generic claim that it is a US gov't image. Husnock wasn't reliable on his claims. Best solution is to find it again and upload with a specific US gov't source for the specific image.
  GRBerry 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Deletion was proper, but reuploading with a source is fine. Please, not with that name though; don't cover up a Commons image.
  Chick Bowen 19:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, should be re-uploaded with proper source and ideally under a different name. ~ trialsanderrors 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse upload again with source, then no cause or just call for deletion John B Sheffield 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]

Ottawa Panhandlers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

This article was falsely deleted because one admin said we didn't have enough references. I had about 12 good references in local Ottawa press about this article. This article has also previously been attacked from Ottawa City Hall and any deletion process should not have been hasty because of this. When asked how many references were needed Nishkid64 never specified. He just told us that none of our references were good ones. It was a kangaroo court as User:SmashtheState has said. There were no clear guidelines on how to improve the content of the article or keep it. All that was said was that our references didn't make the article notable even though we had DOZENS. I believe this was a bad faith delete. Yes. The vote is not a majority but dozens of people who do have experience in activism, specifically poverty activism and organized labour have voted to keep this article. User:Nishkid64 on the other hand has no experience in this matter. Which makes it even more obvious that this was a bad faith delete. A google search of Ottawa Panhandlers Union shows that there are many articles on this topic. Those are just a drop in the bucket as there have been many television and radio interviews. Apples99 (talk · contribs · logs) 09:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Blnguyen" is none other than Dr. Chi Nguyen, a criminologist in Ottawa who has repeatedly underplayed police vs street people crimes in publications like this one http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/2002/patternsofcrime.html.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.108.240 (talk • contribs)

Blocked the user for trolling. FYI, Blnguyen is a college student in Australia. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Having read the
  WP:IDONTKNOWIT isn't a valid argument - and states that just because something is only quoted in local publications it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Whilst the article itself was probably somewhat POV, this should be dealt with in the usual (and more appropriate) manner of correcting the article, not simply removing it entirely. It's uniqueness, coupled with the sources that were provided should have provided enough to give it a 'keep' result. Seajay 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - With respect to Seajay, I'm not at all surprised that the final decision was delete. Sure, there were lots of keep !votes, but they seemed to be primarily sockpuppets. The arguments for notability were based on publication in local papers, but the arguments against pointed out that such publication was actually scarce -- the 12 citations turned out to be almost entirely non-substantive (e.g. blogs, etc.) Through all the sockpuppetry, accusations, and other...junk...no one stepped forward with the supposed hundreds of other citations that the keep supporters claim exist. Notability having not been established, deletion was appropriate. (That the
  bad faith doesn't weigh into the merits of the article -- but it's counter-productive and should stop.) --TheOtherBob 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Having slogged through that disaster of an AFD, it would appear that the close is appropriate; established editors stated that the
  verifiability and prove the notability of the organization (which, with the 34 members that one debater pointed out, would seem to be pretty small in the grand scheme of things). It's incumbent on the creators of an article to ensure that it meets the guidelines, and there seems to have been sufficient time for improvements to be made - the deletion suggests they weren't made prior to the deletion debate ending. Endorse deletion Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn As a frequent user but relative newbie to the behind the scenes editing of articles, I was stunned to see how this process was handled. I've seen countless articles in Wikipedia "that need better sourcing". Clearly this article could have used more thorough sourcing, but I was appalled to see the credibility of editors given more weight than real-life Ottawa residents who clearly know way more about the issue and the local media scene. Three sources were completely and utterly misconstrued and it would be sad to think that the editors gave credence to those who know more about editing than about the actual facts of the situation. The op-ed piece written by a panhandler was in response to "news" article so skewed (and given national coverage) that the editors of the local paper of record (The Ottawa Citizen) was forced to allow a rebuttal. It would have been ideal to cite the original Citizen article but it appears those who had a political motive for discrediting the union were not interested in an impartial review and/or attempt to improve the article. The second critique of sources was in regards to the Hour. A claim that this is a tiny publication and very alternative is laughable to anyone living in the Ottawa area. It is one of several mainstream free dailies. The Express is a mainstream free weekly. Hardly tiny and hardly very alternative, unless you consider arts and culture extremely alternative. The two big talk radio stations have featured the OPU: CBC (the national public broadcaster) and CFRA (the corporate right-wing shoutfest). Had this article not been so speedily deleted, I might have succeed in digging up an archived radio interview from the CBC. Yeah, that's right, a politically motivated speedy deletion may have cost wikipedia a future editor. And we still counted all the other smaller local press coverage this union has garnered. So, in the final analysis, if this hasty decision isn't overturned you've lost a potential new recruit, tarnished the reputation of wikipedia and flushed down the memory hole an article that could have been improved (like so many other wikipedia articles) with more thorough referencing. 64.230.16.35Ottawa Resident —Preceding comment was added at 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 64.230.16.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Speedy deletion? It was up for five days as called for under
  Assume good faith is a tenet here; a lot of the arguments for keeping failed to do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Samir and I were targetted for having political motivations because we wanted the article to be deleted. We were repeatedly accused of having ties with Ottawa City Hall, and being police officers. One editor (who I blocked for self-admitted meatpuppetry) kept claiming that Samir was "Samir Bhatnagar", a police officer who had arrested him in real life. This editor then said he had Wikiscanner evidence which proved that relationship. Wikiscanner only examines anonymous edits, and links them with their respective institutions. Someone from Ottawa City Hall did vandalize the page, but it makes no sense that this editor connected the vandal with Samir, who lives hundreds of miles from Ottawa. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus was that the topic did not and would not meet
  WP:DRV, which may include information on the Panhandlers Union of Ottawa. As for sourse material, try limiting the content of the article to material contained in (1) Globe and Mail. (June 17, 1999) City withdraws panhandler charge Defendant laments missed opportunity to contest. Page A6; (2) Canadian Press. (May 1, 2003) Three years after federal push to ease homelessness, progress tough to see.; (3) Edgar, Patti. (June 10, 2005) Winnipeg Free Press Begging bylaw battle looming. Law firm, anti-poverty group await new city plan. Section: City; Page B1. Use search; (4) Industrial Worker. (May 1, 2006) Brooklyn warehouse workers winning with direct action. Volume 103; Issue 5; Page 3. (5) Industrial Worker. (June 1, 2007) Ottawa May Day scrambles lobbyists. Volume 104; Issue 6; page 9. (6) Generally see Aainfos.ca search; (7) Generally see Google book search; and (8) See generally Google scholar search. Publications by court judges are fine, but don't use filed complaints and responses for factual assertions. The Dominion Paper has some information, and it seems like a legit source. However, I didn't seen a editor listed and its reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight are not clear. -- Jreferee t/c 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse well reasoned close of a non notable group. The AfD revealed only one op-ed piece in a national newspaper, written by a member of the union, and several pieces in local newspaper of limited circulation. Sources for media reports elsewhere were not provided, beyond the statement that they may have not been archived. To "Ottawa Resident" above: The hour is a small publication, The express is a free weekly of limited circulation, CBO Ottawa does not equate to the national CBC and Lowell Green talking to Andrew Nellis does not equate to a CFRA piece on a panhandlers union. The Dominion is not mainstream and I have no idea of the quality of citations from there. The article was written as a soapbox and the carnival nature of the entire AfD (with wild conspiracy theories left, right and centre) cements the mudified nature of the keep arguments which were trying to make mountains out of very limited sources. Good close by Blnguyen -- Samir 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no clear consensus, regardless of what people may feel of the justification. Deletion is supposed to be based on consensus decision; the administration have chosen to find consensus by ignoring every contradicting opinion. And just a note that Samir here is the original source of the deletion request, and that he has revealed an obvious and personal grudge against the Panhandlers' Union. In particular, he is deliberately spinning material presented. For example, the CFRA interview references was not "chatting with Lowell Green," it was an hour-long, in-depth debate between representatives of the Panhandlers' Union and representatives from the local business lobby. We have good reason to suspect, based on his comments, that Samir is part of a current and ongoing campaign of harassment against the OPU and its organizers. The fact that Samir here is even aware of the Lowell Green discussion reveals his intimate knowledge of the OPU, something a casual editor would not have. SmashTheState 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From
  neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Blnguyen clearly felt these policies were not being met, and as a result, he closed the AfD as delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Andrew is right. It is obvious that "Samir" is Sgt Samir Bhatnagar of the Ottawa police and he arrested Proshanto at the May Day protest last year. He has been targeting Ottawa street people for years and years on the streets of Ottawa and even here on the Wikipedia. You can tell from this change that he made that he has a profound knowlege of Ottawa even in March of 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottawa_ankle_rules&diff=43402072&oldid=41852766. The wikiscanner confirms it. Bhatnagar has used the Wikipedia for years to subjugate the views against Ottawa panhandlers. Nishkid64 blocked me also just because Andrew and I put multiple votes down. That is not fair. I have had to go to the library on Laurier to use the computers now. Also how else would he know about the Lowell Green show? Also the picture on his page is from the police service box at the Corel Centre. It is bullshit that he is a "gastroenterologist" and Nishkid64 is taking us for fools when the evidence is obvious that he is a crooked cop and a puppet of Mayor O'Brien.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.108.240 (talk • contribs)

I blocked you for meatpuppetry. That is a blockable offense. We have rules here on Wikipedia. And yes, Samir is a gastroenterelogist. Look at his contributions. How would a police officer be able to make medicine-related edits? Nishkid64 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I will acknowledge that the article is POV and needs a rewrite. That said, I do think it is notable. The Panhandlers Union has made a big splash in Ottawa. So what we have here is a flawed article that's being deleted -- when it should be kept and repaired. While I do not want to summon up insane conspiracy theories, there is no denying that the article was vandalized TWICE by an IP address that traces back to Ottawa City Hall. This was reported in the media -- CBC, specifically -- and makes the deletion of the article at this time seem... well... weird. You know when people at City Hall take the time to vandalize your article, something strange is going on. Anyway, restore the article, and I'll try to rewrite it to take out the heavy POV political bias contained in it. --Nik 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand total of 84 edits form this chap and he was canvassed as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - per others above. Also, the article was a wreck and made no sense whatsoever. Forget the Ottawa Panhandlers club.. who has even heard of a panhandlers club anywhere?! No good faith attempt was made to establish notability in spite of being asked and the refs were less than acceptable. Article sure belongs deleted. Sarvagnya 23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per
  direct knowledge of people who live in Ottawa. --BlueMoonlet 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per BlueMoonlet. - KNM ^Talk 00:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I stand by all my reasoning from the AfD. I think BlueMoonlet put it best; the notability of the union has to be seen beyond a local level. The only
  reliable sources (there were maybe 1-2) were from community newspapers. I likened the newspaper coverage in Ottawa to something of a similar nature in my town. I said that if there was a union that was heavily publicized in my local newspaper, or even my county newspaper, I still wouldn't think it was notable enough for Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment There's a list of of Ottawa Roads and Ottawa Parks on Wikipedia which are primarily notable for their "localness". Surely, the OPU is of at least similar notability? Or has my mentioning of them doomed their entries to deletion? For those who are genuinely interested in following wikipedia guidlines on notability, the complainants should have had a "notability" tag on the article to alert other editors or a "expert-subject" tag, so interested editors could have corrected their concerns by citing articles like the following: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=5616fec4-3ed8-461a-ac2e-290d876229b2&k=30424 with a little bit of genuine research I'm sure the criteria of notability could be satisfied, if editors were genuinely interested in showing good faith towards the claims of numerous Ottawa residents who have claimed the OPU is a phenomena in Ottawa. Show some good faith and undelete this article, as I'm sure more "reliable" sources will follow. And please don't dare claim that the CanWest News Service is a tiny, very alternative, and biased news source because it paints the OPU in a negative light. 70.49.134.161 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Ottawa Resident[reply]

