Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January

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

Greetings. I recently closed the AfD discussion on the Jollix article, primarily in that insufficient discussion and agreement had been reached in support of the only realistic argument. The argument in question was for "delete", and primarily stated that the Jollix project was inactive, and was thus non-notable. However, no further comments in support or opposition of this were made, and I felt it would not be suitable to accept that viewpoint with such a lack of support. Due to the lack of any further consensus either way, I closed the debate as "no consensus" and no further action was kept.

However, I later recieved an enquiry on my talk page (it was still listed at the time of the DRV opening) as to why I felt that argument was unacceptable; after explaining myself, there was still a lack of agreement on the article being kept, and I offered to forward the matter to Deletion Review, where further discussion could be undertaken. I would ask that participants comment openly on the decision, and reach a consensus by which I will happily abide by.

As a final point, I wish to point out that I have no feelings either way on the article: I closed the discussion on the basis that no agreement on the article's notability was reached, and not that the arguments put forward (that is, that Jollix is or isn't non-notable) were invalid.

Overturn: I respectfully disagree with Anthony's summary of the argument in the original deletion discussion. The debate centred on notability: it was argued that the subject was non-notable, and also was no longer being actively developed. No references exist in the article to support notability, and notability has not been asserted in the article itself, though it has been asserted by a dissenting editor in the deletion discussion on the basis that there are now many references in the article.

Activity is, however, relevant to the question of deletion in this case, because an active software project stands some chance of becoming notable. If it were proven that the project were under active development, then I would support a merge and redirect to a more general article, but all the article's current references indicate that the project has been inactive since 2004. Technobadger (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having read the articles discussion there doesn't actually seem to be much question regarding notability. The keep arguement seems to be that (1) It is on other wikipedia's (which is irrelevant since their inclusion standards maybe different and even if not per a

verifiable

, there doesn't seem to be much argument concerning if it reaches our inclusion standards (Beyond the broad assertion that seems to equate to, it has references and is therefore notable).

The deletion argument notes that the references fail to meet the multiple non-trivial mentions from independant

reliable sources, this is not refuted by the keep. i.e. I can't agree the question of notability was indeterminate in the discussion. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sustain close It's odd to complain bout a non consensus close--isn't it much simple to wait a month and renominate? As for this particular close, there were indeed references, from sources which are arguably suitable for the subject. Given the inapplicability of an argument from non-notability for being no longer current, I dont see how a delete close would have been possible. DGG (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources cited may be Linux-related, but they uniformly and uncritically repeat the information on the distro's page, basically announcing that the distro exists. You can find sources like this for any of the hundreds of non-notable Linux distros brewed up annually by enthusiastic but temporary project teams: none of the references asserts or supports notability.

Also please note that argument from non-notability for being no longer current is not what was argued in the deletion discussion: please see my comment above for explanation.

Regarding renomination versus DRV, please note that

Anthøny suggested DRV or AfD on his talk page, and I agreed. Technobadger (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Sources were provided in the original page. Anna-girl-08 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Misplaced nomination moved here. No opinion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete as contested prod. Listing at AFD is at editorial discretion. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, missed that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A simple Google search meets the notoriety requirements. In addition, the publishing company has produced books, games, and articles for 30 years under multiple authors. If thats not enough, the company has appeared in at least two newspaper articles in Baton Rouge and New Orleans (Advocate & Times Picayune respective), and the owner has appeared on local TV news to discuss the company. What more could you ask for? Malakai Joe (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of this promotional page and question whether its creation was a
  conflict of interests. Google hits and number of publications aren't a measure of notability and press releases aren't considered. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse' continues to have no evidence for notability. DGG (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Although A7 (corp) would be a better CSD criterion than G4 in this instance, this still appears to be a valid deletion. Caknuck (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Thanks for your time -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AFD. The AFD was closed properly imo: there may not have been a consensus to keep, but there was also no consensus to delete, resulting in no consensus, defaulting in keep. But I feel that the discussion was flawed. The nom and several !voters raised valid concerns that the article didn't make clear how the subject was notable enough for Wikipedia. And while
  WP:ITSREAL. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Listing at AFD again can be done at any time. I see no pressing reason to overturn this AFD closure... there actually do seem to be sources, [1] at least one of those is non-trivial and seems to discuss gameplay in detail. --W.marsh 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, perhaps you could actually point to the "non-trivial" sources instead of providing some vague link to a google search? furthermore, you didn't put corvette pinball in "" which only brings up 4 results, none of them non-trivial in anyway? what are you trying to achieve here? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is the fixed up search [2] 0 non-trivial as you can see. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very condescending and unnecessary attitude. --W.marsh 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was born perfect, been that way ever since ;)!

Sorry, I was a bit riled up over something else at the time, apologies, but you can see my point? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (relist unless someone sources it first). The policy which drives
  WP:N means is that we have adquate evidence or indicators that an article can be written that meets our core policies and that goes beyond a mere directory entry. The Afd attracted enough attention from keep opiners, the topic is not so obscure that source might exist but are hard to access, so the keep opiners had made no case for retention. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • (Not to forget
    WP:N discussion: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it..) ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse keep Firstly, the AfD appeared to be valid and was closed correctly. In addition, the nominator appeared to be severely misinformed in calling the machine "short run", implying low sales. The machine actually sold 5000 units, which is considered strong sales for a pinball machine of its era, roughly double the production numbers of an "average" pinball at the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, where does it meet notability criteria, and where are the (non-trivial) refs? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the "strong sales for a pinball machine of its era" had been discussed in the AFD, I would probably have agreed with you. But it wasn't. The key contention of the keep !voters/opiners was that "the notability issues are taken into consideration in cases of possible vanity" (Mikkalai), that key policies

WP:NOT a directory, as Trialsanderrors has indicated). If this pinball machine is notable enough for Wikipedia, the article should obviously be kept. If this pinball machine is not notable enough, it should obviously be deleted. But none of this was discussed during the AFD, so the article should be relisted. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse Closing was valid as there was no consensus to delete the article. I also remind
  notability here, that is the job of AfD. --Farix (Talk) 12:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would also like to point to those trying to argue to be overturned the results of the AFD to read Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates above. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello! Is this your first time at DRV? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This game is too huge, and boasts too many players for there to be no article on it. I looked at the reasons for deletion and they were something like not enough sources or something. Anyway, that shouldn't matter, it's obvious that it's a game, and judging by the number of players, a popular one too. Whoever closed it didn't take the time to look around the site itself. I think there needs to be an article on it. It actually did lack many secondary sources at the time of the RfD article, but that has changed now. They have booths at conventions and I have seen it referenced and linked to on other sites. MannyKing (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, no new arguments. Provide the sources. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Invalid reasoning. "Too many players" isn't going to get anything undeleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In-Depth_Battlepedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Temporary review - Requesting the source of the article emailed to me to review 'off-Wiki'. Thank you :) Mike411 ^(talk) 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa (Canadian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_As for the admin's demands for notability - any 2 minute google search will turn up all the criteria that is needed to meet the "notable" tag. The first such red flag should have been noted when it is the only entry from the Constellation records catalogue that has been deleted from wikipedia. This alone should have given the admin pause, but I assume they neither know the label, it's place in recent independent rock history, or even the fact that the band in question was the first to appear on that storied label, home to such major international acts as Godspeed you black emperor and a silver mt. zion, and that its guitarist is one half of the founders of the label and now plays in a silver mt. zion, whom have played with everyone from Cat Power to Patti Smith. Sofa has appeared on compilations in magazines and cst comp's that have sold tens of thousands of copies, have garnered an international fanbase in the ten years since their demise and are still cited and played on college radio stations around the world. Just the fact that they are the premier release on one of the biggest indie rock labels in the world should suffice to be alloted an entry. Please see the reviews section of the band's page on the constellation site for a roundup of critical texts regarding the band's eponymous release "Grey" from such influential magazines as the UK's 'The Wire" and NY's "Vice" magazine. Please see http://cstrecords.com/cst002_reviews.html for the texts as well as these links which i quickly grabbed from a google search http://www.unmute.net/recensioni/v/v-a_constellation.htm http://cstrecords.com/bands_sofa.html http://so-fa.ca/ Sentinal9 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Sentinal9 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinal9 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Comment - see here for further info. ^Khukri 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trout-slap the deleting admin for showing advanced levels of
  WP:ADMINITIS. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment although there is merit to the argument that
  WP:BAND has notability criteria that the deleting admin did not consider (actually xe says that the only evidence of notability is not sufficient, in contrast to what the guideline says); the issue seems to be sorting itself without the need for undeletion. A userfied version has been constructed, and it will be far superior to the one that was deleted. So even though deletion is not a good tool to cause article improvement, all is well that ends well. Leaving it deleted without prejudice against creation seems the best course of action for now. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment the userfied version of the article is
  WP:MUSIC notes 1 and 6, and the fact that it was the first ever release on Constellation Records is probably of note, as well. Chubbles (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn not my usual subject, but even i can tell from the article that it makes claims at least to notability, which is all that is necessary to defeat speedy. It should not be left deleted--it sends the argument to admins that their decisions will be sustained even if in opposition to clear policy--in this case WP:CSD A7. DGG (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn clear assertion of notability at the time of deletion. "I can't see anything that screams notability here except the label"... well, there you go. Suggest that closing admin unarchives their talk discussion so others don't have to go through the edit history despite it being linked from here. –Pomte 18:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit Tragedy Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Someone made an article on Moshpit Tragedy Records which was deleted late last year. Since then the website has made an Alexa rank and articles of important nature: Please view this or a google news search: http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/article/?id=47668 May this deletion be reviewed now? 74.56.180.192 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Malformed nomination moved here. No opinion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

A band with 2 studio albums is notable enough. This one has 5.

• Well, I closed the AfD for this without any prejudice, but criterion 5 on
  WP:MUSIC, which I assume is what you're referring to, actually says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". The deleted article has no information on what labels the band released their albums under, even though it gives a list of releases. Also, the rationale given by the participants in the AfD was that the band has no coverage in reliable sources, so this would need to be sorted out most probably for it to be restored. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per
  WP:BIAS. This should have been relisted for insufficient consideration. Two "Oh I can't find anything on Google" opinions is hardly a convincing deletion rationale for a band for which reliable sources, if they exist, are most likely in Russian and offline. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Relist would have been a more appropriate action, with a suggestion for the discussion to focus on the appropriate notability guideline, which is clearly
  WP:BAND. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Relisting so as to confirm whether or not the subject passes the notability criteria is more faithful to the intent of
  WP:AFD. Interested parties should see much more clearly the evidence in support or opposing their own opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: a band for which reliable sources, if they exist, are most likely in Russian and offline is a clear failure of
  WP:V, which is undebateable. Provide those refs, then we'll talk. Corvus cornix_talk 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No. Inaccessible is not unverifiable, and both foreign-language and offline sources are permitted to source an article. Unverifiable means reasonable attempts to source the article have been made and have been unfruitful. In this case the nominator didn't seem to have done any kind of research, the only commenter looked in the wrong space. Certainly a case for relisting. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • if they exist indicates that there are no such sources. If they aren't forthcoming, then this article must be deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The group has gotten plenty of international attention in the metal press: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Chubbles (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; two participants is a incredibly small selection, and had Óðinn turned up in the AfD discussion, there's no way I could have seen a delete closure. Let's relist it and get some more discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama media controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted on highly dubious grounds. The principle reason for deletion was that it was a content fork or POV fork of