Yes look at the CanWest News report!!! I can give you a quote that they talk about the Panhandlers Union, "But, for the past three months, a cloud has hovered over his corner in the form of two men claiming they represent the Ottawa Panhandlers Union. Repeated demands he pay union dues of $100 a week to the men who said they were organizing a strike were too much...He plans to move his business elsewhere because he said the men threatened to beat him and the police told him there is little they can do to protect him from harassment." This is notable news and it is all over Ottawa!!! Andrew and I were the two men collecting the $100 from that scab. Pro Smith 207.7.108.240 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per
  WP:DELETE: NN, no refs & per DNFT; any semblence of credibility of the conspiracy posse is gone. Carlossuarez46 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

While I heartily support anyone with the requisite experiance closing XfDs regardless of their admin-or-lack-therof status,

• Endorse - csd request was correctly overturned, as the article asserted the notability of the topic. The AfD reason was just "contested csd". When you later expanded on your reasoning, your interpretation of policy was challenged and discussed. I know AfD isn't a vote, but you need to realise you are the only one who thought the article should be deleted. Others made valid arguments, and the closing admin clearly did the right thing. Mark Chovain 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the arguments raised were:

1. "this site is invaluable"
2. "It passes WP:WEB by being syndicated by Google News"
3. "should actually be a speedy keep"
4. "I read the Sudan Tribune often"

It may very well be the case that the site is invaluable, and that it does important work in the region. But in the absence of sources that speak to its reliability, etc, we can't write an article about it. These aren't "my" interpretations of policy, they are chapter and verse, mate. Noting that the article still has not source one in it, those provided in the AfD are as follows:

1. [14] A Google search
2. [15] A listing on Barack Obama's website, and
3. [16] A reference made within a House Committee on Foreign Affairs' document

None of these provide any information that would allow us to write a neutral verifiable article on the topic.

CygnetSaIad 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - not one argument to delete other than that of the nominator. this is one of the few AFDs John254 has closed that he should have been closing. Endorse.
  ☎ 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Sometimes you just have to use common sense. It's one of two total news sources for an entire country. Smashville 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should not have been deleted as spam, I was not the one to create the page but I've just come back from Kibera where I visited this organization which is a valid non-profit registered community base organization in the Kibera slum. If I had been on Wikipedia I would have place a hangon tag on the article to dispute the deletion. The reason was spam, but if the article needs improvement with external references, etc. I'd be happy to provide them. If you are not willing to restore the article in mainspace, please restore it in my userspace and I will improve it. Thanks Brian 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion - Specifically and on the whole, the article did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. For example, the article did not specify any membership number for this newly form, year and a half old organization or any specific involvement or impact on the community. There was nothing in the article from which to determine an important or significant about the topic. Speedy delete was appropriate under
  WP:CSD#A7. -- Jreferee t/c 14:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree, that as written, it's not a great article. If an admin will kindly move a copy of it to my userspace, I'll improve it. I can add references that support the importance, notability and verifiability and it will be easy for me to get membership numbers and examples of specific projects that have made a difference in Kibera. Thanks Brian 14:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)btball[reply]

File:Itmfa-flag.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedy deleted because of I9, copyright infringement. I don't remember, but I thought I had quoted the creator on the image page as saying "And to the folks who want me to create and sell bumper stickers: Please. The button and lapel pin business is killing me. I'm not adding any more crap to my line of ITMFA merch. But, hey, feel free to create your own ITMFA merch. Much to the consternation of my business-minded pals (Democrats, one and all), I didn't copyright “ITMFA.†I'm not in this to profit, I'm just in it to spread the meme." The creator of the image specifically disclaims copyright and encourages distribution. Is that not explicit enough? SchmuckyTheCat 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - Indeed. Here is the post on Don Savage's (the ITMFA creator) blog specifically disavowing copyright. Is it possible to see what license was placed on the image before it got deleted? Jeffpw 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The license on the image was PD. Don Savage has not released the image into the public domain. Despite what he said, he did copyright the image, automatically, at the time of creation. Schmucky was not the copyright holder, and barring an explicit statement from Savage saying "this is PD", he has no grounds to release it into PD. I'm more than happy to undelete if there is a statement of permissions from the author; simply saying "you guys can use this image to make stuff with it" is not sufficient for Wikipedia.

^{Son of the Defender} 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, please note that the blog linked to above says "I did not copyright ITMFA". Savage is saying that he did not copyright the statement ITMFA.(probably meaning trademarking) He says nothing about the image ITMFA-flag.png. Even without this, there is no license for usage on Wikipedia, but this further shows that there was no explicit license. As I said before, I'm happy to help Mr. Savage and Schmucky through the permissions process for this.

^{Son of the Defender} 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So the creator saying he wants the image spread, and that he did not copyright it, is not enough for you? I'm sorry, but I think this was a bad faith deletion, expressly done in retribution for a critical comment I left on your page. I would hope other administrators look at this and other administrative actions you have made lately. Jeffpw 10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. No that is not enough. Schmucky does not get to put the image in the public domain. Only the copyright holder can, and his statement is actually not enough. Releases into the public domain have to be an explicit and irrevocable release of all rights. Jeffpw, you need to take your vendetta against me elsewhere. This was a valid deletion. Please, show me on the blog link where Savage says "I hereby release irrevocably all rights to this image." You won't find it because it's not there. His statement does not meet the bar of a valid public domain release. Therefore, Schmucky could not validly upload the image under PD, and the deletion was correct.

^{Son of the Defender} 10:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Vendetta against you???? Swat, you continue to tell me to assume good faith while simultaneously assuming bad faith on my part. Please be consistent. When you engage in a series of controversial admin actions you should expect that there will be a response and questions as to both the action and motivation behind it. That's the Wikipedia way. If you don't like it you may relinquish the tools at any time. Nobody is forcing you to be an administrator. In any event, I disagree with this action, and would hope another (uninvolved) admin would weigh in on the matter. You've already made your position clear. Jeffpw 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- the statements by the creator of the image are sufficient to establish that the image has been released into the public domain and/or released under an unrestricted free license. The creator of the image can hardly state that "I didn't copyright “ITMFA.”", then contradictorily assert that the presence of the image on our servers is a copyright infringement. The law values substance over form, as do our policies (see
  WikiLawyering. John254 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - Speedy deletion does not apply. The image was copied from the impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com website. Besides the {{PD-release}} image tag, the uploader (SchmuckyTheCat) posted

  "<http://www.impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com/2006/04/from_the_mailbag.html> Savage specifically encourages free use."

  Thus, the uploader did assert (other than through image tags) that it is public domain, freely licensed, fair use, or used with permission. The uploader might be wrong in the assertion, but the image licensing assertion was reasonable which is all
  WP:CSD#I9 and other speedy delete reasons do not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, list at IfD Blatantly false deletion rationale, speedy deletion is for unambiguous cases, which this one is obviously not. ~ trialsanderrors 15:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, the image was also in the SavageLove article, illustrating a section specifically about the image. It seems that it would have been usable in that article, at least, under fair use rules. Jeffpw 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't be so hard on the speedy deleter. Since the source website alread is selling products using its copyright material, it doesn't seem likely that the source website will give out a free license. In otherwords, it doesn't seem likely that anyone at Wikipedia can successfully follow When permission is confirmed to have a valid {{PD-release}} image tag. Had the image been tagged differently, it probably would have been deleted anyways. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still would have been usable under fair use, since it illustrated a section of an article. Jeffpw 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems possible. I think the image deleters do get tired of seeing one misapplied free use tag after another. It is a difficult task and it is made more difficult by being jumped on. The uploader did not seem to put much thought into the assertion listed on the image page. Images licensing review takes time, so the more cooperation the uploader provides, the easier it will be for those who review the image licenses. Hopefully, this DRV discussion will help everyone move towards cooperation. -- Jreferee t/c 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and add that blog link to the image page. With that done, I can't see IFD deleting this, so I'm not sure it is worth an IFD listing.
  GRBerry 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

HobbyZone Millennium PTU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as non-notable and/or an advertisement. I was in the middle of adding external links since I'd done this at another wiki when it was deleted. I maintain that this is a notable product given the fact that it is the first model of this type to utilize two extremely sophisticated technologies. Furthermore, it's manufactured and distributed by the second-largest hobby company in the world. Other examples of R/C models I did under a previous username include:

• E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400
• ParkZone J-3 Cub
  which yielded a photo used on a number of userboxes
• Interactive Toy Concepts Micro Mosquito
• E-flite Blade CP
• ParkZone P-51D Mustang

-- PMDrive1061 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any secondary sources for it? There's no point in restoring if it'll just get deleted more slowly through AFD.--chaser - t 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -
  Wikipedia notable. -- Jreferee t/c 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• First of all, kindly do not accuse me of having "fantasies of notability." This is a major commercial product by a major manufacturer. Three original articles of mine under my previous screen name were built into featured articles and I have a total of six features to my credit. Second, I made it clear that it had been written on another wiki. Actually, I added it to Wikia's own Radio Control wiki along with Helipedia.com and Eflighwiki.com before bringing it here. Third, it was blown out of the water so fast that I didn't have the slightest chance of cleaning it up. It was late when I wrote it and I was planning to return this morning to make it more formal and to add the third party sources. When I was an administrator (de-adminned by my own request), I extended the benefit of the doubt to a lot of users, especially the established ones. I speedied quite a few stubs for lack of content without first seeing who the heck wrote the thing. In every instance, I restored the stub without question. At this point, please don't bother to restore the thing. It isn't worth this hassle. More energy is being spent discussing this than is worth expending.  :( --PMDrive1061 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for my flip comment, which did not help the discussion. Also, there was no reason for me to address
  WP:CSD#G11 blatant advertising. I have no prejudice against recreating a sourced article minus the blatant advertising. I think that can be done even during this DRV, so long as the recreated article does not meet any of the speedy delete criteria. -- Jreferee t/c 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Absolutely - the very best option would be for the editor or others to fix these articles that have problems with notability and advertising wherever possible, and then remove any of them that they're unable to satisfy the proper criteria. Arthur 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The article was created at 06:41, 28 October 2007, tagged for deletion at 06:42, 28 October 2007, and deleted at 06:43, 28 October 2007. Reading the deleted article, I fail to see how G11 applies; there may be some unfortunate "brochure phrasing" but it was by no means a blatant advertisement. In the 2 minutes from creation to deletion, PMDrive1061 was not given a chance to place {{hangon}} or explain why the article should be kept. Overturn, userfy if necessary, and move on. Let's give our editors the benefit of the doubt. - auburnpilot talk 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that PMDrive1061 didn't have time to add his external links, as he suggests. Looking at the other samples he gives, it's clear that notability will not be established. He maintains that the text he wrote itself establishes notability. Simply adding external links to hobbyist sites and forums wouldn't have helped. The editor seems not to understand that verifiability accompanies notabililty. Of the other samples given, only

talk • contribs

)