This was a notable controversy about an extremely notable person, which received attention from the mainstream media as well as figures like

It is true that there were considerably more people calling for deletion than a keep on this article, but AfD is not a vote; admins are supposed to decide on the relative merits of the articles involved, and in this case I believe those calling for a Keep had the considerably stronger arguments. Terraxos (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Regina Trarbach-Nazario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I wrote this text to commemorate and memorialize my deceased wife of ten years and would like to have her accessable to present and future family members and friends this is significant to people on two continents who know and love her and it tells a story of love and devotion that I feel I should share with the world please allow this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billn4q2 (talk • contribs)

• The article does nothing to indicate
  Wikipedia is not a memorial. Valid A7, endorse. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Billn4q2, wiki software is free, and may firms offer free wiki hosting. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the wrong place for this article, but I use wiki software on my own server and have used this to commemorate my sister and father. That's your best bet. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Guy, we understand where you are coming from, but it's just not the right place to do that. --Smashville^BONK! 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand why you wanted to write the article, Bill, and I wish you all the strength you need in these difficult times. But the editors above me are correct, Wikipedia is not a memorial for deceased people we love. Subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be notable. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can send you the content of the article to post it somewhere else, Bill, if you enable email delivery (under "my preferences" on the top right). What the other said is correct though, we don't keep obituaries of loved ones on Wikipedia (but certainly this could have been explained to the user when the article was deleted). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see how that could happen, but it's a shame no one welcomed, notified of tagging, or notified of deletion, if the red link to his talk is true. Dlohcierekim 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The user who tagged it uses NPWatcher, not Twinkle. Twinkle notifies the originator, I am not sure if NPWatcher does. If it does not, then a feature request should be submitted. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't thinking about an automated deletion notification. There are reasons why we don't use bots for speedy deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking now at the article, this was an article that called for a personal comment as well, and either the ed. placing the tag or the admin who deleted should really have done so. This is one of the problems going too fast, whether or not using helper programs. Apologies to Bill for our all-too-frequent lack of human feelings.DGG (talk)17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Player is notable; although he hasn't played for his club, he has played for his country's Under-21 side four times - [8] GiantSnowman (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per consensus and precedent, as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#International_notability. It's a shame his U21 caps weren't mentioned at the time of the AfD debate, as they are the crux of the matter, not his (lack of) appearances for Middlesborough. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per newfound research and as original closer. I just went by consensus in the afd. Wizardman 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright is mine, I wrote the original text. as for spam - no links or screenshots were added and it contained only reliable sources Scott MacKenzee (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The text was the same as the text at [9]. Are you saying you wrote that page, or just that it was copied from WP without acknowledgement? andy (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nukedorse If it's not copyvio it's advertorial. Checked the NYT and Reuters link and couldn't even find eToro being mentioned, but I also found this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I wonder if Scott MacKenzee and eToro account manager Jeff MacKenzee are in any way related? andy (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, unambiguously valid. Sure, the size of the Forex market was sourced, but so what? Guy (Help!) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote the original text, which was copied by someone to that site which I have never heard of. you can check on the article log that I have written it long before that other site posted my text, in addition - the idiot even copied to his "training" section the line I wrote about etoro. Nice work with the MacKenzee issue, that's actually how I first heard about etoro, I googled my name and "forex" ( I google myself once in a while, a little due diligance ) and the 1st listing I saw was eToro's.

Any more questions?

• • Yes. Why, of all possible searches, did you google MacKenzee forex? Why not MacKenzee global warming or suchlike? Why would anyone who did not already have an association with forex platforms carry out this particular search? Is it a wild coincidence that someone who appears at the very top of the search results shares your unusual surname and your involvement in forex? andy (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean you wrote it when you were still User:JeromeDaurdan? (Note his talk page) ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had speedily deleted another identical article under
  Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. Salt them also, based on the recreations--Hu12 (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the afd at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IFX_markets. The article was written by an SPA and mentions eToro. andy (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I search myself with a lot of possible searches, one of them is forex and that's because I trade forex, but with Oanda ( which have a huge wiki page, want to blame me for promoting them too? )
2) Jerome is an alias I use, instead of using nicks like "tikiwont" or "Hu12" like the people here above me, anything wrong with that? not only that - but now you can see according to the timestamp that I wrote that article way before it appeared in any other site you might think has the copyright for it instead of me.
3) There are several forex companies in wikipedia now, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FXCM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxo_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFX_markets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX_solutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refco
And last but not least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oanda
Wikipedia also has a category for retail forex, which etoro is a part of. I don't think this should be considered spam of any sort, expecially when I posted no links or screenshots. I tried to create that article as a wish to have an unbiased knowledge base on the forex industry, if you have any advice on how to improve it and make it fit any standarts better I'll gladly follow them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.10.98 (talk • contribs) 09:15, January 31, 2008

• Saxo bank has been questioned. In any case the existence of an article about one company doesn't imply anything about an article about another company. andy (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As it's already been deleted five times by five different admins for a variety of reasons it's hard to see how it could be improved sufficiently. But if you look here you can see the details of why it was deleted. In most cases it's because the article is seen as promotional. If you can fix that, you'll still have to address the issues of

conflict of interest on your part. I wonder if it's worth the bother. andy (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Ocimum Biosolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this company, which is a relatively new one operating in the

• The BioIT Division provides key, ready to use, reliable, cost-effective software solutions sure sounds advertorial to me. No opinion on the notability of the company, but collecting sources and compiling them into a neutrally worded article sounds like a better strategy to me (in short, endorse) ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is also a total copy & paste from this site and others like it. It's the company's press release. I'm the one who deleted the most recent attempt (the one at Ocimum Biosolution, without the "s") and I endorse DragonflySixtyseven's deletion of the original article. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore my all pages and revisions. --Atsushi2 (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Endorse. Looks kosher to me. I'm not sure if A7 applies, but it does look pretty well like advertising for that G11.
  As a note to the creator: speedy deletion does not prejudice against recreation, assuming you can create a version of the article that does not meet the
  WP:COI issues, but you can get help with that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore Certainly does not meet A7, which does not apply to computer programs or other products in the first place--precisely because of the difficulty in one or two guys deciding. The ed. who marked the article for deletion specified G11, & I can not figure out why it was changed by the admin. As for G11, the article contains a brief description, screenshots, a list of modules, and a good reference section of suitable RSs for notability, including at least 8 good reviews in 3rd party sources. I think that if the screen shots were cut down to just one for the most important product, it would not even be remotely spam. As is, its not spammy enough to be a speedy. It contains no puffery, no claims how great they are, no extravagant language about how revolutionary they are in the software industry--none of the things that characterise spam. A straightforward description of a product with sufficient claims to notability is an acceptable article. Can be improved, but not a speedy under any criterion. I commend the admin for bringing it here. DGG (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, article contains no assertion of notability and the long laundry list of "articles" all seem to be no more than passing mentions, namechecks or press releases. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with this assertation. I realize that some of these articles are only available on a pay-for-access basis, however, most of them do discuss the products or company as their primary subject, including an article from Investor's Business Daily. As I discussed with Aecis, I can provide PDF copies of the original articles for your personal review. I did not include these as links in our entry, as the PDFs are on one of our sites, as I believed this would constitute spam in the eyes of Wikipedia. However, several of the articles speak at length about our company and products, and they are available online: Bristol West Moves to PPM (Insurance & Technology), Drilling Down to the Heart of the Task (ITWorld Canada) and Dupont Plays the Match Game(InformationWeek). As for the others, while the articles may have touched on other products or companies as well as Tracker and Automation Centre (such as Tapping the Right Tools - ComputerWorld), the discussion of our products therein is not "passing".

As for the assertation of notability, I thought it would be drawing a fine line between making an assertation and what might constitute a promotional statement. As such, I thought our reference list and the companies mentioned therein (Sanyo, DuPont, Bristol West and others) would better stand in its stead.KarsKormak (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at AfD at editor's discretion. Not deleting as blatant spam does seem to be correct, but apart from
  Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from deleting admin: the above discussion shows that there is no consensus about this deletion either way and that there is reasonable doubt. Per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, "where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggest taking this discussion to AFD. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from author: I believe I kept the language of the original article non-promotional, but in reviewing the cache I can see how it may read more like a feature sheet than an encyclopedia entry. I have posted a stripped down version as a sub page at User:KarsKormak/Tracker, which may be more in line with Wikipedia's editorial policy.KarsKormak (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dobby & The House Elves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not believe this page should be deleted as it satisfies rule number 7 in the notability page which states a band is notable if it Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Dobby & The House Elves HAVE become the most prominent representative of a wizard rock in brisbane, they are also the youngest wizard rock duo. This page has also been accused of only referencing myspace, but they had 2 references that were interviews and another that was their EP, the references to myspace were for the articles pictures. Therefore this article should not have been deleted and the allowance of the re-creation of this article would be appreciated by many. Yolanda-evergeeen (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard rock? Really?

talk 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wizard rock. If I may "a notable style or of the local scene". Emphasis added to "or". Thus Harry and the Potters represent the Wizard Rock scene, and say Powderfinger represents Brisbane, but the guideline isn't supposed to provide for the de facto notability of the most prominent band of every genre in every city. Most prominent emo band in Kinshasa, most prominent techno DJ in Des Moines, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn most recent deletion and unsalt. The most recent deletion was by G4, which doesn't really apply. Although there was an AfD, which was closed in delete, it wasn't deleted because of the AfD, it was deleted (three times) through A7. Most recent version also passes A7, since notability is asserted. Sources aren't that hot, so unless it can be sourced it'll fail an AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just actually looked at their MySpace. No way they're gonna' pass

WP:UCS since it'd never pass an AfD like that and good sources won't be found. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• But Dobby & The House Elves are ALSO The Youngest successfull Wizard rock duo. Which i believe is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda-evergeeen (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite embarrassed to have this information at my fingertips, but I believe that the Hungarian Horntails are the youngest successful Wizard Rock duo. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the hungarian horntails are NOT a duo on there myspace it clearly states that there are 3 members , therefore dobby & The House Elves still remain the youngest wizard rock duo. how would I go about sourcing the article better?

• Overturn and send to AfD -
  living people. Youngest, best, most prominent, etc. is no substitution for reliable sourcing. Guest9999 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yolanda x —Preceding Yolanda-evergeeen comment added by Yolanda-evergeeen (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as CSD A7. The G4 deletion was incorrectly labelled, but every version of this article clearly meets the A7 criteria: it is an article about a band that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. --Stormie (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "Dobby & the House elves are two
  House Elf cousins from brisbane trying to introduce Wizard rock into Australia." Splendid. If they succeed, they may become notable - but since they are apparently about twelve years old, that may take a bit of doing. Unless, of course, the claim that they are house elves can be substantiated from reliable independent sources, that would make them notable. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Operator Please If they were the first underage boy-and-girl house-elf duo trying to bring Wizard rock to Brisbane I'd say we have to overturn. But all-male underage house-elf Wizard rock duos are a dime a dozen in Brisbane. Endorse. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion per Stormie JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, why G4 was incorrectly used who knows, but still that's not really a good reason to overturn an otherwise obvious A7. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well you can do what you want...but i believe they are pretty relevant..especially in comparison to lots of the pointless stuff you have on here....

• Endorse deletion until
  userfication of the article though, within reason. --Solumeiras (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Barack Obama media controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I request that the AfD be reopened and the article restored on the grounds that the closing administrator misinterpreted policy and failed to fulfill his responsibility to personally evaluate the strength of argument in favor of his action.

I've had a colloquy with the administrator about this, [10] but he hasn't responded for 36 hours or so, so I think it may not be premature to ask for community input. The subject involves a current event and is receiving ongoing attention not mentioned in the article before its deletion ([11],[12],[13], and, I am sure, others) so I think the work done on this subject ought to be made available to Wikipedia's readers promptly if I am right that it ought to be available at all.

Argument:

1)

WP:DRV"Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." See [14]

2)

WP:DRV

"Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly..." Yamamoto_Ichiro explained that he closed the AfD as a "POV fork" on the grounds that a rough consensus of the participating editors had reached that conclusion (by my count only 5 of 21 editors "voted" "keep"), and that he could rely on the large disparity in the "vote" for the reliability of the conclusion and need not independently examine the strength of the arguments. Indeed, he wrote, "I don't really know which POV is being advocated myself nor I really care..."

3)

WP:GD

"Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article.<paragraph> The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."

4)

WP:PRACTICAL

: "To [find actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves (including any additional concerns that may have been raised along the way), the basis of objection of those who disagree... If you are volunteering to carry out an action on the basis of rough consensus, only this thorough approach is acceptable."(emphasis added)

• Endorse deletion There doesn't seem to be any deficiency of process here. There is no closing rationale, which would probably help in a situation like this, but the consensus did seem to weigh towards the deletion of the article (I'm including those that voted for merging its content). If its a notable facet of the campaign, then it should be included in the campaign article. There is no compelling reason that I can see to have a whole article on just this issue (like any campaign minutiae, it gets huge numbers of mentions way out of proportion to its actual long-term notability). Additionally there is no compelling reason to suggest that the result of the AfD was incorrect based on the arguments presented or the process involved.
  talk 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yamamoto_Ichiro provided the equivalent of a closing rationale in my colloqy with him on his talk page [15], and I don't see how it "helps" since what it reveals is that he did not evaluate the arguments. As I noted above, the article complied with

Andyvphil (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't, I looked over what you wrote above and the AfD in question. DRV truly is not AfDx2, even though it is often treated that way. I'll take a look at your link and see if the closing rationale provided there alters my decision on this.

talk 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion. Consensus on the AFD appears to be clear that the "controversy" in question (i.e. speculation on whether Barack Obama is a Muslim) is too minor, insignificant, and weakly founded to warrant a separate article. Not every assertion about a major figure requires spin-out, and giving an assertion like this which has few adherents a separate article may give the appearance of it being more significant than it is, violating the NPOV rules on "undue weight". Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"speculation on whether Barack Obama is a Muslim" is a truly eccentric idea that was not the subject, or "'controversy' in question", of the deleted article. Obama has actual connections and experience with Islam, and the controversy is over how this has been misrepresented in the press and by the Obama campaign and by others and over the appropriateness of mentioning the subject at all. This is a the subject of a wealth of RS. But... arguing the merits of the deletion when the text of the article is not available to refer to is not what is appropriate now. The closing admin admitted he found a consensus without following what I've shown above is policy. The AfD should be reopened and if some admin after a decent interval determines that the arguments for

Andyvphil (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion Decided correctly.A coatrack of miscellaneous accusation in the media, all of them trivial. Particular notable controversies might be worth an article. DGG (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. This is not AFD2. Nakon 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I thought that was my point. I'm still the only one who seems interested in the fact that the act of closure was performed out of policy. It's looking a lot like AFD1, though, with policies and guidelines and essays being named (most recently "undue weight" and "coatrack") but not actually cited by anyone except me, perhaps because the actual text does not support the desired conclusion.

Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It is true that there were considerably more people calling for deletion than a keep on this article, but AfD is not a vote; admins are supposed to decide on the relative merits of the articles involved, and in this case I believe those calling for a Keep had the considerably stronger arguments. Terraxos (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Terraxos contribution was actually a nomination for undeletion, as he was unaware of this discussion, which I have transferred here and taken the liberty of prefixing with an identification of his evident "vote". It is therefor not a response to my nomination or anything else written in response to my nomination.

Andyvphil (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for moving my comments, I hadn't realised there already was a DRV open on this article. Terraxos (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, correct per policy and per process. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made a substantive argument that the deletion was out of policy. Is there some reason you don't think I deserve the courtesy of more than airy dismissal?

Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your "substantive argument" is arm-waving, whereas

WP:BLP is policy. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

-*sigh* Please quote something from BLP that this article violates.

Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion re
  SqueakBox 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nothing on CNN? How about [17]("CNN debunks false report about Obama"), [18]("Obama confronts Muslim rumors"), [19] ("...the most pressure is on Barack Obama. He is aggressively shooting down rumors that he's Muslim, which could hurt him in this conservative Christian stronghold."), etc., etc. [20]("10,700 from cnn.com for Obama Muslim")? And please quote what part of BLP or N you are suggesting was violated by this article.

Andyvphil (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • When I said nothing on CNN I didnt mean I had an exhaustive search, merely that I am watching the campaign extensively on CNN (for the first time ever) and I had seen nothing on it. Thanks,
      SqueakBox 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse deletion was a
  WP:COATRACK fork, closing admin made a correct close. Just because you disagree with the deletion doesn't mean you go directly to DRV. 131.94.55.96 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What step did I omit? My nomination concerned itself solely with process, btw.

Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn After reading the AfD and the article I get the disctinct impression 80% of the commenters didn't even bother to read the article (a woefully rampant problem, continuing in the DRV). Someone cries "COATRACK" and the moral panic bandwagon gets rolling (canvassing on the BLP noticeboard seems to have this effect these days). The article, at least the last version which I checked, is in fact quite unambiguous about Obama's religious affiliation and if anything, the media outlets had a reason to complain about the depiction if it weren't accurate. Fwiw, the AfD contains a somewhat merituous argument to merge into the campaign article based on the coverage of similar campaign events (Edwards' haircut), but that precludes deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Renomination OK. I give up. This is the first DRV I've participated in and I didn't realize that the "instructions" were so bogus and that so few would be in the slightest degree concerned that the closing admin hadn't followed policy. Silly me. So, AfD2, then.

First, this is the article we're discussing. The categories have been stripped and there might have been some edits after I stored it and before it was deleted, but this is what we're talking about.

It is not a content fork, it is not a POV fork, it is not a BLP violation, it is not a coatrack, it is not a trivial subject. It collects and organizes what is known about a subject verifiably addressed by a great many RS and presents it in an NPOV fashion.

If anyone wants to actually contest any of these assertions instead of merely announcing their disagreement I will be happy to put their arguments to test.

For now, I will merely note that Google has a version which makes ten suggestions of what you might be looking for based on previous inquiries by others. If you go to [21] and type in "obama" the second, third and eighth suggestions are, as I write, "obama muslim", "obama religion" and "obama's religion". (The tenth, rather amazingly, was "obama wiki" a second ago, although that has changed to... no, there it is again.) The idea that there is room on Wikipedia for, as the DRV immediately above shows,

Andyvphil (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion. The AfD result was solid consensus to delete. --Linda (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"To [find actual consensus] you actually need to carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves..."(policy) Have you done this? What arguments did you find persuasive?

Andyvphil (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion - consensus isn't simple vote counts; the admin closed the AfD properly. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the two halves of your sentence contradict each other. The closing admin found there was a consensus that the article was a POV fork precisely by a simple vote count, saying he didn't know what POV was being expressed and that he didn't need to. Did you read any of the argument before weighing in?

Andyvphil (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn trialsanderrors has summed up my thoughts on this. –Pomte 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Those unfounded, scurrilous allegations do not deserve their own article, much less an article entitled "Controversy." There is no controversy - it's a bunch of patently false right-wing rumor-mongering.
  talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please specify: what scurrilous right-wing rumor is supported by this article?

Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - valid AfD closure. The stylistic guideline
  talk) 18:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

..I intended it to be a place where people who had questions about rumors they had heard about Senator Obama's background could find reliable information, on both the facts and the rumors themselves. I think this is still a legitimate reason and I hope the article has been useful... Redddogg (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Try AGF, please. Anyway, please specify: what content policy is violated by this article?

Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

No explanation for deletion and unresponsive administrator DavidLDill (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was nothing but a link to David Dill's web page. Do you have something to replace it with? --Kbdank71 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A link to your website should be on your userpage (User:DavidLDill) rather than in an encyclopedia article. Speedy deletion valid. Note the deleting admin has been inactive for almost a year. Hut 8.5 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion is uncontroversial under A3 (though A1 and A7 probably apply as well). If the subject has been covered in reliable sources a recreation of the article with content would be acceptable but you should probably read
  WP:COI before you create it. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A link to a website should not be on a userpage if it's being used for advertising purposes. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I understand from this that the page had nothing except a link to my web page. But, at one time, there was what appeared to be a legitimate web page about me. Was the above analysis based on the log entry, or actually viewing the deleted page? If the page was actually a link to my page, could it be that the previous version of the page was edited to be a single link? I do not have a copy of the page -- someone else created it. DavidLDill (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the actual deleted page and there was nothing there but the link to your webpage. There was nothing there before that. Just the link. Speedy delete was valid. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the deleted edits. There were three: one added the link, the next one modified it, and the last one added a delete tag. There was nothing else. Maybe there was an article under a different title? --Kbdank71 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. DavidLDill (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex (edit | [[Talk:User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The proposed deletion of this page was a subsequent result of the