I disagree. New page patrol should not be approached with the same "shoot to kill" attitude that vandal reverting requires. With the exception of pure vandalism, utter nonsense, and test pages, editors should be allowed some appearance of an ability to write an article. Had I reviewed this request, I would have declined the speedy and swapped the template for {{

underconstruction}}. When an article goes from creation to deletion in two minutes, we have a problem. The correct course of action here would have been for the deleting admin to restore the article, userfy it, and allow the author to improve it to Wikipedia standards. I'd do it myself, but I'm sure somebody would cry "abuse" since I've commented here. - auburnpilot talk 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

But to reitereate, if the sources he would add would establish notability, that would be fine. However from his statements and example articles, it's not clear that this would happen. Note that his original comments were that the notability was already inherent to the article. Also note that his further work he didn't do was NOT to establish references, but to add external links. I agree he didn't have time to do this, but it's pretty clear that they wouldn't have made a difference. You can overturn the deletion, and then we'll just take it and the rest of the unsourced non-notable articles and run them through afd, but in some sense it's just prolonging the inevitable. I'd be much more comfortable if he was making efforts to establish notability and reliable sources rather than arguing they are already there, when clearly they are not. This article and most of the examples given are not in line with

talk • contribs

)

It doesn't much matter now, as it seems this was the final straw in a long line of disappointments for the author of this article. S/he has since retired. [17] - auburnpilot talk 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/he unretired in the past.[18] -- Jreferee t/c 16:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation with a total rewrite if notability can be proven. Unless "first low-cost helicopter of its type to utilize both 2.4 GHz radio technology as well as lithium polymer battery technology" is an assertion of notability, it fails A7. And the tone of the article is overly promotional, it could say that same thing with 5 about fewer words, just "lithium batteries" will suffice for "lithium polymer battery technology," even the edit summary of the first edit: The most fun you can have for forty bucks. New article on new model helicopter. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, Needs links to a few third-party reviews/sources, but a decent stub verging on start class article. Taking this to AfD or prodding it for sources would have been reasonable, but to speedy delete it so quickly was rude.-gadfium 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSD#G11 was a valid reason to delete the article and a note on the talk page is a way to address the tagging so close to creation. -- Jreferee t/c 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn per gadfium and AuburnPilot
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

• Comment from speedy deleter. It was me who deleted the article, picked more-or-less at random from those tagged for speedy per A7. At the time, I didn't see anything in it to claim or demonstrate any notability for that particular product over and above any others of its type, or that such products are individually notable in and of themselves. The edit summary provided was not helpful to signal any future intentions there may have been for the article, and together with the 'copywriting' format it seemed therefore eligible for CSD.
  In retrospect, it probably was a little harsh to have done so, and considering it for AfD might have been more appropriate than speedy. Unfortunately since I had neglected to update the time display in my user preferences after the switch to daylight savings time locally here the night before, it appeared as if the article had been created an hour before I looked at it, rather than two minutes before.
  I did neglect to review the creator's prior editing history in any detail, and considered only the article's merits; no slight was or is intended. PMDrive1061 did leave a message on my talk page asking me to reconsider the deletion, but this was after I had clocked off for the day and by the time I saw it, this DRV was already in progress. Would be happy for the article's creator (or anyone else) to have another go at establishing the article, if undeleted through this process. In looking for any independent, informative commentary on this product, I was unable to find anything outside of sales notices, generic product reviews, and the like. These didn't seem to be promising or appropriate materials to build a valid article from; but perhaps there's other material out there which was missed, or in some other form. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Pure brochurespeak. ~ trialsanderrors 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as advert. There could be an article at that title, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Best of and one.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was removed for no FUR, I can give one Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For use where?
  GRBerry 02:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Presumably
    The Best of And One, which still links the image. I see no problem undeleting the January 2006 version of this image, given an adequate fair use rationale (one was present on the image page at time of deletion, but was grossly inadequate), but the March 2007 version, at 935x935, should be kept deleted. —Cryptic 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Category:Fogen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

1) no consensus to delete was ever produced (one delete vote vs a bunch of my counter arguments). 2)"CFD regulars don't understand it" is not a valid deletion criteria. 3) it is part of a copyvio screening mechanism and it's loss would potentialy leave wikipedia open to haveing more copyvios missed (this type of copyvio doesn't appear to be picked up by NP patrol very often.) Geni 12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - As indicated in the deleted category heading, Fogen refers to the

fogen system. For those Fogen category images that do not appear to be copyvios should have their tag replaced with {{MultilicenseFogenviewed}}. Others should be tagged for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

NOTE - There is a related discussion at Category:Fogenviewed CfD, which indictes that "Fogen" is an abbreviation of From owner general. -- Jreferee t/c 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I would be happy to overturn the deletion if there were a reasonable copyvio need for this category. I've read both CfDs. I have to agree with BrownHairedGirl. I can't make an sense of the purpose of this category or the documentation you developed to support it. The CfD explanation for the category was given as

  "It tells us that there is a fair chance of the image being a copyvio. The upload process is described

  here. Since most of the uploads are from new users but at the same time will appear to be correctly formatted our normal copyvio detection process break down. Thus another process is needed. The cat is part of that process."

  It is fair to have one category dedicated to helping identify a few copyvio images, even if that category is only used by one person. But I really can't figure out what is going on. Until the purpose for the category is clarified and the process explained in a way that others generally can understand it, I think the category should remain deleted. The is what the CfD consensus to delete brought out in the CfD discussion. The keep reasoning never overcame this, so the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I read through the
  Fromowner documentation. So basically, the , , etc. images pasted in biography articles are assumption of bad faith traps for anyone clicking on them? Who approved this technique? -- Jreferee t/c 14:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It assumes that people have limited understanding of wikipedia copyright policy and copyright law. Significant experence (my Genisock2 account that deals with this stuff has over 3000 edits) suggests this is a reasonable assumption.Geni 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of get a sense that there might be a use for what you are doing, but I think everyone is turned off by your circuitous and obtuse responses and the lack of initial consensus to go forward with the Fogen effort in Wikipedia space. If seasoned Wikipedian's can't figure out what is going on, implementing the Fogen effort on new users would not seem to have an overall positive outcome, even if copyvio content is deleted as a result of the Fogen effort. New users especially will be turned off from Wikipedia if they do not feel they are being treated fairly. That is why it is important that all aspects of the Fogen effort - the process as well as those implementing it - be straight forward and clear. -- Jreferee t/c 15:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain in a way that makes sense to a new user how the current system of AFD templates work?Geni 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. When you are explaining why you want it kept, and you say the following two things, it doesn't lend credence to your argument: The Cat is important because the form of image upload produces a lot of copyvios that get missed by the new image patrolers. As a result it is useful to have them all in one place and New image patrolled are an irrelevance. They missed another image today. Your arguments were not as solid as either Carlos' or BHG's. --Kbdank71 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that "does not have an unrealisticaly high opinion of new image patrolers" was a deletion criteria. The shear number of problem images that turn up in Category:Fromowner without haveing any PUI nsd or db-copyvio tags added them strongly suggests that new image patrolers are not very good at spoting such images. please feel free to provide evidence to the contary.Geni 16:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can't provide evidence to the contrary, that means somehow that my reasoning for wanting to endorse isn't valid? And honestly, I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence. --Kbdank71 13:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. After reading the CfD discussion and
  Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation, I still don't understand how an image was supposed to qualify for this category. If you mean something like Category:Images purportedly uploaded by their owners, it may be better to establish a category under a name like that rather than using the abbreviation. --Metropolitan90 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It means it was uploaded through [this page]. Which part of this are you haveing a problem understanding?Geni 16:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Images uploaded using the Fromowner system be an accurate description in that case? --Metropolitan90 04:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion this is not defining, is apparently not used for any maintenance - how an image is uploaded is of little interest, actually. Something along the lines of Metropolitan90's idea may make sense, but those get uploaded other than through the fogen subpage as well. Carlossuarez46 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is of significant interest when certian methods are more likely to contian copyvios.Geni 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? you have proof of that assertion? Methinks many people probably don't even know that it exists - little wonder that there were so few pages in the cat. Carlossuarez46 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've proposed a mass renaming of the pages, categories and templates related to the "fromowner system" at
  Wikipedia talk:Fromowner. I'd welcome any comments there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse deletion - the closer correctly interpreted the debate. The category is an un-needed expansion of a system that is already a problem. The whole from-owner system with those distracting self-reverential images should also be deleted. Johntex\^talk 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Category is not viable. I don't know if the system is viable or not, but these categories aren't appropriate at this name, so deletion is appropriate.
  GRBerry 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, although this may not be a great venue for it. I don't see any significant evidence that the system is working. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Endorse deletion/protection. If sufficiently reliable sources appear an author can come to DRV, but as of now this is just an unnotable protologism. It's possible to stick a prefix on terrorism for any number of imagined scenarios, but this really doesn't have much significance if there isn't anyone actually doing it and nobody is really studying it as a distinct thing. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - There is no hoax speedy delete and hoax is specifically listed as a
  non-criteria in the speedy delete policy. None of the other speedy delete reasons apply. Pyroterrorism, pyro terrorism, and pyro-terrorism seem to be made up terms, which seems why no reliable source information is being found on the topic. However, merely because the article is misnamed is no reason to speedy delete it. The topic obviously is a legitimate topic (see for example Google search for arson+terrorism), but mis-named. A search of Wikipedia for arson terrorism shows that they usually burn objects (e.g., trucks), not large tracts of uninhibited land as claimed in the deleted article. The topic might attract original research claims (e.g. Southern California recent fires were terrorism), but that is an AfD reason to delete, not speedy delete reason. Information about the topic might best fit in the arson or terrorism article (neither of which even mentions the topic), but that not something for which speedy delete is designed. Removing a prod is merely a disagreement that the prod is appropriate and a proper response would be to list the article at AfD, not redirect it. Also, I do not see a reason to protect the article. The article had been around two months - since 28 August 2007 - so there does not seem to be a reason to speedy delete the article even in a general sense. -- Jreferee t/c 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• List at AfD - google scholar produces a result for example, and this could probably be transwikied to Wiktionary.
  Addhoc 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, relist Speculation about arson and terrorism goes quite a way back [20]. As sad of an indictment that is of our media, it potentially makes for a feasible article (finding a proper name is a different issue). ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, relist Here is a citation to (and opportunity to buy a copy of) a journal article on the topic and using the term. Here and here are a pair of related New York Times articles about convictions for using arson as terrorism. This FBI testimony to congress is also related.
  GRBerry 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If the Studies in Conflict & Terrorism article ends up being our main ref for this, we should probably move the article to pyro-terrorism, which is how that writer (who appears to have coined the term for his article) spells it. No vote from me; just wanted to get the move suggestion in there. Heather 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The DRV closer should move the article to whatever name seem the most appropriate. As for the topic of the article, the following seems likely: Pyro-Terrorism - The Threat of Arson-Induced Forest Fires as a Future Terrorist Weapon of Mass Destruction reads "Pyro-terrorist attack - when terrorists unleash the latent energy in the nation's forests to achieve the effect of a weapon of mass destruction." Every summer, it seems as though the nation's forests go up in flames. This might be a stand-in-line terrorist technique. I posted some notices of this DRV on the talk page of the significant contributors to the
  Terrorist article. Maybe they can figure out where this topic might fit best in the terrorist article scheme. -- Jreferee t/c 00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion/protection like it or not Wikipedia is now influential enough, thanks to its ranking on Google searches, and mirror sites, that it can easily create a
  Philip Baird Shearer 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist on AFD and leave it have its 5 days. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