• Note, since so many people alleged the result of the previous DRV as a reason for endorsement of this improper G4, it should be noted that Mackensen, who closed the DRV for Adult-child sex AFD, official stated on his talk page that Any of the folks in this category should be able to help you. in reply to User:Ssbohio's question, expressing his agreement with the article being userfied. @pple complain 05:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Respectfully, that's a bit of a stretch. Mackensen did not express "his agreement with the article being userfied"... he indicated the content of the article can be made available, in response to this question from SSB: "Can I have the deleted article emailed to me or put in my userspace so I can put any useful content into other articles?". He didn't state whether or not he believes it should be accepted as a titled page maintained in user space. Maybe that's what he meant, but it's not what he wrote. If his opinion on this is important, perhaps it would be good to invite him to comment here; but it's inappropriate to infer what he might state from that informal talk page reply. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He agreed with the userfication of the article. That's very clear. SSB asked him "..or put in my userspace" and he offered no opposition and even indicated that admins could help SSB get the deleted material. SSB gave a clear question and Mackensen answered in a clear manner. That was what he meant, not what you thought. Yes, invite him to comment here if you wish. Any words recorded are appropriate for discussion, regardless of its situation. @pple complain 06:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he meant, and I don't pretend to; I'm not interpreting his comment one way or the other. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion.
  _{(1 == 2)}^Until 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion as it was a copy of a deleted page and I had given the user fair warning that if the DRV on the article was unsuccessful that I would speedy tag it so the user certainly had more than 24 hours to transfer the information off site. Thanks,
  SqueakBox 18:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Squeak, being a copy isn't the standard. G4 requires it to be a recreation. The draft existed before deletion of the article. Therefore, by plain, ordinary logic, the draft cannot be a recreation of the article. Aside from that, the
    criterion cited doesn't apply to userspace. The policy issues alone require this deletion to be reversed. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Overturn. This is not a copy of the deleted
  WP:CSD quite clearly says that content moved to user space is excluded from CSD G4. I appreciate that this draft might no longer be needed. However, Wikipedia:Editors matter and Tlato should be allowed to decide for himself what to do with this draft now that the deletion of Adult-child sex has been endorsed, which happened only very recently. If he doesn't need it, it can be deleted. If he wants to keep it around, for instance, to try to integrate some of the material into existing pages, or even just to preserve the references he's found, that would be a legitimate use. Mangojuice^talk 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Let me note that content forking is not a good reason to delete something in user space. We delete content forks because they represent a barrier to having all editors work together in order to keep things in balance. The same does not happen when one of the forks is in userspace, which is typically interpreted as for that one editor's use only. Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We prohibit content forking to preserve
  _(1 == 2)^Until 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to user pages and subpages. Users are even allowed to directly express opinions, so long as they don't go too far. But in any case that would be an argument for MFD, not speedy deletion. Mangojuice^talk 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• People can use their userspace to give opinion on Wikipedia related topics, but not to post opinions about encyclopedic subjects that have been found by debate to be contrary to NPOV. I could make an essay about why I think a policy is good or bad, but not to espouse my beliefs about cannabis laws. If one is making an article in the userspace then that too needs to meet
  _(1 == 2)^Until 20:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See
  WP:CFORK#Temporary subpages - this is a well-recognized exception to the POV fork issue. I think that calling this pro-pedophile advocacy is a valid reason for deletion, but on the surface here at least, Tlato is working on article-building. Don't you think that at least should be the outcome of a debate, rather than a speedy deletion issue? Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion This article is an older version of an article that was deleted via AfD (deletion upheld at DRV). The deletion rationale was that the article was a POV content fork - relating to the title and content because all content was a rehash of content found in other articles. The series of debates has been very contentious and disruptive, and this version (and all versions in userspace) will continue to be a locus for this dispute. If TlatoSMD wants to work on a version, it should be provided to him so that he can do it offline.
  talk 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • • G4 requires the page to be a recreation. As you agree that the userpage existed prior to the deletion of the article, how can the userpage be a recreation?
        G4 doesn't apply to userspace, as well. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Endorse deletion per Avruch - on @pple's user page he has a notice indicating that he is prepared to undelete articles with a few exceptions. I suggest he considers adding pro-pedophilia advocacy to this list.
  talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I take that personally. I'm not advocating anything other than following our own policies. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Per past precedent and community consensus on mainspace article topic. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• GRBerry 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • From
    WP:CSD#G4: This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space. --Kbdank71 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

G4 doesn't automatically apply when a page has been userfied, but if the userfication is opposed by consensus than deletion is appropriate (we don't let people keep old or inappropriate articles around forever per

WP:NOT#WEBHOST). Eluchil404 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NOT#WEBHOST doesn't apply here, given how quickly the article was deleted after the ACS DRV was closed. Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

To put myself on the record, the page we're discussing here is not a recreation of the article that was deleted, as G4 requires. It's an edited draft based on a previous version of the article, so it's not a copy. It existed before the deletion of the article, so it can't be a recreation either. Couple all that with the fact that G4 doesn't apply to drafts in userspace and there is no way that this deletion was policy-compliant. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The page was properly deleted per policy and consensus and it should stay deleted. The reasons have been well-stated in all the "endorse deletion" comments above so I won't duplicate them. --
  Tikilounge (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from deleting admin: A POV-fork does not magically become something else by moving to user space. Userfication is an appropriate response for a crap article on a good subject, but in this case the subject itself has been debated and found to fail policy. We have other articles on this subject, those articles are where changes should be pursued. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there some reason that conclusion couldn't have been reached as the result of an MfD? Mangojuice^talk 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It's already been debated, there are other articles that cover the subject, and the title is only used in furtherance of POV-forking to promote a pro-pedophile POV, something that has caused serious problems on Wikipedia before now. It seems we're being asked to give the pro-pedophilia POV an infinite number of kicks at the can. No. Per very recent and very lengthy debate, the subject is unsuitable. Editors remanded to the existing articles, I believe was the closing DrV comment. Quite right. We do not need a POV fork, we don't need it in user space, and encouraging people to waste their time and other people's is silly. This is not an appropriate title, the subject is already adequately covered under more appropriate titles, those who dispute the appropriateness of those other titles will never be placated, that is not Wikipedia's problem. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - a
  speedy delete criteria G4 states that it "does not apply to content that has been moved to user space", this exception can be interpretted to apply only when the material has been userfied independent of a deletion discussion. The exception is in a list of other exceptions which take place independent of a deletion discussion (such as speedy and proposed deletions). Guest9999 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. As Mangojuice mentioned, the page in question is not in fact a recreation of deleted material; it is something TlatoSMD had been working on since a while ago. It was meant for inclusion in the now deleted ACS article, but if the argument that ACS was a content fork has any merit at all, then it should be suitable material for other articles as well. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. Well since I can't check over either of the deleted pages to see what the content was when they were deleted I'll withdraw my comment. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn. For the reasons below:

This claim by admin about "recreation" is patently false. This was no "recreation" after the fact, this sub-page in my private userspace was several weeks old when the official article was nominated for yet another AfD in an attempt to throw a magic eight-ball and game the system until it would eventually produce the answer they wanted. It was moved to my private userspace in order to save it from 3 people's constant vandalism crusade against several admins wherein they put the article to 15-20 polls for delete/merge/redirect where all in all 60 people had come to the conclusion that the article must stay. Still, nobody was able to do anything with the article because of constant bludgeoning of process by said 3 people, one of them having now been indefinitely blocked for it. That's why I moved its barebones to my userspace and intensively edited and enlarged it all by myself in order to reflect academic and scientific mainstream and consensus verified with abundant sourcing, as one of the most-sourced articles of all Wikipedia. The official article meanwhile never developed much because of constant bludgeoning, so these were hardly the same articles when the official article was steamrollered with one-liner name-calling and unsubstantiated claims what they were afraid of the article might one day develop into while the consensus was building up to 70 more people, established users and admins, to the original 60 wanting the undeveloped official article to stay with sophisticated reasonings and rationales, adding up to 130 people, that were ignored by both closing admins that were simply vote-counting. It's appaling how many people here think they can stand up against 130 established editors and admins with very good reasoning and call them all "pro-pedophile activists" in the face in a parroting fashion. I'd assert that if you can perfectly merge every single article proposed for merge alltogether into an alleged "POV fork", as was definitely the case here, the people making such "POV fork" claims either don't know what "POV fork" means, or they're just making things up without thinking much about what they're saying as long as it resembles "KILL WITH FIRE!"

However, exactly because official article and my sub-page were two things hardly resembling each other, those closing rationales couldn't even be extended to my sub-page if it would be an official article on Wikipedia. It's also the reason why simple parroting name-calling of "pro-pedophile advocacy", a term absent from both closing rationales, is entirely moot. It's for entirely unsubstantiated claims like these that POV and POV fork issues were applied to the official article, and neither NPOV nor any rules relating to "POV forks" are valid for personal userspace.

Furthermore, these recurring harassing deletions of my private userspace violate several of the policies the admin linked to: 1.: "This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space", 2.: "or deleted via proposed deletion". I repeat

User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.

Lastly, why care about somebody's userspace as long as it's free of personal attacks and actually Wikipedia-related? Userspaces are the least-accessed place of all Wikipedia after all. Trust me, this sub-page is neither meant to be authoritative in this form as of yet, nor is it anytime going back to be an official article without solid consensus, so there's really no threat inherent in the mere existence of any of my personal userpages to be unilaterally put up as an official article without any consensus. I'd suggest instead of disruptive edit warring, everyone ought follow what the template at its top says, "Please do not edit this page unless you created it, instead create your own." Such editing naturally includes tagging for any kind of deletion.

I conclude:

• It was wrong to constantly bludgeon the process and disruptively pull this article into an insane amount of unsuccessful polls, and constantly purge well-sourced academic material from the article without explanation or consensus, and edit war over this with a number of admins that placed official admin warnings against exactly that behavior and announced bans for it that never happened, against personal admins warnings, against official page protections placed by admins, and flame and insult those admins not subjecting to their aggression. It was also wrong to place this article up for yet another AfD after all that when block warnings against them increased in frequency due to their incorrigible behavior, another AfD that was entirely illegitimate and invalid to begin with because it used exactly the same nomination rationale as the first and the same arguments were exchanged as in the first. This applies to users
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jack-A-Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ). Pol has meanwhile been indefinitely blocked for it, yet the other two keep going in their behavior, especially Squeak, as can be witnessed in new AfDs, MfDs, and Deletion Reviews right here and now.

• It was wrong for two closing admins to ignore all known policies about consensus, a consensus that had established between 130 editors overtime that all were against deletion, in two AfDs, the second one entirely illegitimate and invalid to begin with, and an insanely high number of polls for delete/merge/redirect. These closing admins did so because of simple per-above partisan counting, name throwing, and unsubstantiated vague claims (that were sufficiently and fundamentally debunked by a large number of people, editors and admins alike, again and again and again), as the deletion party obviously had no other way of excusing their votes and behavior. This applies to admins User:Keilana and User:Mackensen.

• It was wrong to violate a number of policies and, by open, outright, blatant lying in excusing me of "recreating deleted material" allegedly after the fact of inherently wrong deletion, extend these entirely controversial and inherently wrong closure rationales to a private userpage that resembles nothing of the deleted official article. This applies to admins User:Jayron32 and Guy.

All this builds up to an enormous wrong, and a number of wrongdoing admins ought to be held acocuntable for this, probably by removing their admin status until they will have proven they have reformed and can be trusted to follow established process, consensus, policy, logic, and civility. Failing to step in against the original wrongdoer behind all this and a number of other cases,

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), these admins did not simply let it happen, they actively supported all or part of this open, outright wrongdoing and uncivil, offensive name-calling, or tried to excuse it. This applies to User:Keilana, User:Mackensen, User:Jayron32, Guy and probaby many more. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

CLEAR OVERTURN - This is another simple case of the Crusade against particular editors. The page in question was not subject to speedy as TlatoSMD indicates (with painfully-referenced policy) above. That in itself should be enough to overturn this. THe page was not a copy, so even if someone were to assert as much, it would simply be an error of fact even if it did apply to userspace. This DRV (and the other above, from another userpage MfD-ed by the same Crusading user) both should have been reinstated long ago. That there is such delay speaks poorly of the processes in place here. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn While the original article appeared to be a POV fork, it is still possible that we might end up with a separate, actually NPOV article on this subject (indeed, most POV forks are slightly separate subjects that might one day have their own NPOV articles). Letting this stay in userspace for now seems ok as long as actual work to make it NPOV is done. All of that said, I don't understand why people when working on such things don't just keep copies saved on their computers and use preview in a sandbox to look at things. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was no consensus that this material could not be turned into an article, just a rather disputed consensus that the present article was was not acceptable. This should be allowed to remain a reasonable time so it can be worked on. DGG (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to MFD. I don't like this, and will support its deletion if it goes to another deletion discussion; but it's been made entirely clear that
  WP:MFD, where it will almost certainly be deleted anyway; there's no need to pre-empt that discussion with an IAR speedy delete. Terraxos (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If it gets undeleted I will send it to mfd myself and only tried db first because I believed it fit the criteria. Thanks,