I created this article on October 23. It described web.py, which is a

• Seeing as how this already went through AfD in May 2006, and given that no evidence has been presented that this has become more notable now than it was then, I 'm going to endorse this deletion as a valid G4. Heather 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heather, I don't know what the previous contents of the article were... they may not have established its notability at all. The AfD mentions that it was considered non-notable. In my recently-deleted version, I believe I established the notability of the software. And can add more notable uses on top of those. That's why I'd like it reinstated. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin here. No versions of this article have ever asserted any
  notability, including this last one. I don't count a mention that some website uses this code as an assertion of notability. There's no reason to restore this article before references to multiple substantial coverage in reliable sources are provided. Sandstein 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not sure that media coverage should be the only grounds of notability for software. For example, we have an article on
    pythonic web framework. There's been a lot of debate among Python developers on whether to choose and promote one particular web framework, and web.py helps to inform that debate. I'd say that's a notable issue since it concerns one of the major languages used to produce dynamic web pages. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm sure you meant well, and I'm sure this software is notable to certain people, just not to the readership of a general purpose encyclopedia. Under our generally agreed-upon
      rules of notability, forum posts or the perceived interestingness of a topic do not constitute notability. Coverage in reliable sources (not necesssarily in the media) does. The software might be covered, however, as part of a wider article about this general type of software. Sandstein 21:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • All righty. I'm aware of the general notability guidelines, but I guess I've seen (and edited?) more than a few articles on software that don't seem to meet them. However, I know that one bad example shouldn't foster another. I may try to write a broader article on Python web frameworks, perhaps as a subsection of
        web application frameworks. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• The AfD seemed to reach a fairly strong conclusion. Do you have any evidence to present to support the undeletion of this page that was not brought up in the AfD. If not, then I endorse the deletion.
  AmiDaniel (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • My argument for notability is based on the use of the web.py framework by a couple of high-profile and high-traffic web sites. It seems like this isn't sufficient according to others, though. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is, the same could be said of bits of PHP script that I've written that definitely aren't notable in and of themselves. We need sources demonstrating that the code is itself notable, not simply that it is used on "a couple of" sites which get heavy traffic. Heather 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy delete - No substantial new information has been presented to overcome the reasons the article was deleted at AfD. As for notability, the fact that
  notability standards since there is not enough reliable source material to support a Wikipedia article. You have the opportunity to create a draft article in your user space, so there is no reason to have the article recreated in article space without any referenced material. -- Jreferee t/c 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Speedy Deletion considering that this already went through an afd TonyBallioni 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closed as "Keep", saying that "the consensus is clear and the article has sources". Without getting into details about the validity of the sources (which I dispute), the consensus was not a clear "keep" by any stretch of the imagination. Despite likely SPAs, about half of the !votes were delete, and the debate suffered from some of the same problems as the related article on Vanna Bonta (deleted, but also on DRV). Itub 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. As the non-admin closure of this afd discussion I believe the consensus was clear (else I would have left it alone); but I understand fully that my actions in doing so are open to review. If others feel that the consensus was not as clear as I thought it was then I will, of course, accept this and learn from it. B1atv 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV consensus is not really needed. Any admin may reclose the AfD so long as it is done before the close of this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but no objection to an admin reclosing the AfD differently - The closer seems to have interpret the debate correctly, but the discussion was not so solid that a delete close would be out of line. Non admin AfD closes can be reopened by any administrator, even during this DRV. See
  WP:AN and request an admin reopen the non admin AfD close. If that doesn't bring satisfaction, then post here. Comment The term "quantum fiction" seems to have originated in April 1996 by Vanna Bonta's novel, "A Quantum Fiction" which is said to be the first work of "quantum fiction" in recorded history. The trouble is, it seems to be the only work of "quantum fiction" in recorded history. On the other hand, the term "quantum fiction" is being used by others, but perhaps not enough. See Google books and Google scholar. On balance, there probably is not enough reliable source material to support an article on the term and the information might fit better in the Vanna Bonta article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Not_Self-Published 65.19.53.5 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Just though you should know there are libelous claims on which the deletion requests are based, specifically that her novel is self-published. Vanna Bonta's novel is not self-published. The publisher is on an earlier book: A Janigan; and the publishing house that published her novel Flight which pioneered quantum fiction (and which I see was not deleted but kept) is not a POD, it's a small but legitimate publisher. Bonta and the novel and their popularity is biggie thorn in the side of some science fiction people. The book was published by Meridian House and it is not a self-published novel or a vanity press or a POD house. How do I know? I have an earlier book from the same publisher and it lists the publishers names. Black and white since 1989. There is also record of an advance they apid to Bonta.[reply]
Another claim that isn't true FYI is those claims that she's just into self-publicity. That is as far off as possible. How do I know? I know someone in the Space community (science journalist Laura Woodmansee) who had to talk Bonta five or six times into agreeing to be interviewed in her book Sex In Space. When she then agreed to do a panel for her also at a conference, newspapers in every country repeated what Bonta had to say and she did not even want to grant interviews. Bonta is known and respected for her advocacy of Space and literacy and she is like family in the community. She will support causes she loves but she is all about promoting ideas and not herself. That is from people who have dealt with her if you can't figure it out by reading her.
Just saw those very glaring points. One is a potential legal liability since you seem to have taken action (page deletion). OK so you cover yourself saying "alleged" self-published isn't notable. But you are acting on the fake claims. So there are my two bits for Wikiwise.
Was wondering also how it is that self-published bloggers and science fiction fandom people (mostly all self publish themselves and each other) or MySpace and YouTube personalities who are self promoters qualify and a novel and person such as Bonta that got serious reviews does not. Just for Wikiquality this should all be reviewed by a Senior administrator if not already being looked into. Not necessarily to reinstate that article it seemed way too long but for the points mentioned and fairness and Wiki honor. 65.19.53.5 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse my deletion, whether she's self-published or not doesn't make her any more notable. Despite all the SPAs (including the nominator here), the AFD was valid and consensus was clear. --
  desat 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist (and rewrite) The AfD was a disgrace.--as was the unbelievably spammy article. The most self-indulgent personal bio I've seen here, which is saying a lot, considering the strong competition But one of the people arguing admitted to a strong personal dislike for her fiction. The fans arguing for keep made similarly personal comments. Among all the bickering, the true argument for keep was not considered, which is the multiple reviews for her fiction. Not all were actually cited, but if they are all real she just might be notable. The argument at the Deletion Review similarly misses that point and is as far off the mark as the arguments in the AfD. Poetry awards were also specified, but I doubt their significance. The movie roles were clearly trivial. Self-published was not used as a reason in the closure. But it is amazing that opportunity was not taken during the AfD to rewrite the article into some semblance of objectivity and proportionate weight--its nature undoubtedly affected the decision. Orange Mike properly said that if rewritten it might actually establish some notability. I wouldnt oppose a "permit recreation on talk page," as the best chance of getting an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - While the issue of the biography meeting
  WP:DRV so that the draft may be reviewed and the issue of recreation decided. -- Jreferee t/c 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion. Notability was never proved satisfactorily despite the ramblings of some of the fans. I've likewise nominated the closely-related Quantum fiction for review, as it was incorrectly closed as a "keep" IMO. --Itub 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The AfD was such a mishmosh of confusing and longwinded comments from multivoters that it's difficult to determine what, if anything, the consensus was. Needs more opinions from people not involved with the article in order to generate a consensus. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it was quite easy. There were several arguments from uninvolved editors, including a(n unsubstantiated) keep argument that was
    desat 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Endorse. AfD ran fine and was closed appropriately. Nothing new that needs to be considered, nothing to suggest the consensus would be different.
  AmiDaniel (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Valid AFD, valid consensus after following the valid, usual procedure that comments from accounts appearing to be single-purpose, sockpuppets, or recently created are discounted. DRV isn't a place to have a second bite at the cherry hoping for a different outcome. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse After sorting through the SPAs the consensus was clearly delete and Coredesat closed the AfD properly. TonyBallioni 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - valid AFD, proper close. Otto4711 00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-list (and Re-Write) - Article not good, needs to be re-written, but some very weak arguments to endorse deletion, far too much personal opinion. John B Sheffield 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]
• Endorse valid afd, clear close. Carlossuarez46 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The idea that we need to relist an AfD because it contained a "mishmosh of confusing and longwinded comments" is bollocks. There is no evidence that Coredesat's reading of the discussion was lackadaisical or biased, so there is no reason to reopen the circus. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Comment: I would like to note that I am not a SPA even though I did not respond to my email in time, and I apologize if I am new to Wiki and make an error. The following is important to have For the record on the AfD, which I also agree is a disgrace:

Since we did due diligence in contributing to this entry about the Italian American author Bonta and other Italian writers for Wikipedia, and citations of newspapers, books, publishers and publications satisfied guidelines, we were curious and wanted recommendations on how to improve our contributions to Wiki and checked this out.

The Bonta in the article about the robbery is the same author Bonta. There are multiple other biographical sources, to mention a few: Articles by Vanna Bonta where biographical info is cited by the publication's editors:

   * http://www.thespacereview.com/article/252/1
   * http://www.spaceandsociety.org/cgi-bin/long-list.pl?000099

Additional verifiable biograpical info on author Bonta:

   * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14002908/
   * http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03y.html
   * http://www.space-frontier.org/Events/NewSpace2006/NS2006speakersbios.html

While the acting sources were trivial and the article was spammy, she is a reviewed author. I'm amazed there was not a request to rewrite and Wikify.

at is amazing is that this AfD was concurrent with simultaneous vandalism and comments which, when compared to this link I provide here, are identical and clearly originate from this small fandom science fiction forum that formed this blog page (link below) coincident with the AfD request on author Bonta.

They may be Wiki users but an agenda to spread fabrications as fact is not per Wiki guidelines or purpose.

The multiusers chiming in for Deletion are from this forum; further, their comments are very personal and emotional, and fit the profile of cyberbullying, defined as: --distorts, twists, concocts and fabricates criticisms and allegations, and abuses the disciplinary procedures - again, for control and subjugation, not for performance enhancement --uses gossip, back-stabbing or spreads rumours to undermine, discredit and isolate

This consensus is worthy of investigation: the source of rumours, vandalism and allegations made about author Bonta in this archive should be sourced; they are identical to the Delete comments in AfD. That is because this forum generated the AfD as well as the AfD on Quantum Fiction, a genre associated with author Bonta, because they do not like the author's fiction. See them here, some even have the same usernames as Wiki names: http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1115650.html http://kytha.livejournal.com/522007.html

It's my opinion that cyberbullying and generic internet grudge material by Wiki users in this case was given license to veto referenced national and international newspapers, publications, publishers, accomplishments and organizations accrediting the Vanna Bonta entry.

Coredsat asks for speedy deletion on this article and cites a "flood of SPAs" yet doesn't also weigh the flood of Delete votes from the above clearly biased source with definite biased agenda. Several of the Keep votes were also not SPA, and this is overlooked. I'm amazed and believe the matter should be evaluated for biases. I also welcome pointers on how to improve my contributions. Italianstudies 06:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has thus been modified and is still in the process of modification.Dleewh 08:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, nothing here. --
  desat 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, although the DRV nomination is pretty confusing, he seems to be correctly pointing out that the article was modified a good deal from when all but one of the AFD participants had commented that there weren't enough sources. The sources in the last version of the article may not have ultimately passed muster, but I'm not sure they got any consideration from the AFD participants. --W.marsh 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close; relist Endorse close; Keep deleted - Endorse the close since no other way to interpret the AfD debate. As for the new information not reviewed by the AfD participants, it may be substantial new information and that is what this DRV can review as well. See DRV Purpose #3. The article was well referenced, but the references were press releases. Thus, keep deleted in view of the new information. Comment - Press releases contain little, if any, Wikipedia reliable source material. A press release can be used to source the claim that the company's name is "Boon Software", they were founded in 1993, and they are in Singapore. The rest of the press release material contains information that no reliable source independent of Boon Software has found reason to publish. If independent reliable source do not find the material interesting enough to publish then there is no reason Wikipedia should include the information in Wikipedia. Boon Software Consulting Pte Ltd. is mentioned here as a key partner to Oracle, but that's about it. Its in a press release, and not really significant enough to mention in the Oracle Corporation article. On the other hand, the company is in Singapore and has been around for fourteen years. It seems likely that someone with access to Singapore print media can locate some reliable source material independent of Boon Software. Until someone actually locates that material, keeping the article deleted seems appropriate in view of the AfD consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I revised my position based on W.marsh's 19:33, 26 October 2007 post below. The were many new references that like were not considered at the AfD (although the closer probably saw the article before it was deleted). Given so many new references, it is possible that within all that information might be found enough reliable source material for the article. Someone can recreate a deleted article using reference material and they can create a draft article. However, the issue is whether AfD would be appropriate. If it were a few references, I'd say no. If it were merely a data dump of references, I'd say no. But given the effort to both list the seventeen references and use them to footnote the text of the article, I think another review at AfD is the best way to get a consensus on the new material. -- Jreferee t/c 15:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If there is significant new information to establish notability and otherwise rehabilitate the article, why not simply recreate from scratch? If the flaw was notability and you've overcome that based on new sources or new developments with the company since the deletion debate, the new article will then get evaluated on its own merits. Wikidemo 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of sources, 17 actually, were added to the article, at the tail end of the AFD. So what you describe has already been done, it's just not clear that the sourcing-improved article got a fair shake. --W.marsh 19:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Yes, new sources were added, but most were from Boon software or non-noteworthy sources. I see no sources in the later revisions of the article that assert the company's notability than were in the revisions considered at the start of the AfD.
  AmiDaniel (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relisting seems appropriate if debate worthy, with userfication the reasonable alternative. I'm not sure that there is an
  GRBerry 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per AmiDaniel - the new sources do not show significant coverage in reliable third party sources. It's press releases, business partners saying that they're a supplier/vendor, what have you - but where is the real coverage from uninvolved sources? Exactly. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

This page was last deleted June 2007. Since that time, the Rick Astley article has been modified to include a section on RickRolling that this page could redirect to. Poobslag 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably shouldn't have been speedied in the first place... I don't know if the original version was really patent nonsense or not, but the version I viewed a while ago was a fine stub (unless that was a different article with the same subject). — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Place protected redirect. Most of the earlier deleted versions were lyrics to
  desat 12:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Protected redirect to Never Gonna Give You Up. Will ^(talk) 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Place protected redirect to Rick Astley#Astley as an Internet phenomenon or Never Gonna Give You Up#Internet culture. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletes of the redirect - The two 29 June 2007 speedy deletes cited
  The Kitchener Record and the Guelph Mercury reprinted the September 11, 2007 San Antonio Express story. That might not be enought for an article, but certainly is enough reliable source material for mentions in the Rick Astley article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You must check out this awesome Youtube video!!! Uh, recreate the redirect per Jref. ~ trialsanderrors 03:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn! I followed your link, but was only routed to Astley's video of "Never Gonna Give You Up". I guess I was Rickroll. On the bright side, we now have more content for the notable examples of this meme entering the mainstream:

  During a deletion review of the notable Wikipedia article Rickroll, a notable editor Trialsanderrors enticed many unsuspecting notable Wikipedia contributors to Astley's notable video with the dynamic link tag, "You must check out this awesome Youtube video!!!"^{[citation needed]} Although not confirmed, many of the Wikipedia rickrolled victims notably were red faced.

  -- Jreferee t/c 15:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Place protected redirect as above. I think Rick Astley#Astley as an Internet phenomenon is better because Never Gonna Give You Up is just the most common song used. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliably source or eliminate the section in
  GRBerry 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn or Place proteced direct- this should never have been speedied in the first place. Calls with regards reliable source just get silly at times. John B Sheffield 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

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

)

Notable and relevant, wikipedia-worthy Jeffmcneill talk contribs 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC) This article's deletion was discussed with the administrator NawlinWiki on their talk page, without reaching agreement. The administrator recommended starting this process. There does not appear to be clear information in terms of what would make this article notable. Please see discussion. I am open to supplementing the article, but I don't want to put in the effort if the article is only going to get deleted again. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestion is to wait. If you recreate the article now it would likely be deleted for the same reasons. What you likely need to do is wait for the game to get some coverage (if it gets some) to establish it as being notable, and then the result could come out quite differently.
  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I guess I'm not being clear on this. It seems to me that there has been enough coverage for notability, based on both the notability of the designer Justin Hall as well as following (and more).

• USC Interactive Media projects
• Cory Doctorow refers to PMOG in an interview by Kevin Kelly at BlizzCon, August 6, 2007
• Presented at the Virtual Goods Summit 2007
• O'Reilly Radar note by Nikolaj Nyholm
• Frank Gruber's blog
• Presented at Game Developers Conference 2007
• Featured in May, 2007 in Edge, the UK game developer's magazine
• Joi Ito and Justin Hall includes PMOG in a discussion at SXSW, March, 2007 (3pointD)

--Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 05:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to clarify that I am assuming that notable does not necessarily have to mean popular. There are many wonderful wikipedia articles which are about notable things, but aren't necessarily known by a large audience, yet still remains faithful to the mission of an up-to-date encyclopedia. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, work on it in userspace and wait for
  desat 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, per Coredesat. No evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion - The article itself did not reasonably assert an importance/significance, so
  WP:N. Here are the two references I found: (1) U.S. News & World Report August 14, 2006; (2) American Political Network August 30, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• More information Sorry, I neglected to link to the location of the current version of the article in my user namespace: User:Jeffmcneill/PMOG. Thank you for the link on reliable sources. Since academic works are seen as the pinnacle of reliability, a Masters' thesis should be given some sort of weight. In any case I accept the comments on this and will continue to work on the article in user namespace. The game is being rewritten under a startup mode at this point and has gone dark in the meantime. I expect there to be much press as soon as it is re-released and at that point will be able to meet the need for more reliable/verifiable references that have been indicated here. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 18:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once and for all the question of what to do about reality TV winners needs to be determined. As can be seen from the deletion discussion, there is precedent that reality show winners, not just contestants, are notable enough for their own wikipages. I ask that many moderators review the relevant documentation. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment. Gamer83 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion, precedent isn't binding (
  desat 18:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Where was consensus reached on that page? Both sides debated their points until the AFD expired. AFD isn't a vote so just because a few more "Delete per nom" statements were in the mix, doesn't mean a consensus was reached. If consensus change is your rationalle, then I say Overturn. Gamer83 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The word "precedent" was used a dozen times by various keep !voters in the afd, but anyone who reads afd discussions regularly will know there are no precedents regarding deletions. This isn't a court of law, just because one (or more) similar afd has resulted in "keep" doesn't mean every single similar afd must also have the same result. If that were the case, let's just close
  WP:AFD immediately and base all future decisions on previous results for similar articles. Crazysuit 19:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I read AFD discussions regularly and precedent is often considered and often used for keeping an article, considering that it shows a consensus about a particular subject by the larger community rather than what is taking place in that one particular AFD. I don't have much more to state on this subject than what I stated in the deletion debate about this article: "I don't see this article as being any less notable than Adrianne Curry when she won America's Next Top Model (the first winner in that show's history) and got her own article here at Wikipedia. Only difference now is that Adrianne has gotten notable work since her win. Who's to say that this woman won't do the same? Yes, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but seeing as she did win this show, first winner at that, deleting her article now, when people may want to know about who this winner is and possibly not too long from now she is more notable, seems like a waste of time. And, CelticGreen, I must watch (a lot) more television than you, because I surely heard of this television show, as it was a spin-off of an even more highly popular show...Flavor of Love. Shows like this or A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, when on VH1 or MTV, hardly ever go unnoticed by me. Perhaps you don't watch VH1 or MTV that often, because this show was all over VH1. I still stand by my decision to Keep this article, though it seems that it will be deleted. As for previous deletion debates where the argument was how the person is a winner or the first winner in the show's history, I don't have any links to provide to that, but I'm certain that you can find them on Wikipedia. In any case, just the list of articles on models from America's Next Top Model, as shown above, is hint enough at some kind of precedent concerning this matter...even with some of those models not even being as notable as this person.
• I'd like to point out that a deletion debate just closed as Keep on this same rationale of precedent, as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Holland. I don't feel that every reality show contestant who wins the show that they were on needs to have their own article on Wikipedia, but in this deletion debate about Saaphyri Windsor, given everything that I've stated above on this matter, I state again that I feel that this article should be kept.
• It is silly that one deletion debate should survive on precedent when another deletion debate of the same subject matter is deleted in the face of that precedent. To start having some articles survive due to this precedent and others ignored when such precedent is presented does not leave Wikipedia in any more stable an environment."

• All that said (again), I also see the closing administrator's point, of course, about this article, in how it isn't in too good of shape. However, I feel that it would have been best to allow this article to be fixed up than to delete it. As for sources, aside from just being on this show, she has had notable exposure by winning this show and is not only limited to her win on this show. I'm not sure whether to state to overturn this outcome or just comment, because I won't endorse the decision to have deleted this article, and it can always be re-created in better shape at a later time, as the closing administrator of this article suggested on my talk page, preferably once she has had more notable exposure/work.
  Flyer22 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn as no consensus, as there clearly was none. Pushing person
  role of an admin in AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn: Keep page and re-list in AfD if the problems still exist. There was clearly no consensus in that AfD. - Rjd0060 01:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (and relist if so desired). Some of the comments here have deprecated the value of the precedent-citing keep arguments. However, remember that there are also precedents favoring deletion. If there were an AFD for a reality show loser, for example, where the keepers argued that her role on a nationally-broadcast show made her notable, and the deleters cited precedent that mere contestants are non-notable, would you scornfully declare that it should be kept, since the delete arguments relied on precedent? Precedents are not a bad thing. They reduce the arbitrariness of XFD outcomes between similar topics. Accepting precedents also allows editors to move on, rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over. I don't agree with every precedent and guideline, but I don't constantly argue my positions like Badlydrawnjeff.