SqueakBox 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Has everyone forgotten that we're here to
  encyclopedic article. We can all battle pedophiles, hunt witches, and chase communists as much as we want to elsewhere, but in here, we are collaborating to make the sum of human knowledge available to all humanity. Strident anti-pedophile polemicism (no matter how well-intentioned or how much I privately agree with it) has no place here. Judge editors by their edits, and only hold articles to encyclopedic standards. Heaven knows, there are plenty of articles to improve before going after non-articles. --SSBohio 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Non-article space is important too, and Tlato can easily keep this material off site (I would strongly siupport giving him access to the latest version of this page to take offsite if he has lost it). Thanks,
    SqueakBox 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The whole point of a
      proposed deletion? This user subpage should be undeleted and left for interested Wikipedians to collaborate on. --SSBohio 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • While I realize that you're completely serious (and that your observations are pretty accurate from what I remember of reading those discussions), your original comment gave me a very good laugh. Thank you. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's been a tremendous frustration for me to see rational discourse go out the window due to the passions engendered by this subject. If an editor asserts that the article is a POV fork (or that it isn't) but doesn't provide supporting facts, then all we have is their opinion, not an argument on either side. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a
          WikiStress melted away, though it's come back as I've continued dealing with this stuff. --SSBohio 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Overturn Obvious and blatant misuse of G4. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endose deletion per Guy and Avruch. The article has caused continual trouble since it first appeared. This user-space version was even further afield into POV-fork fringe theories and advocacy than the mainspace version. There's no benefit to a page in user space that the community has soundly rejected with extensive discussion. As long as it exists, it will be a magnet for conflict and disruption. Nothing positive can result from restoring the page. Deletion was proper by process and consensus. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate where that consensus was? There wasn't even consensus to delete the actual ACS page... that was a forced-issue by a few editors (one of which since got perma-banned for violent disruption and personal attacks!). This is a clear case of a misapplied policy and must be overturned. How can you debate the simple fact that, as has been noted above, the reason for deletion does not apply to the userspace in which the page existed? VigilancePrime (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, agree with deletion admin's judgment that the deleted article should not be
  Dreadstar † 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment -- I can find no record of the admin who deleted the article expressing the view that it shouldn't be userfied. Can you give me a pointer to where such a statement exists? --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, deleting admin's reasoning appears to be sound, and would be G4ed if sent back to mainspace in this form. Article was a clear POV fork anyway, and there's no way this would possibly survive MFD if sent there. --
  desat 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I really doubt you have grasped the situation and read TlatoSMD's long comment above. The material "would be G4ed if sent back to mainspace in this form", but regretfully it is not the article that was G4ed. G4 was intentionally misused as a criterion for userspace speedy delete, blatantly against
  WP:USER and CSD G4. Also, this is not "recreation of deleted material" because the subpage was created for pure editing development purpose long before both the AFD and DRV were progressed. I have to re-declare that this material is by no means "unacceptable" as many users here falsely stated, as there are a nearly equal numbers of editors supporting its inclusion on Wikipedia. @pple complain 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I said "sent back to mainspace in this form"; in other words, no matter where this ends up, if it were to be restored, it'd be deleted again. In this case, there's no real point in restoring this, especially given all the other problems. --
  desat 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As the old saying goes, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Deleting this draft because of what would happen if it was moved to mainspace (without further editing) is nonsensical. Can we delete any page on that basis? I don't think User:Cordesat would survive as an article, either, for example. --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. POV-fork page with an agenda and already voted to be deleted in an AFD and re-confirmed to stay deleted in a deletion review so it should not be undeleted now. --Linda (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. How many times are we coming back to this? Deleting admin's rationale was sound, if it came back in its current state it would be G4'd straight away. Any sandboxing of this article should be done offline. Black Kite 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What might happen has never been the standard for a DRV. The deletion was cited as having been made per G4. G4 doesn't apply, both because this isn't a recreation of the deleted article, and because G4 excepts articles copied to userspace. If the deleting admin didn't even cite an applicable deletion rationale, how could such a rationale be sound? --SSBohio 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm sorry if I'm making some mistakes but i can not understand the reasons why Eufeeds was deleted by the administrator.

Eufeeds is a rss aggregator as a lot of website that are mentioned on wikipidia. Is a very good tool for journalist and al people that want to be informed about the EU newspapers. If i making technical mistakes please contact me because i'm reading all your guide line but i'm not an native english speaker and it's possible i don't understand somethings. I apologize for this. Kugno (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was nothing in the article which explained why Eufeeds was more notable or significant than any of the other millions of websites in the world. When creating articles about websites, it's important to clearly state why it is a significant website which justifies an encyclopedia article. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (web), and if you feel that Eufeeds meets the notability criteria described there, feel free to recreate the article, citing reliable sources to back up that claim of notability. --Stormie (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but permit re-creation there was nothing in the 2-sentence article to indicate why it was important. I'm fairly flexible here, but i too would have speedied. If you can, just add content and references and remake the article, just as Stormie suggests.DGG (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - lacked secondary sources, and claim to notability. No objection to recreation, provided secondary sources are included.
  talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Category:Poker Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

A similar category (that I was unaware of when I created this category was deleted in CFD back in November. There were only a handful of !votes. The nominator tied the Poker Hall of Fame (which is reputatble) with the obscure European Poker Hall of Fame. The Nominator then used the rationale that it was a non-defining characteristic. I think if you looked up the winners, they consider it to one of the greatest honors in Poker. He also argued that "The American hall of fame is awarded by a single casino." Who owns/manages the HoF doesn't matter, what matters is if the HoF is recognized as such and is reputable. Everybody in the Poker world recognizes the Poker Hall of Fame, as the official Poker Hall of Fame---including ESPN Columnist Gary Wise who is critical of the HoF. The deleting editor rationalized the deletion with, none "are regularly called "Hall of Famer Doyle Brunson" (or whatever) on TV broadcasts." Er, yes they are. In fact, WHILE writing this DVR, I was watching the WPT event at Foxwood (aired 8-1-07), where they were talking about how Bradley Berman was the son of Poker Hall of Famer Lyle Berman---they didn't mention Lyle's 3 WSOP bracelets! Of the 35 inductees, there are only 12 that are still living and not all of them play tournament poker on a regular basis, thus he the admin probably simply hadn't seen any episodes where one of those 12 players made a final table. The HoF recognizes not just success at WSOP/WPT events, but also CASH games!

• Doyle Brunson — Five Decades of Poker and Still Going Strong! Allyn Jaffrey Shulman by Allyn Jaffrey Shulman Cardplayer Magazine 2004 discusses Doyles HoF status.
• Video of 2005 Doyle Brunson's show "Doyles Room"] where he is honoring 2005 inductees Jack Binion and Crandell Addington
• Amarillo Slim's Official page has a list of all poker hall of famers.
• When Chip Reese recently died, Cardplayer magazine noted that he "was the youngest member to be inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame." (As did Pokerlisting.com, Rounder Magazine, About.com, and many other sources.
• Phil Helmuth, mentions his induction into the Hall of Fame in the second sentence of his official webpage.
• Barbara Enright said that she considered her induction into the Poker Hall of Fame as "a lifetime achievement honor" Balloonman (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject poker notified of this DVR

• Overturn. Immediate, obvious overturn as recent deletion was done without a CFD. There is no reason to even discuss it at this point as it is not approriate to just go and delete categories without any discussion. The previous CFD is unrelated to this action. 2005 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as valid G4. All the talk about things being done out of process has conveniently ignored the fact that instead of reviewing the CFD (which would have had a better outcome), the creator of the category simply recreated the page in defiance of the outcome. JuJube (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to

WP:AGF. As I indicated above, when I created this category, I was unaware of the previous CFD. To say that I 'ignored the fact' and simply 'recreated the page in defiance' is NOT AFG--especially when I explicitly state otherwise. Plus, I am ultimately, contesting the ORIGINAL CFD, not the G4 Speedy.Balloonman (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No one is "conveniently" forgetting anything. The deletion was totally inappropriate, and also rude to the work of good faith editors. Deleting categories just because you can can never be justified. Obviously anyone can revert these edits because they are rogue edits, but the editor should revert his deletions so others don't have to waste time on nonsense. If someone wants to do a CFD, they can. 2005 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. Relist. I closed the previous nomination, which included the much more obscure European hall of fame. The nominator makes fair criticisms of my closing arguments, enough that I see rationale for relisting this, and possibly renaming to Category:Poker Hall of Fame inductees. (However, Balloonman, you have absolutely no idea how many or which poker broadcasts I've watched. It's a bad idea to criticize someone's credentials when you're criticizing their arguments.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have credentials but you also made a foolish statement to justify a close that had virtually no support, or logic behind it. Doyle Brunson is often called "Hall of Famer Doyle Brunson" or something similar. Your lack of original research on this point led to a poor original research conclusion. If you think no one says Academy award winner Meryl Streep, then the fault is yours for making it a criteria. The point here though is there was no support for this deletion the first time(s) and absolutely no logical argument presented why there is a Baseball Hall of fame category, but not this one. The second deletion was simply a rogue act, but the original nomiation had no merit and certainly no consensus support. Given that, if the recent deleter doesn't revert his actions, Balloonman or anyone else can just recreate the category, but this is an unfortunate example of what happens both when a closer injects personal opinion that is uninformed, and when a rogue violates policy. 2005 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the CFD that Mike closed? How can you say there wasn't consensus? --Kbdank71 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I have my doubts you have since calling it a consensus is beyond silly. Three sections, a nominator, one opposing, one reluctant delete, and one single delete. Taking that as a mandate to delete is ridiculous. Calling it a consenus is nutty. There was virtually zero support for the nom, and it plainly should have been closed as such. More to the point, there is a Wikiproject involved in this category, which was not notified or given the opportunity to justify keeping the category (or renaming) it. Respecting the considerable work of other editors is just common decency, and not something to be made fun of. 2005 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005, you've done the impossible, you have me arguing the otherside... the original delete was based upon the consensus of the people who participated in it. While nobody from the poker community was alerted to the CFD (including the categories creator) there was consensus at the time. Consensus can change---especially when presented with new facts. And that's what I wish to do... defend the merits of overturning a CfD.Balloonman (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I attempted to reach out to 2005 on his talk page, requesting he modify his tone, but with little success. (Note: The user has deleted this discussion from his page.) Because of this attitude, I'm abstaining.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in good faith to your comments, even though you choose to state you were being antagonistic about it. Changing your position because of that is just sad. I suggest you step back and think of what is best for the encyclopedia, and not act because you think your feelings are hurt. 2005 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings are fine. Nonetheless, I'm done with this conversation.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sidestepping all this slapfighting, the notion that there was "virtually no support" for the deletion is ludicrous. Admins are not required to take into consideration the opinions of people who don't participate. There is no possible way to gauge whether the level of participation in an XfD discussion is because people are unaware of it, people are aware of it and don't care, people are aware of it and don't comment because they agree with the stated opinions, or what. As for notifying the project, there is no requirement to do so and if a category is so important to the project then you'd think at least one member of the project would have the category on a watchlist.
  talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak endorse of the G4, Endorse the original Nov 5 CFD. Closer, take your pick. The nomination here is for Category:Poker Hall of Fame, which was the G4 speedy, but the nominator states above that he is contesting the ORIGINAL CFD, not the G4 Speedy. [23] --Kbdank71 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the crux of an issue. By the LETTER of the law, this wasn't a recreated category... by the spirit it was... IMHO, the deletion as G4 is valid (because otherwise we would end up parsing words and having people simply reword every category until one stuck.) Thus, I am contesting the original CFD.Balloonman (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Regardless of any of the political gobbledygook, this category makes sense to keep. Doyle Brunson is commonly referred to as a member of the Poker Hall of Fame. A quick Google search of "hall of fame doyle brunson" brings back thousands of results. Balloonman obviously acted in good faith, and assuming otherwise is contrary to the spirit of what we're supposed to be doing here: collaborating. Rray (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Process was followed here, although the creation was a good-faith mistake. The original CFD was thin on participation but valid. This is not a defining characteristic of poker players, as the original closer pointed out. Indeed, taking Rray's suggestion, I googled on "hall of famer doyle brunson" -wikipedia and got 45 hits, where as there were over 600,000 when I dropped the "hall of famer" part. It's an important and frequently noted trait, but not a defining characteristic. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Hall of Fame (nobody uses the term "famer") and you will get over 85,200 hits on altavista and 13,000 on Google.Balloonman (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That gives 4 hits, only 2 in English. Check for yourself. It's important to have quotes around the search, or else it will return pages that merely include the words "hall", "fame", "doyle", "brunson" whether or not Doyle Brunson is specifically being described as a hall of fame player. Mangojuice^talk 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use quotes, make sure that you separate key segments. EG "Hall of Fame" and "Doyle Brunson" should not be combined---otherwise it is looking for the exact phrase "Hall of fame doyle brunson." Even sources that are talking about Doyle Brunson in the Hall of Fame probably won't use that exact phrase. If you use "Hall of Fame" and "Doyle Brunson" Separated, we still get 11,600 hitsand over 86,000 on altavista.Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (Side note---using the quotes actually INCREASED the hits on Altavista... how weird.)Balloonman (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all that includes a lot of irrelevant hits. On the first page of that search is a page that talks about Doyle Brunson and mentions the volleyball hall of fame elsewhere on the page. Second, it doesn't matter, 11600 is still tiny compared to 600K. And third, we should really be counting unique hits anyway. Compare the hit numbers you see with Doyle Brunson to famous baseball players and you'll see a significant difference in the ratios. Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both deletions as the original nominator and the speedy tagger. Original closing admin closed the original CFD correctly. However notable the hall might be (all this talk of Google hits speaks to the notability of the hall), the notability of a topic doesn't justify creating a category for it, or indeed every article on Wikipedia would be eligible for an eponymous category.
  talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:NEUBanner.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Bad justification" is explicitly not a reason for speedy; I6 says "missing" and specifically says "disputed" is not a reason for speedy. In any case, I'd like to try and produce a better justification. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This was an entirely proper I7 deletion. "Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria" - this image failed the non-free content criteria as it did not have a fair use rationale. The uploader was notified and it was tagged for the necessary 7 days. However, the uploader, User:Sauve.d, has not been active on Wikipedia for some years now, and as this is a perfectly clear-cut fair use case, I have restored it and added the necessary Fair Use Rationale. --Stormie (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