However, the reason I think the result should be overturned is that I feel the debate was corrupted by the nominator's statement, which portrayed the subject as a "disqualified" reality show contestant, without noting that she was brought back for a second show that she won. If the nominator had said, "OK, she won, but we're not talking American Idol here; I don't think Flavor of Love: Charm School is important enough to keep its winners" (or "I disagree that reality show winners are notable, and I'd like to revisit that precedent"), and gotten the same result, I would accept that. But editors who relied on the nominator's statement without reading the article carefully could think she was just a losing contestant. None of the first five recommendations, all deletes, says, "she won, but delete anyway," so we can't assume they picked up on that. I believe these comments should be discounted. (One of these editors, fond of terse rationales, was commenting in nine AFDs in nine minutes.) Once it was pointed out that she actually won the second show, only two new contributors argued for deletion, one of them an account that had only been registered the day before. This suggests that fuller information had shifted the tide. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Since people are playing the "precedent is not an argument to keep" game, I think that we can mention that all the "deletes" were either "per nom" or simple assertions of "not notable". In fact, "she won a reality show on television" is a reasonable argument for keeping an article, since that indicates a fair amount of attention directed towards the subject. This is a no consensus case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and start trying for some consistency. It was actually closed as keep and redirect, and there is not presently an article on her, just a redirect--to an article which has exactly one sentence about her. I don't think of redirect as a keep, although it is technically. But it succeeds just as well as a delete in removing the article. I recognize what I think this way is not really the consensus here, but it's time it were. Time we started recognizing that a merge may or may not be a delete, depending on what is done with the article, but a redirect is almost always a delete, unless there is substantial coverage in the target article. (I really can not see the reason for bringing the DRV, because the goal of eliminating the article was achieved). And especially that it is a sign of immaturity and lack of seriousness to have a system for deciding anything which does not aim for consistent decisions, but allows and accepts incompatible decisions and sees nothing wrong with that. Time we accepted some responsibility for running a major information resource in a more reliable manner. DGG (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn KEEP and close, Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia, the few are currently trying to keep new entries out without full justification. John B Sheffield 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD#1|AfD#2

)

Note - the link above is to a previous AFD. The most recent AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)!

Note to closer - One of the editors who has opposed this article in the AfDs, DRVs, and on various talk pages has now opened up

a request for comment and take any appropriate action (such as by removing the Articleissues tag from this article). Apparently, a purpose of all this is to keep this matter "in the swamp" to teach me a lesson.[22] -- Jreferee t/c 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I'm just trying all avenues to get someone that understands the concept of what it takes to pass

WP:N, which requires that sources have direct and detailed examination of the topic, to look at this thing. People seem to just be counting the references instead of evaluating them.Kww 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak overturn and delete (or possibly relist) per nom. I know my remark does not
  desat 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure as keep (or no consensus) and also per my reasoning in the discussion. Best, --
  Tally-ho! 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn: One of the most mindnumbing AFD discussions I've had, with editors that refused to understand the concept of direct and detailed examination of topics. Even more frustrating is that the article uses nearly exclusively paper references to articles that obviously do not have a detailed examination of the song, possibly to allow the author to demand that I prove that articles titled The Indie 50; The essential movies and Celebrate Independence Day without leaving home don't address the song directly and in detail.Kww 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Otto4711 himself said a redirect made sense in AFD2... so why is he still trying to turn the article into a redlink? It's pretty bizarre. I think people here are too concerned with getting a deletion to "win" the debate... a redirect at the absolute least is clearly supported by policy. Otto and Kww made their argument in AFD2, the people who read it overwhelmingly disagreed, the forum shopping is getting a bit tiring. The argument doesn't even make sense any more, considering Otto's inconsistency over the redirect. Why is this DRV even necessary? --W.marsh 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So yeah, did you want to, oh I don't know, address the content of the DRV at all or did you just drop by to do some bashing? Otto4711 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism isn't bashing... and everything I said was about the content of the DRVm some of it indirectly since mentioning past discussions was necessary. If you can't answer a question about why you're filing DRVs or even arguing for deletion still, you probably shouldn't be doing those things anymore.--W.marsh 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've answered your questions already. You may not like the answers but that's not my problem. The DRV is open because I believe the admin went outside of his discretion in closing it, a position for which the closing admin has expressed support. Otto4711 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see where you've countered my argument about a redirect to an article on the soundtrack.
  WP:N-meeting article about the soundtrack and the movie, that we should redirect the songs there so people can get information when searching for or linked to those song titles. And yet you argue for deletion still. I've yet to see you counter that, and Kww even seems to agree with redirection, and only proposed deletion when his redirect was reverted. --W.marsh 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse closure as Keep per the Keep comments on the AfD, which are sufficiently reasonable (even excluding mine) that a solid majority of comments in favor of keeping must be respected. In general, where a sizable majority of independent, non-conflicted, non-SPA editors support keeping an article, requesting a DRV will rarely serve a useful purpose unless there are BLP or similar concerns. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Newyorkbrad. Any action besides keeping this article would be a blatant violation of
  consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse keep - there is a clear consensus here.
  radio me!_{Editor review)} 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse keep. Current article asserts notability for
  WP:MUSIC. -- Sander Säde 04:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Keep, current article is notable and should not have even been up for deletion in the first instance, all it required was cleanup. It's a little hard attempting to
  pray 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You did notices that he said Most of the keep arguments were very, very weak ("there's much less notable stuff on Wiki...")... The article should have been deleted by strength of argument. Or did you miss that part?Kww 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The keep reasoning was clear and focused in that the article met Wikipedia article standards. The article itself provided the very evidence that supported the keep reasoning and that clearly was brought out in the discussion. The delete arguments had no basis in Wikipedia policy and guideline and failed to provide any evidence to support their conclusion. Starting off with the AfD nomination, the AfD nomination stated "non-notable" without linking to any Wikipedia policy and guideline. The only evidence the nominator provided was "the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep"". The nominator did not provide any reasoned arguments based in policy that would support deleting the article. As for the remaining delete arguments, they included unsupported conclusions not based Wikipedia policy and guideline and unsupported conclusory statements about the cited references. Not one of the delete reasoning even claimed to have read over the cited references much less provide any specific comments about any of the cited references in the AfD. With the keep reasoning strong and based on policy/guideline and the delete reasoning based on personal beliefs whose conclusions were left unsupported by evidenced based reasoned argument, it is clear that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was correct, judging by the AfD. I can't judge this sort of subject myself and didn't join the debate, but i can see that the only extended argument for delete was made by one ed., who kept accusing his opponents of misquoting policy as requiring exclusive coverage for acceptable sources, and then accused the people who correctly called him on it of "bullshit" and "dishonesty," "stacking lies on top of lies on top of lies". I do not know why the closer thought that was "strength of argument". Reading the debate as even no consensus would require judging by frequency of repetition. DGG (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Clear consensus. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Keep The number of current calls for deletions is going to bring the good name of Wikipedia into question. In a Democracy the Few who going around asking for deletions should not be able to control Wikipedia. The majority of users of Wikipedia each and every day would never think of getting involved in debates to delete, Unless it was Libel or Offensive, it is time that this problem is looked at seriously. John B Sheffield 09:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)JBS[reply]

Borer Data Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have created a draft article as advised on my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Missingspace/Borer_Data_Systems

The previous deletion review can be seen here, back in Sept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7

Please review and advise of whether the article can be considered for an article or whether further amendments would be needed, Thanks. Missingspace 09:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't allow. The sourcing is totally inadequate, and I don't think better soucing exists. A bunch of references are listed, but the ones that I could look at aren't about Borer systems at all, rather, they are articles written for an industry publication by someone who works for Borer systems. Even if those references were really about Borer systems, they're inadequate, I would expect to see information from sources well beyond industry-related micro-interest newsletters if the company were truly notable. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion but Allow Recreation and Speedy Close because we're not being asked to review my prior deletion, we're being asked to review a rewritten article. Speedy deletion is not a bar to recreation of an article in a way that addresses the reasons for the speedy deletion. The new article is not so spammy that it couldn't be fixed. The original article was not speedied on notability grounds. I think Mangojuice's concerns are valid, but they should be taken up at AfD. Please note that I had to delete the entire history section as it was copied from this page, with a few words changed. It will have to be rewritten. Finally, I hope the author has read
  Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. -- But|seriously|folks  17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, no, this is a normal type of request. The user was told to come to DRV before reposting the article, so that its appropriateness can be considered, so we should consider it here, not at AfD. Mangojuice^talk 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought he would be entitled to AfD on the notability issue, as it hadn't previously been addressed. But I see your point. -- But|seriously|folks  17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The first sentence of that rewrite needs to say just what Borer is, which is not even mentioned in the rewrite. Corvus cornix 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the author, the portion I removed as a copyvio included that sort of information. Also, I don't understand what "carbon footprint" has to do with the subject. -- But|seriously|folks  02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The draft article isn't even adequate to qualify as a stub, the "references" are neither references nor
  WP:COI. Heather 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

Overturn deletion Your article is great and you are right if austin creed can have an article, why can not talia? she is signed to a major wrestling promotion, and is the champion of the largest women's promotion. give her an article. ShyGuy69 01:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be at

Talia Madison should be unsalted also, and have this redirect to Talia Madison. TJ Spyke 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, whatever, bro, its all good. I could have the article at Talia Madison and have mentions of Szantyr changed to Madison maybe? ThisDude62 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion/Salting,
  reliable third-party sources and all will be fine. Nikki311 02:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

She was in the first match for the TNA women's title, thats some noteriety. I think that you need to provide reasons she is NOT notable. Articles on Wikipedia are not about storylines. ThisDude62 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof lies on the people trying to prove she's notable, not the other way around. Nikki311 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion and Close. I highly doubt she's become that more notable since the last DRV closed on this less than 24 hours before you posted this one. You can't keep DRVing until you get the result you want. Smashville 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has been new news since then. Nobody is going to be released from a written contract in a week. Average Wikipedia editors don't know how this stuff works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisDude62 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Boy Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This morning 25th October the entry/page for ATLANTA BOY BAND was deleted, this was after yesterday we stated all citation/evidence was now ready to be posted. This we did in good faith this morning, less than one hour after we posted our entry was deleted without any explanation. I can't trace the monitor who deleted now as the page is on longer active, only in archive. All evidence had been produced as requested even from HRH Prince Charles. Our entry is not for promotional purposes this has been accepted, but demonstrates the Notability achieved by Atlanta (Boy Band) - The required evidence to us comes from Most reliable sources such HRH Prince Charles private Secretary and the BBC. We have contacted parties who supplied the evidence posted and they are most disappointed at the deletion in this way. We trust it will be reviewed and restored fully. Many Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 11:50, 25 October 2007 (Evidence posted at http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/ UTC)JBS —Preceding

• Endorse deletion. The latest draft was much shorter but still entirely without sources or evidence of notability. JBS claims to have the sources now but still has not shown what they are, and in any case this unsigned band still does not seem to meet
  WP:MUSIC. We've been promised the sources for quite some time now, but still they have not been produced. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: thanks, DGG - I hadn't noticed the technical error in the last deleted version of the article. I can't view the links that are posted there, but I believe they must be the images the creator of this article has now posted on Myspace. Those sources are not acceptable. Only one of them is actually a publication, and they don't even say what the publication is. But even if they had, the coverage is a tiny blurb with basically no usable info. It was not necessary to post a scan of the article, a simple citation would suffice. However the other materials are not anything like secondary sources, and posting scans of them does not make them acceptable. I think enough is enough: this is a former manager/producer of the band trying to promote his former project, which is a
  Wikipedia is NOT a free webhost. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion. The article offered no evidence of notability and the latest 'sources' (hosted on the bands myspace and website) still fall well short of meeting
  Nuttah68 14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

The Prince's trust do not keep evidence such as this on their website, that is the same with BBC Radio One and BBC TV, as they have far too much archive history, that is a decision they make. The evidence does prove ATLANTA (Boy Band) did exist, the HRH Prince Charles letter from his perosnal secretary mention RCA Records who we cut the track "One More Chance" with. All that was asked for has been produced.

For an unsigned band in the UK, this is all notability and does meet the notability criteria set out.

It would be of interest where the readers who still endorse the deletion to stand are from, do they understand British heritage and our culture completely?

This matter has been put to Wikipedia to decide and it is now an important decision for them to make, what messages it sends out to the British public. We trust that WIKIPDEIA will look fairly on our appeal - thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta

• Technical comment Looking at the last deleted version, most of the article is not visible unless one looks at the edit window. (the text was erroneously inserted within the brackets of a fact tag). Is the version on the user page now the intended material in the article? DGG (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that technical information, the full original article submitted is intended. Thanks Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Atlanta —Preceding

• Endorse deletion. An article consisting of statements that could reasonably be referenced with citations to the sources presented at the link given by
  WP:MUSIC. The sources support very little of the information contained in the article the user is seeking to restore, and the deletion of that article therefore seems the correct decision. Deor 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Both myself and Denny Mahoney from the Group are doing everything possible to meet what information is required. All we ask is for some readers we will see our honesty and help us in any way they can with helpful advice. Many readers/contributors have been given awards on this website, I wonder how many Rightful AWARDS we will be able to give to those who in a genuine way are willing to stand up and assist us, that is all we ask - Please - John B Sheffield 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

In the opening paragraph alone, "toured the UK during 1993-1997," "appearing on all major Commercial Radio Stations," and "supported the likes of Boyzone, Backstreet Boys, Take That and Ant & Dec" cannot be verified from the sources you've posted. And it goes on from there similarly. Deor 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, and strongly encourage the creator to read the guidelines on
  salt if it keeps getting recreated. As for advice, my advice is stop editing the article, it's not appropriate to edit or create articles on subjects one has an interest in promoting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per Seraphimblade. The legal threats made during the afd properly demonstrate why COI articles should be viewed with special caution. These editors cannot write this article - even were the band notable - in an unbiased dispassionate NPOV way. Salt is appropriate because due to the non-notability of the band the only people likely to recreate the article are those with COI. Carlossuarez46 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what self promotion of the Group or myself I am making, the group have not performed for ten years and the lead singer is in another band now. In my case I had serious surgery recently and will not currently unfortunately be able to return to work. So there is no self promoting interest I can assure you. The Group were asked to make the entry as it demonstrated the good works and achievements made by "The Prince's Trust" and the notability of Atlanta as an un-signed band also to mark ten years since there last appearance. Is it not please time that the decison was now left to the powers that be at WIKIPEDIA. Some mention is made of salt, why? - this should not be personal. Wikipdeia is a Free Encyclopedia not just for the few and not just the USA but the World John B Sheffield 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

The project may be finished, but your reputation and theirs still exists. The community might have a different reaction if this article was created by someone truly independent, but it wasn't. It was created, and championed, only by those intimately involved in the group. When you have a

WP:MUSIC (1) you haven't shown that, and (2) even if it's borderline acceptable, better to delete the article and let someone truly independent write it if anyone has an interest. See WP:VANITY. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Mangojuice, your comments are most appreciated, personally just as their ex manager today I feel really "kicked in the teeth" by a few here. Some of the UK media are taking an interest in these debates and perhaps one of those will kindly make the entry for us, but they will only have the evidence we have produced, but we are still willing to obtain anything further that is needed. Personally I may be close to the matter, but it is from 1997, I do believe stronly in principals though and some things the group have been accused of have been proved wrong. John B Sheffield 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• Endorse my deletion, clear consensus to delete in spite of the group's promoter's constant hounding of those arguing to that effect. --
  desat 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, the notability of this band was never asserted and/or verified. Every request to do so was met with a lot of beating about the bush, including at least one indefblockable legal threat. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. With regard to the media coverage of this band, the article creator claimed early in the AfD discussion that "Video evidence is available of all TV appearances, cuttings of all magazine appearances are also kept". Yet for the next five days, he made no attempt to cite those television or magazine appearances in the article, despite being requested to do so. This made
  verification of the article's claims impossible. This deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if an independent editor with no direct association with the band wants to rewrite the article with proper sources. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

These achievments are beyond doubt in the UK seen as notability for a band through circumstances that remained unigned and travelled 93,000 miles in UK Touring.

All concerned have stated we will produce anything else that is requested, some assistance/advice here at Wikipedia has been given, and that means so much to all of us. Regards John B Sheffield 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• I stated in the AfD discussion, "Keep in mind that what many Wikipedia editors will be looking for is specific citations -- which would include not just the publication name, but the date of the article, the title of the article, the author's name, and the page number. This will make verification of your sources much easier." The article creator never did that despite his claim to have cuttings of all the band's magazine appearances. The band supposedly were featured in a documentary for Granada TV, yet the title and airdate of that documentary were never provided either. Note that the article creator was not asked to post those magazine clippings and videos on the Internet, just to identify them sufficiently to enable other people to look for them. The latter could have been done in a matter of minutes, but never was done. The article creator also failed to use good faith, in that he said he had no problem with withdrawing his legal threats, yet never actually did so. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Metropolitan90 for your most balanced response and also the advice give. The creator did not have all the cuttings and informatio , this was sourced and then permission was requested to publish them on the internet. The programme broadcast by Granada TV was titled "NWA" which stands for North West Arts, a very modern look at art including music. The date will be sourced, Granada TV also then owned LWT London Weekend Television and we were told that the Atlanta Boy Band item was broadcast in the southern region as well.

The creator and myself have always used good faith, I can sincerely assure you and I myself and on behalf of the creator completely withdraw fully any legal threats that may have been made without reservation. The creator tried to reply but is no longer allowed to post?.

In good Faith I still feel the matter can be resolved, that is what Wikipdeia should be all about, I understand deletion quickly over anything "libel" or "lies" and the press in the UK have mentioned cases including professional footballers person lives, but with music it would have been really good to see more help, when you are new to WIKIPEDIA working around it is like a minefield and a lot of information rules to be taken in - thanks once more John B Sheffield 07:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

What you have here is evidence that they once played on Radio One, and that they had a tiny splash blurb in MIZZ Magazine once. You claim they were part of a documentary, but (1) you still haven't given that a full citation and (2) what you have described leads me to believe that their role in the documentary was tangential, not central, and probably contained very little information about the band itself. All that just doesn't add up to enough, not by a long shot. Look at Monovox for an example of the kind of secondary source coverage that would suffice. Mangojuice^talk 11:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks "Mangojuice" for your constructive comments, as always. I have looked at the entry for Monovox, I notice the first citation/reference was to their own website, which Atlanta got attacked for as not relevant.

The main difference in opinion with regards be it BBC Radio One or Mizz Magazine is the culture difference here in the UK, to achieve this ffor an unsiogned band is unknown, many bands try everything but never make this high level. The TV Documentary I stand by what Atlanta says this is the truth and it will be fully proved when we have permission to post some of the footage. It does hurt when you have had a good name and repuation all your life in Radio and Music to be doubted like this.

But we appreciate the advice and help you are giving us, we will still continue to publish on the website any further evidence required, we hope to have more to be posted early next week. We still Trust our entry will be allowed and restored, any help assistance anyone feel they can give will mean so much. John B Sheffield 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

This is not a cultural issue as you are trying to make it. Playing Radio 1 or BBC branded events is not special. Checking just the Radio 1 events in just this year over 40 unsigned bands have played, if you extend that to BBC the number soars past 200. The majority of bands who appear do not go on to become notable, I've played two events. The core issue is still that you need to provide reliable third party coverage of the band. The only thing you have so far supplied is a scan of a Mizz piece, but even if this were properly cited I doubt this is enough to meet WP:MUSIC requirement of 'been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works '.

Nuttah68 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I keep repeating we will produce anything asked for. John B Sheffield 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

No, 40 unsigned bands have played at Radio 1 events. On average Radio 1 play 50-60 tracks by unsigned bands each week: roughly 3000pa. I say the ONLY source you have come near to producing is the Mizz piece, if properly cited. You may want to read

WP:RS

again. A flyer and a couple of back stage passes come nowhere close to be substantial coverage.

As for the leter from Prince Charles secretary, no that is not an indication of notability. It is not reliable coverage by an independent third party and hundreds, if not thousands, of Trust volunteers recieve those every year. Posting footage on YouTube will not help your case either. What has been explained a number of times now is that you must provide citations of the media coverage stating the source, author/producer, publication/broadcast date. Ideally these need to be interviews with the band or extensive coverage of them.

Finally, as has been pointed out, the

Nuttah68 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm sorry but thousands of supporters of "The Prince's Trust" Do Not receive letters each week like that with the content the letter included, and to state it is not "Reliable" coverage by an independent party, for me just "beggars belief". We were asked to produce the video of the documentary DVD, again "YouTube" is the best souce, but that is not good enough. The list of citations you list it is clear 95% of Group/Artists WIKIPEDIA do not meet that. Then lastly the "poor state" of articles, your personal opinion! - I'n not clear what would ever be good enough. Thanks John B Sheffield 19:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

The Atlanta article is truth, proves notability and is accurate, meeting clearly without doubt many of the "criteria" needed, it is stated all criteria do not have to be met, we are just going around in circles on these points. We stress will produce any further proof needed if people will ask for some particular form of evidence.

Yes I could nominate articles that fall short, but I admit I don't know sufficient about the music industry in the USA and how it works, what is seen as notability in the States or Canada, to do tha in this case would be wrong, but I do feel I know about Great Britain, that is said in a most sincere way. John B Sheffield 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

No one so far on this deletion review agrees with your assessment of the notability criteria are met. Without that you are fighting a losing battle. As for further proof, you have been asked and told many times what is required, we need dates, publications, authors of articles/shows that have featured the band.

Nuttah68 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• It is so difficult for me to understand why the information produced so far, including the letter, which is significant, is totally still ignored. I'm at a complete loss and are many here in the UK who are monitoring this debate - thanks for you imput John B Sheffield 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

For the last time. Scans of cuttings are no use. You must provide the correct citation. And please, give up with the 'we in the UK' bs. You're not the only Brit on Wikipedia and the 'sad' stories of how the UK is so different don't wash. As stated earlier, I've played a number of Radio 1 events and had a few tracks played on Peel, Kershaw, Da Bank etc.