MfD inappropriately closed same-day. Almost entirety of DELETE comments centered on accusing KEEP "voters" of being pedophiles. No policies were violated in the page. The closing comment re: RFC beg the question of the necessity of this page (because right now, with page deleted, the "evidence" for the RFC is no longer easily accesible). Clear consensus was to keep, even speedy keep. Appears to be a case of admin jumping the gun in favor of personal desire (true or not, the same-day-deletion contrary to consensus seems to give little other reading). VigilancePrime (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn Not one single admin of those posting in the MfD considered the deleted piece an attack site, in fact one (User:Bduke) even said that the nomination itself was a hostile attack, and two others (User:SGGH and User:12 Noon) voted for speedy keep due to bad faith nomination and conflict of interest of nominator which according to policy automatically :rendered the nomination invalid. This was not an attack site, even though it recorded severe uncivil attacks constantly made by the nominator. Those people voting for delete could only voice their reasoning by severe flaming and personal insults, which in fact were their only reasons they were able to provide. Such a quick closure conflicting with most posts, the more balanced reasonings made by those without conflicts of interest, and the policy regarding conflict of interest nominations is very suspicious and questionable. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had to fix the link syntax, those links had actually been pointing nowhere. --TlatoSMD (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse closure, which user VP also seems happy with. I am not sure why tlato would oppose the closure of such an attack page, assuming, as I do, good faith. Simply we dont need such spaces and therefore the closure was correct. Nothing controversial here and no reason to drv, especially givent ehg
  SqueakBox 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn/relist-This page did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The allegations that it was an attack page are quite simply false, based on at best a misunderstanding of the relevant polices. The page consisted of nothing more than quotations, supported by diffs no less. Failing that, there was no justifiable cause for an early closure.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, for exactly the same reasons as Fyre2387. Also, nay to consensus-busting premature admin decisions that make a mockery out of what is already a madhouse. GrooV (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn and an admonishment of closing admin is in order. This closure was patently ridiculous, and I am surprised it wasn't overturned by another admin on the spot instead of coming down to a DRV.
  pray 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. On their own talkpage, the closing admin has now stated that the main reason to close as delete was the amount of drama that surfaced from the mere MfD within such a short time. I'd like to point out that it's merely the drama Squeak and other people behaving like him, that is the the other two delete voters I named above, commonly engage in wherever I see them. Even just the MfD and this Review alone should be evidence enough for that. The deleted piece was exclusively made to keep track of and evidence especially Squeak's instrumental role in this and take that evidence to admin intervention. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A well-intentioned deletion, but an overreaching conclusion, according to my review of the closure and of conversations on the closing admin's talk page. The deleted page itself collected and indexed what
  arbitration, or other circumstance. If the creator's conduct with regard to this page becomes problematic, then an RFC can be filed. Let's afford this page the traditionally wide latitude given to items in userspace. --SSBohio 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion of attack page. The closing admin made the correct decision. VigilancePrime's publicly visible page accused Squeakbox of personal attacks and other serious offenses in the text and in the section headings, but without taking the accusations to a proper forum. He claimed he was doing that to format diffs for a planned "admin intervention" request. If that is really his purpose, he can easily do so off-wiki in a text document. When he's ready with his case, he can file an RFC/U or AN/I report. Maintained on-wiki without engaging in due process, it was an attack page that served no purpose other than to further inflame an already tense situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. i\It qualified as a speedy delete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, laundry lists of grudges are not an acceptable use of userspace. Feel free to work up an RfC using the relevant templates if you wish, but note that the spotlight in such cases will inevitably shine equally brightly on all concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I think that you are misundertanding the policy of speedy deletion. This is not an attack page, as it is not predominantly subjective. These are links which speak for themselves, no? Karla Lindstrom 16:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There are ways to do certain things - if you want to address a pattern of conduct, use an RfC or make a request for arbitration. Laundry lists of subjectively 'bad actions' of one user are attack pages and deleted appropriately, per long-standing custom and policy. Further - the dispute between these editors has tracked through two AfDs, two MfDs and three DRVs. You guys need to leave eachother alone and find something constructive to do with your time here. Continuous disruption on this level will lead to an ArbCom case and ultimately sanctions for all involved.
  talk 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I wouldn't mind if somebody would take these things to ArbCom. It's a one-man disruptive vandalism crusade. Squeak started every single AfD, MfD, and speedy delete tagging, getting more than a hundred, maybe even two-hundred people busy and at each other's throats with his disruptive crusades just within the last two weeks. I have nothing to fear in an ArbCom case, and nor has anybody else trying to stand up against him. However in order to lead any ArbCom case efficiently, we need exactly that testifying evidence Squeak himself is purging in this one VP vs. Squeak case. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Carribbean made a gross error in judgement in closing the debate after such a short amount of time. MFD would have led to the right conclusion, now that this DRV has gotten started we have no alternative but to have that same debate here, which will be less productive because half the people will be focussing on process abuses. Karla explains very succinctly why this is not a speedy-deletable attack page (plus, all the nasty words are quotes). In other words, this deletion escalated things. Ok, so why am I endorsing deletion? Because per Guy and Avruch, and lots and lots of precedents, this is not appropriate even in user space, unless it's intended to be part of an
  WP:RFAR. Vigilance hasn't even claimed this was the purpose. I am okay with relisting, but would prefer that the decision gets made here in DRV. Mangojuice^talk 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - dispute resolution should be used, instead of soap boxing.
  talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Concur with reasons listed by Addhoc and Guy. --
  Tikilounge (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

THIS IS A D.R.V.

The debate above seems to say that the page should have been deleted, but that's the MfD discussion. The point was recently stated, "Carribbean made a gross error in judgement in closing the debate after such a short amount of time". That is the issue here. The MfD was irresponsibly and illegitimately closed speedily. Now some people are commenting on the page contents, which have been deleted; how can you comment on something that is gone?

The simple fact is that the process was grossly circumvented. I am more than willing to comment in the actual MfD (Something that I had not done because the discussion was closed the same day it was opened). That any admin would back this closing speaks to the greater problems of process and the lack thereof.

Please immediately undo this highly premature closing and, if necessary, reopen the MfD. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused how you quoted me and then failed to read my next sentence. The debate is happening here, whether we like it or not. You might as well comment on the page, not just the process. Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion I don't see why a page documenting why someone is bad, but not actually calling for action (RFC, RFAR, etc) is ever permissible. Seems sorta like a vague way around
  WP:NPA. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• COMMENT - MB, that's the problem. You're judging the page, which is deleted. And because of that, you are misjudging it. It was not a list of why someone was bad. It was links to diffs and quoted text from those diffs. But that's not the point. The point is that the MfD was closed inappropriately. Same-day for a non-speedy deletion. An admin removed the speedy tag originally, and then another hyper-zealous admin (who's good faith I accept) deleted it speed anyway. Quite simply, the deletion discussion was not allowed to play out as per Wikipedia guidelines. Are we now saying that we are not bound to follow our own rules? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What failed to follow the rules was your page, VP, by any stretch of the imagination. So I fail to see why you then accuse others of breaking the rules. This was yet another (ie far from the first)bad faith user of his user space by VP. Our rules are designed to let users have a nice time here while they work voluntarily and pages like this and your othwr user attack pages (eg your user space at times such as labelling certain admins vandals etc) clearly weere designed to harrass other volunteers whom you don't like. The number of policies you have broken in the process is numerous, civil and AGF being the most obvious. Your putting some of the deleted information on your user pages within minutes of this page being deleted indicates, IMHO, your actual contempt for our policies. Thanks,

SqueakBox 04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As usual, Squeak, you are bending the truth to suit your twisted perceptions. The page was not an attack page, unless of course you attack yourself (since all it ever did was quote your own statements). I have a long history prior to running in to you and since running in to you of editing a variety of articles, while you seem to stick to PAW-pushing. You are the master of abusing the processes, and to accuse anyone else of such, for you, is utterly laughable. Unlike you, I will prove my points and I will use policy to back my points up, whereas you have constantly made accusations and when called on them state that you don't need to prove it. Your delusional attitude is as transparent as a cloudless summer sky. I don't know if you actually believe the obvious mistruths you constantly write or not, and that's what concerns me most. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC) And as for a nice time, I was having a nice time recently, staying away from the articles you clearly own, until you started stalking my edits again and putting everything you could think of up for deletion. Why can you not disengage as I have attempted multiple times?[reply]

Twisted is yet another personal attack. Please desist from making more personal attacks. Claiming I am a PAW SPA is not an impressive argument as it is demonstrably false and being so is yet another personal attack. How are you going to prover I am a PAW SPA? You are not of course. Now please drop your grudge against me for oppposing yopur girllover article and go and edit the encyclopedia while letting me do so. Your attacks are taking up enormous amounts of time and energy. And how are you going to prove you stayed away from me but oh, you just happened to make this attack page against me while "staying away from me"04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)~~ —Preceding

talk • contribs

)

Here we go. Twisting my words.