Nuttah68 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• I do not see them as "sad" stories it is stateing fact, which you have the right to disagree with. I feel stronly the UK music indusry and life is diferent to the USA and I am allowed my opinion. One person says scans of cuttings are no use, when others say publish and let us see magazine cuttings etc, this seems to be a very mixed message. You do not give your name or the group name as an artist, so I can't make any professional judgement, but I do know shows like the great John Peel and Andy Kershaw where only specialist music evening programming (mostly late night).John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

Direct answer: Will it be sufficient? No. There's a disconnect going on here, I think: you think when we say "publish" we mean that you should make your clippings and whatever available: we don't care about that. What we care about is how much reliable, independent information about the group has already been published, such as magazine articles, newspaper reviews, books, academic papers, TV or radio broadcasts, et cetera. What you have described is not sufficient, so don't bother showing them to us, it won't help. We get dozens of articles about unsuccessful, non-noteworthy bands all the time and delete them routinely. Normally bands like this that never even have record contracts or put out any albums don't make the cut, even if they exist, even if they had some concerts, even if they've been on the radio a few times, even if they have fans. It would be very rare for such a group to be legitimately noteworthy but not impossible. This group is, apparently, not an exception, so there's really not much you can do. Mangojuice^talk 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mangojuice, we will continue to source more of what is required, I think it would be most wrong of Wikipedia to say "never" to any entry, otherwise it will never develop fully and be "The Free Encyclopeda" it claims to be. John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus. No proper citations (reputable independent website article URL, newspaper name/issue/page, magazine name/issue/page, etc.) have been posted to provide reason to reconsider. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will provide the further detailed informed you advise, this has been passed to the creator by email this morning, thanks John B Sheffield 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Show me the money". Well, show us the sources. List them right here. No more promises, no more delays, just do it now. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 10:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; strongly suggest salt. It's a damn MySpace band without a single full-length album to their name. That fails
  a systemic bias in favour of our island. Heather 17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's disappointing the "tone" including language and insults you have to use in your comments, it does no good for the name and reputagtion of WIKIPEDIA. Atlanta Do meet most of the "criteria" of "notability" - it states so clearly that All Points do not have to be achieved. It was made totaly clear that legal threats was not and ne ver was our intetion in any form or way, we just took advice on what we were being accused of at the first calls for deletion. "Any perceived Legeal Threats Where Withdraw Withpout Reservation" for this to be be comtinously raised shows some "systemic problem" with those who post these allegations. The majority of my Friends are American, but I do not understand all of your culture and ways, and I have made over 20 visits to the USA, to claim that talkling about differences in our way of life and culture is "bias" is well absurd I'm sorry to say. The letter you make reference to from "Kensington Palace" states in clear English that HRH Prince Charles "has asked" to compare this to favourite bar bands is an insult. The creator of the Atlanta entry and myself have been polite at all times to everyone, even if we may not agree, posts like this do nothing for the good name of Wikipedia and the comments should be withdrawn. Thanks John B Sheffield 19:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the consensus at the deletion discussion was to delete due to lack of
  WP:V, and nothing indicating that such reliable sources exist has been provided. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Once more we have met the "criteria" as clearly set out John B Sheffield 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]
  • ... but these self-published sources can't be the only sources on which an article is based. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per near-unanimous consensus at AfD. -- But|seriously|folks  03:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We can only say we have met nearly all the points to meet the criteria of notability we have and are producing information a requested, this not seem grounds to "delete" even with the endoresements so far. I wonder how many who read our entry agreeds and had no problem with everhything truthful we stated, looking through any deletion/appeal thread names appear over and over again wanting deletions, but they are the few. John B Sheffield 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• I still call for the "full withdrawal" of the comments made against the good office of "HRH Prince Charles" in this Country "The Royal Family" are held in high esteem still by the majority, even if you may not agree, you can show some "respect" at the very least, it was uncalled for. John B Sheffield 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

Comment Deletion - Question: Can someone please advise me if anyone has the right to delete a comment that I have made, if so should it be stated that is the case, would this show in a log or archive. A commment made last night seems to be no longer on the thread? Thanks John B Sheffield 08:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

There are certain circumstances when other editors' comments can be deleted, but I checked the page history for the past two days and nothing of yours was removed by anybody else. -- But|seriously|folks  08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your quick response and help John B Sheffield 09:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

• Mizz Magazine - We can confirm the article on ATLANTA in Mizz Magaizine was from the issue dated MAY 1996, the writer of the article was the Mizz Features Editor, Marie Claire-Giddings. Mizz Magazine was then published by IPC Magazines one of the UK's then major magazine producers.

BBC TV - CBBC(Children's BBC)"BIG BASH" - The "Big Bash" took place at the NEC(National Exhibition Centre) from the 28th November - 2nd December 1996 - ATLANTA were part of the event appearing and performing each day, links and live interviews live on TV took place every day(see picture of Atlanta being interviewed live on TV stage)

We have also added 2 more ATLANTA tracks recorded to master standard to the player on the Atlanta site. "Let's Go Round Again" which was writteb by Alan Gorrie of "Average White Band", Alan also came into the studio and did a mix with his voclas on as well. Also "One More Chance" the version we orginally recorded and took to Simon Cowell RCA Records, RCA still hold the master of the version they recorded with Atlanta. John B Sheffield 08:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) JBS[reply]

AFD3

)

no body voted for it to be deleted, his main reason for geting red of it seemd to be that that it was OR becouse he had never herd of it and he did not give his reasoning until he deleted it. Also it survived a AFD just 2 mounth before being renominated Rafff18 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closer's reason clearly states that he deleted because no one could prove that it was not OR. Unless it can be proven to not be OR (and given the nature of the subject, I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't be). Smashville 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close of AFD3 (alternatively, overturn AFD2 and close it as delete).
  GRBerry 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Rough consensus was (and always has been) to keep and do our best to improve the sources, not to give up and delete. Neil's closing statement was a rather partial attempt to belittle perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping, hardly an objective summary. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR doesn't have sources. That's what makes it OR. Smashville 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Our core policies trump "Uh, maybe some day someone might find something that kinda looks like a source" arguments. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I wish all closes were this thoughtful.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per xDanielx. Closing as delete when there are two deletes among a sea of keeps seems like an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep in mind that AFD is not a vote. It's the weight of the arguments that counts, not the number of votes. And our policies are non-negotiable, regardless of the discussion in an AFD. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, DRV isn't AfD #2 (or rather, #4), either. It would unreasonable to suppose that we've reached a point in policy crafting where consensus can be evaluated objectively without considering !votes on a particular AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse. None of the keep arguments hold water. Even the best: "wait, we can clean this up" doesn't argue against merging, and is growing very thin at the 3rd AfD. Let me point out that although there were 18 or so references, there was really only two entries that were properly sourced - that is - only two that had sources describing them as Snowclones (the one about Eskimos, and "X is hard. Let's go shopping!"). That said, there's no need to have deleted this when it's pretty straightforward to merge the two good entries into Snowclone, so I wouldn't object to an overturn with an immediate merge (and I can do it, if people want.) Mangojuice^talk 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment My opinion is divided. There was no consensus to delete at the AfD, and the closer simply chose to close on the basis of his own opinion, which is not the role of the closing admin. He should instead, have joined the discussion. But his opinion was in fact in my opinion correct -- and better explained than any of the actual delete arguments. DGG (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse here we are again, Can those who say "improve it" show us some sources here or are we taking it on faith. This has had 3 go-arounds and now DRV and still no sources are found, therefore it is reasonable to assume that they cannot be found per
  WP:DELETE and this must go - we're an encyclopedia not a repository for everyone's unsupported original ideas and research - take it to a university, get it published, then come back. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - There certainly is not enough reliable source information on the topic
  Snowclones article. See, (1) The Times, December 3, 2005; (2) New York Times June 20, 2006; (3) NPR Talk of the Nation June 28, 2006; (4) Columbia Journalism Review July 1, 2006; (5) New Scientist November 18, 2006; (6) The Mercury (Hobart) March 24, 2007, Annie Warburton, "I mean, what's it mean?" (7) Globe and Mail May 31, 2007, "Do you speak kitteh?"' (8) New Scientist August 4, 2007. -- Jreferee t/c 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Why not just merge the content and trim it over time? Seems more appropriate to go through list items individually then to make these generalizations about what should be kept and deleted. I'd be happy to help. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but I gather that the merits of an article are irrelevant in DRV, just the procedure. And procedurally I'm not comfortable with an admin deleting an article because of his own opinion, justified as it may be, contrary to the actual discussion. Said discussion here does seem to have enough dissenting voices for the doubt that brings lack of deletion. --Kizor 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion though make available if anyone wants to merge some verified examples - Re-examining the sources (which I believe is an appropriate function of DRV, no?), almost none of them use the word "snowclone". It seems like a lot of disputable and not directly verifiable stuff crops up if we attempt to create an original list of formula-based clichés which uses an old idiom in a new context. Very few things have been described by reliable sources as snowclones, so temporarily undelete if anyone wants to scavenge for any verifiable ones, but looking through most of the sources listed, I haven't seen any yet. The consensus seems to have been merge and I would have no issue if it was closed as such, but not too much information should have to/be able to be merged. Wickethewok 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore due to lack of consensus. Problems with the article itself may result in the list being scaled back dramatically, but that's not what we're discussing here. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; DRV is about procedure, not article merits. On the topic of merits, however, I would say that the original article (having seen it before it was deleted) should be at a minimum be massively scaled back. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of you who are commenting based on procedure need to read
  GRBerry 02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Is it very unlikely that this article can exist without breaching policy? I'd say the opposite is true. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Lists can be tricky in terms of original research. I think they can (and particularly in this case) be edited to comply with the no original research policy. The closing admin failed to take this fact into account in the close. IronGargoyle 03:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (my) closure. The article was nominated for deletion as being original research, nobody was able to prove otherwise in the deletion discussion. Asserting "no, no, it can be cleaned up" would be great if that hadn't already happened in the first AFD - nothing changed, which is why someone re-nominated it. I will revert my closure and undelete this article if someone can cite just 10 "examples of snowclones". Not ones you have decided are snowclones - ones that are described as being snowclones, in the reliable, non-blog, reference. And if, as you say, DRV is about procedure, I refer you to GBerry above, and
  ☎ 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I wish you would have posted this request sooner neil. this page [[23]] has "In X, no one can hear you Y." "X is the new Y" among others, from here [[24]] we have "If Eskimos have N words for snow, then X have Y words for Z." "Oh my God, they killed X!" "Not your father's X" "The X that can be spoken of is not the true X", and several more. finally in this article [[25]] we have "Once an X, always an X," "My big fat X,""To X or not to X?". you might want to actually look before saying there is nothing out there— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs)

  Note Rafff18 has already argued for overturning the decision as nominator. One of those sources (wisegeeks) is a blog. But there's two references, each with a handful of overlapping examples. Still not ten.

  ☎ 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• you asked for examples not sources and combined the two you except sight over ten examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]