I never said SPA. You said it. I said "you seem to stick to PAW-pushing". True statement. Not exclusively, but your range of late seems pretty narrow. When have I EVER accused ANYONE of being a SPA? (And for that matter, what's realy wrong with an SPA in the right context/usage?)

You keep coming back to the girllover article as a sideways insult. You have no idea, do you? That issue was long put to rest and yet you still harrass and attack me and others. That's your only defense, that we (all?) have a grudge about that article? I'm not sure if that's silliyness or stupidity. I would hope silliness.

Unlike you, I will prove my statements. Contrib history with no PAW-related articles since 18 Jan (and that was a AfD only), more than 300 edits. Prior to this warning (which an admin later told me I should have done), my only edits to your talk page were here (error fix) and here, where I was saying that you were correct in a dispute with another user. I have stayed away from your user talk page otherwise since 18 Jan as your page's history will demonstrate. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to stay away from my talk page.

Any other questions? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(CMT) I don't think I used the word "list", I used "documenting" to be purposly broad in describing a page that's main purpose to describe through the presentation of information why a user is not a good user. Considering all the forums we have to do this (AN, RFC, RFAR, I could go on) the purpose of this page appears to have been an attack page targeted at a living person, which by my personal judgment is a valid reason for a speedy deletion. And we do follow rules, and rules have orders of rank, and I'd say the rules against attack pages tend in most cases to outweigh other rules requiring notification and/or discussion. I think the recent handling of the Wikimedia CFO story evidences that. Also, as to the idea that the page merely was presenting Squeak's own words, I tend to think of

The MfD consensus was exceedingly clear that the page was not an attack page. Now nobody will ever know. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, I'm trying to wrap my head around your astounding defiance of logic. According to your rambling, all ArbCom and RfM cases would qualify as personal attacks and should therefore never be opened, and be immediately speedy deleted if they are. This thing was in the process of being built up to the sizes you mention when it got speedy deleted by the accused Squeak himself. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLAN

• SqueakBox - Here's a question. If I drop this DRV entirely and leave it deleted (regardless of the process abuse that will have been allowed), will you desist in following me around, and thus leave me alone? The only place your nick appears now as far as I can tell is on my user talk page, where you have put it many, many times. Let me know. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not follow you around. If you drop the DRV and don't me mention me on your user space then I am, of course, happy to live and let live and to collaborate over articles relating to PAW. Thanks,

SqueakBox 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Squeak, that's denial. How are we getting anywhere if you're getting all testifying evidence against you speedy deleted and refuse to ever back up any of your obviously delirious flaming accusations and insults? Yes, delirious, I have seen it more than one time that you accuse entirely uninvolved other editors of your very own misdemeanors, one of the most recent cases was when you accused VP of "harassing and abusing" Zapatancas while Zapatancas's own talkpage testifies it was you, with links provided on that talkpage to the fact that you were blocked for one month for it, then another month because of sock puppetry to evade the ban placed upon you by ArbCom. --TlatoSMD (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. I drop this DRV issue (any admin, go ahead and close as nom removed). I doubt I'll collaborate on any article you so vehemently assert ownership of through your actions (having driven a few users away) as the PAW ones. I'm weary of the live and let live statement, but in good faith take it at face value (as I have before, only to be disappointed). Have a great life. And take a breath now and then. There's so much more than all the fighting and attacking that's been going on of late (including the crusades of AfD, MfD, etc.). VigilancePrime (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) :-)[reply]

File:BGE ART 02.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted per

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

Deleted per

• Comment: False fair use claims are very definitely causes for deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Wikipedia NFCC requires fair use images to be promotional images. This was a screen shot and is incapable of meeting the NFCC.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Movie reviewer for top paper in USA, the Washington Post, he has over 20 internal links in Wikipedia. It was deleted without discussion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the article was a bit vague, but it seemed to imply he's been a critic with the Post for 20+ years... that's a reasonable claim of importance. You don't seem to have discussed this with the deleting admin though, it could have just been an oversight. --W.marsh 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Clear claim of importance. Should be speedily undeleted.DGG (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was db-authored in April of last year. I just came along to start an article on this band and saw that it had been previously deleted - can I get it restored please so I can check out if it had any useful sources etc? Thanks. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Request Granted, see User:CordeliaHenrietta/CaimanFu. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was tagged for speedy deletion under

I've overturned my decision and have listed this article at AfD to avoid any further drama. Would an uninvolved admin be so kind as to close this DRV? Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn & List at AFD Natch.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Wow. Talk about the standard case of assuming bad faith. Geez. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily Overturn with Trout A speedy declined by one admin is no longer an uncontroversial deletion. I'm all for A7-ing #wikipedia-en-admins though. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion CSD (and for that matter, all WP policy) is open to the spirit, rather than the letter of the policy. It is for articles that would unquestionably be deleted if met with review by the full community. The article in question met that standard; it was a non-notable ad campaign that was poorly sourced. In fact, I debated whether to delete it under G11, before deciding that A7 would suffice. There is a "web content" clause of A7 that I imagine would include this type of content, though the article was written so poorly and without context that I'm unsure where this ad even appeared. This debate seems to focus much more on
  means rather than on ends. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • CSD has never been about guessing what the results of an AFD would be, assuming the article was not improved during the AFD (which is often untrue). If predicting the results of an AFD was the point of speedy deletion policy, that's all CSD would say. Instead, it says to send it to AFD it the speedy deletion is controversial. --W.marsh 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... curious. I don't remember saying that CSD was a guessing game. But I will say that CSD, especially A7, has always been applied through an admin's judgment as to whether to article is would pass / fail AfD, or if the article needs further review from the community. This article did not. Also, I would ask you kindly to remove any unsourced accusations from the intro paragraph, particularly anything that would not assume good faith. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "intro paragraph" do you mean my DRV nomination? The only conclusion I made was that your deletion was contradicted by policy. Anyway, an admin did apply a judgment on this article, and I said further review from the community was needed. Then you reversed me. CSD A7 has always been about whether a reasonable assertion of importance is there or not... not about guessing whether it would "pass / fail AfD" as you say. --W.marsh 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & list at AFD. No assumption of bad faith here, but this made at least a tenuous claim of potential notability, enough of a gray area to remove it from the jurisdiction of CSD. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Some people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are notable mainly or only because of being a critic of Islam. I cannot think of any other better category for them. Andries (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My deletion was following this CfD, which was unanimously to delete. the wub "?!" 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the potential problem with this category, mainly that it is not a defining category for most people who ever made a critical comment about Islam, but for some it is. I propose that only people should be included who are famous or notable mainly because of their criticisms of Islam. Andries (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closed correctly. --Kbdank71 16:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is something I do not dispute. I am only missing the correct category for people like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What is the alternative that you propose category:anti-Islam activists? Andries (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I suggest the DRV is closed, this isn't an editing advice service. Have you considered that if the consensus was that such a category was "unrequired", then there is no requirement to put these people in such a category? They already appear in various categories. I guess it's a matter of perspective as to what they are mainly notable for, making blanket assertions of such is not really helpful. In reality their notability (as indeed hopefully for anyone/anything) on wikipedia is rooted in the fact that the rest of the world find them interesting enough that multiple reliable sources have chosen to write about them. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments, but I disagree with everything you write. For example, there can be no doubt that Geert Wilders is mainly notable for his criticism of Islam or attacks on Islam. There are several people like him and hence a category is required. Andries (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You disagree with everything I write? So you believe that DRV is an editing advice service? You believe that notability isn't rooted in the broader world considering them important enough to write about them in multiple reliable sources? (I guess you've not read
          WP:N then?) As for disagreeing about the need for the category, this isn't xFD round 2, the consensus was that it isn't need/required/suitable, if you merely want to reargue that DRV isn't the place. But even that isn't disagreeing with me, since you've already agreed that the consensus was to delete it. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • • I believe that people who reject a category title for a clearly required category should also take the effort to think of another category title. Andries (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again you are making broad assertions "clearly required category", sticking "clearly" infront of something doesn't make it a universally accepted truth. The CFD disagreed that it was clearly required, indeed it decided it clearly wasn't/isn't required. You are just rearguing the deletion debate, which DRV very explicitly isn't for. Even if a agreed that the CFD only saw the title as being a problem (it didn't issue of original research, being far too broad etc were bought up) DRV isn't the place to enforce some policy change that they should be "required" to suggest an alternate title. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to go ahead and agree with the anon in regards to raising a DRV to get advice. Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam? --Kbdank71 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kbdank71, I asked the question there, as per your request. Kbdankl71 and other who endorse deletion can propose alternatives there. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Category_name_requested_for_people_like_Geert_Wilders_and_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali Andries (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The arguments at the DREV were not even raised at the CfD--possibly the CfD was not noticed. It might well give a different result with a better discussion. DGG (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was already CFD'ed twice in 2007. How many times should we relist a "delete" decision before the desired outcome is achieved? --Kbdank71 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well such detail hasn't stopped the nominator creating category:anti-Islam activists which I can't see addresses the issue raised in the CFD, I can see one of the two individuals listed has already been removed from that category and a brief discussion (two comments) here suggesting Category:Criticism of Islam to be more appropriate. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 81.104.39.63, category:anti-Islam activists addresses some of the issues of the CFD i.e. that it is less vague, but it may not be as neutral as critics of Islam and has a different, though overlapping meaning. Andries (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the logic of the nomination was impeccable, the discussion was unanimous in favor of deletion and the closing admin correctly interpreted a unanimous discussion to delete as consensus to delete. There's nothing new here, no compelling argument to overturn that unanimous consensus. "I can't think of another name" is not a valid reason to overturn.
  talk) 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Montblanc America's Signatures for Freedom pens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a deletion of a block of pages that I had created quite a long time ago. I was on vacation when the debate happened and did not get a chance to participate. Some were PRODs and some were AfDs. I'd like to pull it back up and have a chance to defend them.

These were lists of collectable pens and were moved to these pages to clean up the Mont Blanc pen main article. Where the links still exist. These pages were not advertising or spam, but links to the individuals recognized by having a pen made in there honor. For example the Writers Edition list had links to Hemingway, Agatha Christie and Voltaire. Some of the lists were shorter then others but we would expect these to increase each year as a new individual was recognized and received the honor.

I think that the short discussion on this block, shows that many editors only looked at the first page (in alphabetical order) whcih was probably the weakest. Anyway, I'm asking for a reinstatement so we can have the debate and I have a chance to defend the pages. Or an undelete and I can improve them. Perhaps if we combined all the pages into one long list with sections. - BMcCJ (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Were these articles well sourced?
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, although the best source would be the company. I suppose this is similar to a list of popular model names for any brand, like a list of popular or special edition Toyota vechicles. They are useful, and encyclopedic, yet don't belong on the Toyota main article page. - BMcCJ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I had a look at the deleted articles, they all had only primary sources so external notability of the subject area has not been established.
      Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment leaning endorse The one linked above has one entry ("George Washington, 2007") and a blog link. Another one I checked has more listing but no sources. Not making any judgement on the merit of including the info somewhere if it can be properly sourced, but I don't see a reason to bring them back in this convoluted form. Also, if this was branched out from the
  Montblanc article, the info should still be in the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The First one (alphabetically) was the weakest, as that series just started last year. But for collectors, very useful. The Writer's Edition and Patron of Arts pages were longer and more significant, going back to the early 1980's. What's useful about these is the collection of links to the recognized individuals, all whom are notable, a few of whom did not yet have Wikipedia entries but warranted them and received their own entries because it was thus noted that Wikipedia was lacking (in regards to them). - BMcCJ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. but Allow creation of a single combined article, per BMcCJ I cannot imagine this having a different result. DGG (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps in the different. single list/page form. - BMcCJ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Consensus was to delete and nothing that establishes notability presented here Corpx (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur I recall my request and will put together the single referenced notable article, if it ends up being that. Thanks All! - BMcCJ (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unilateral out-of-process deletion, contrary to AFD outcome. Result of AFD was fast keep. Jwray (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is quite odd. The AfD was closed as "early keep" (unanimous votes to keep), yet the nominator subsequently speedy deleted it as G10 and a violation of
  WP:BLP. MKoltnow 06:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment This was also a former frontpage DYK article. It was embarrassing to Scientology. Jwray (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note the AFD was closed by a sitting arb. I'm very interested in the explanation of their reasoning from the deleting admin. I'm leaning towards relisting this.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You endorsed the deletion last time. Just FYI. :) Mangojuice^talk 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That just shows you that a) my memory sucks & b) my approach to deletion is less deletionist then it used to be. If we have alreay done this then there is no misuse of process to worry about so I endorse again. Note that per BLP recreation requires a clear consensus to do so.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I want to wait for Mangojuice's explanation before deciding either way, but I see no BLP violations in the deleted article. There are some assertions that could be considered negative (court cases, for instance), but all are supported by reliable sources. On first glance, an article like this would require careful monitoring, not outright deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the later deletion. People should really give me a chance to explain before opening this. My action was already reviewed at DRV, and was thoroughly endorsed. See
  canvassed at the Scientology WikiProject and closed within a few hours, not giving the community at large the chance to respond. I'd really rather not have that debate all over again: if Jwray had even read the rest of my talk page he would have found the other discussion. Mangojuice^talk 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Where was it canvassed? A neutral listing at Wikproject Scientology does not fit the Wikipedia definition of
    canvassing. I cannot find the link. Andries (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I considered it canvassing: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS which got sorted out somewhat later, indicated a long-term pattern of disruption so serious that all Scientology-related articles had to be put on probation. But this isn't so relevant anyway, because the deletion was not about the AfD. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the term
  WP:COATRACK, which popped up as a wikipedia-only neologism on 7 AUG 2007, has been gaining increasing useage lately in XfD and DRV, and it is used in a variety of inconsistent ways. By reading the actual essay, one can garner the intended purpose, but it seems to get used as an adjective synonymous to stinky or just really bad. I physically want to vomit everytime I see it. For the benefit of those reviewing this DRV could you actually articulate the offensive nature of this particular article without just referring to the ephemeral coatrack term? JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article is about a police officer who lost his job. It made the local papers once years ago and then was forgotten, but this is the source of all the notability this person has. The article was really about the Church of Scientology and its abusive practices involving private investigators; mainly, the article was trying to lay out every obscure objectionable thing Ingram was connected to. This was not and could never become an appropriate biography, and the points that were being aimed at belong in other articles. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. That makes great sense.JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion actual previous AFD closure is moot. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Olympiad in Informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

See Ukrainian_Olympiad_in_Informatics, Turkish Informatics Olympiad, Indian Computing Olympiad and British Informatics Olympiad. Those topics are about national Informatic Olympiads. Petar Marjanovic 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen AfD - probably
  consensus should be sought. Guest9999 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• PROCEDURAL OBJECTION (as closing administrator) the nominator made no attempt whatsoever to discuss this AFD with me prior to filing a delrev, as is required under
  WP:DRV. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Delete Closure (as closing administrator) This AfD was listed for the full 5-day period, and there were no participants who raised any objections, concerns, or hesitation to delete. Each delete recommendation included a fully-articulated sensible rationale based solidly on policy and precedent. It was clear to me that relisting this AfD would not change the outcome. A review of nearly any day's log will show that I relist a huge number of AfD's, so closing debates with low participation is not a matter I take lightly. But when policy-based consensus is clear, it is clear. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and AfD is not a plurality vote system. The nominator is not raising any valid concerns with the determination of rough consensus in the AfD, but is rather bringing up a new argument which was never put forth in the AfD; this argument is essentially
  OSE-based, and is not compelling enough, IMO, to overturn the AfD.JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak endorse I !voted for delete; Besides the 4 mentioned there are also Central European Olympiad in Informatics and National Olympiad in Informatics, China. The Turkish and Ukrainian articles are considerably fuller, but none of them really have any independent references for notability. There is however more information for this network of national contests: they actually publish what looks like an academic journal, Olympiads in Informatics] with decent pedagogical articles; there are now 80 participating countries. I can not imagine articles on each of them, unless someone can find references--there might be some in nation journals of computer science or mathematics education. I am not sure but we might have some precedents for considering national level contests at the high school level significant. I'd suggest a section on the national ones in the main article International Olympiad in Informatics to perhaps eventually expand into a separate combination article to go with the one on the international event. But I would have no objections to a renewed discussion. DGG (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion due to lack of reasoning. If I'm understanding the nominator correctly, they're saying "Here's a small handful of other non-notable and poorly-sourced articles that exist, which means my non-notable and poorly-sourced article should exist too!" That's the essence of
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and we just don't work that way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

This image is a legitimate flyer that was distributed by the Million Dads March Network at a rally in Topeka, KS, Washington DC, Albuquerque, and New Jersey. It was used only on the article about the Million Dads March Network, as part of a description about the organization. There is no reason to delete it, because it's relevant to the article and doesn't violate wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. Thomas Lessman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article the image was used in looks to be on the way to deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Dads March Network. Presumeably the flyer is a copyrighted work so even if deletion review was succesful it would then just be deleted as an orphaned non-free image anyway. Since the article doesn't mention the materials used or handed out by the group it does seem that the image may have just been there to disparage the subject rather than to illustrate those materials - in which case speedy G10 was appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Valid speedy - attack image that was being used to illustrate an article about a men's group not an article documenting any sources concerns about the subject of the article. I'd say it does breech BLP and in any event the article concerned is up for deletion and likely to be deleted so this all seems rather moot.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per Spartaz. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion image was not used in a manner that would qualify under fair use and was likley the copyrighted material of the organization discussed above. The material was apparently used in a manner to disparage the subject, and therefore qualifies as attack media. So double whammy csd reasons G10, G12/I9.JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 1 The Million Dads March Network article will likely stay. Once concerns were raised about it, the resulting debates revealed what was needed to save it. We're gathering that information, some of it has been posted, and more is on the way over the next week. Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 2 The article originally DID mention that the flyer image was one of the pieces of literature distributed by the MDM Network. Someone else later deleted that information. I'm looking for a reference or citation to verify it. Most of the media coverage for those rallies was on the Radio. Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 3 The only "copyright" on the image is the same as with the historical maps I've created and uploaded. They are free use for public or educational use, on condition of leaving the Image's name/author/source/and Date. This flyer doesn't have that information, which is fine. As long as it's for public or educational use, and as long as the user includes info about where he got the image and who the original author is. What kind of license would that fall under? Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry how do you derive that as the copyright? This was a flyer designed by someone, that someone has an automatic and implicit copyright ownership of their original creative work. Has that person explicitly agreed to a release it under a free license? (i.e. not an assumption and printing up a million copies and distributing them for free isn't such an explicit release, they still have copyright control of their own work). I'm also not sure what "public or educational use" means, I can't see the need to distinguish between public and educational, unless this is some sort of non-commercial license, which is not a permissible license for wikipedia. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image, several years ago, and thus any copyright would be held by me. And I made the flyer available under the free license with attribution. So copyright shouldn't be an issue with this image. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse. Looking at the image (it is also on the internet), it is inconceivable that we would use it in an article on the organisation; a mere piece of literature distributed verbal;ly and pictorially attacking one judge in one particular state is not a good single representative image of their activity. The content furthermore is a clear violation of BLP. Even if it were PD it would be an obvious G10. DGG (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Found the image on the net...pure attack. And I'm fairly certain that the copyright for image the head was stuck on to belongs to George Lucas. Also, the article this is/was to be used in is headed for a unanimous delete. --Smashville^BONK! 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's a moot point now as the article has been deleted. --Smashville^BONK! 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Improper speedy delete. My nomination was not WP:POINT. While it's true I nominate a number of articles for deletion, each has resulted in a valid AfD discussion. This one wasn't even given the chance. The TV show is not current, there is no discussion of the show outside the fandom and the sole source of the article is an IMDb link, which is not considered reliable. I believe the nomination was closed as WP:Point because the person doing so User:Greswick or User:D.M.N. do not like that I nominated an article they worked on for deletion. If someone truly believes Sisters (TV series) should be kept, I'd like to know why. This is clearly a wrongly tagged speedy. With the exception of Air transport.... which I agree may have been a poor nomination on my part, my other nominations are currently undergoing valid discussion. Kumqat1406 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment nom seems to mean improper speedy keep, not improper speedy delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no requirement in policy that we just write about things still on the air or still massively popular. A cursory glance reveals a lot of potential sources from newspapers, 1,000+ actually.[24] This just had no chance of being deleted... say what you want about "Secret" he does know what the precedents in deletion are as well as almost anyone. Your nomination is wildly out of step even with the current deletionist attitude towards fiction. I might have let the AFD run, but I see no point in overturning the decision at this point. --W.marsh 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my Speedy close major tv shows by the major four networks are never deleted in AFD, no matter if they are still in the air or not. I highly recommend to read
  reliable sources exist for the article. Secret ^account 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • It's not a television espisote though, it's an
    Emmy award winning show. Secret ^account 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I agree with the speedy closure (primarily based on the rather poor nomination, if it had been a strong policy based nomination then it would have been different), but aren't comfortable with your comments on "never deleted in AFD" and
      Stare decisis, certainly consensus can change and consensus doesn't trump our core policies. It should be quite evident that if we close stuff early because we never delete becomes rather self fulfilling. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • It's a self-correcting problem; for one thing, if they object, they can always take it here, where people are pretty free about sending things to AfD. People are pretty noisy, and anything where we ignore consensus will get squeaky wheels that demand correction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's plain wrong, wikipedia shouldn't be about shouting loudly. There is nothing in
          WP:OUTCOMES and it's pretty clear about the weight it has. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Endorse closure clearly not non-notable; no other outcome was possible. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure it's a TV show that ran for six seasons on a major network and received an Emmy award. How could it not be kept?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. It would have been preferable to allow some "keep" recommendations to pile up before closing the AfD per
  onesource}} rather than seeking deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tagged as {{

onesource}} per your suggestion. I doubt any cleanup will be done since the article is not currently maintained but *shrug* I'll let this go, although I do not agree with being classed an SPA since I don't believe attempting to improve Wikipedia by proposing the deletion of possibly unencyclopedic articles is a part of SPA. Kumqat1406 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• 'Neutral' - probably is
  notable but could someone find some evidence (significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources), would help settle the situation since none is present in the article or was presented in the (brief) AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Endorse closure - missed a link to 1000 sources... oops. Guest9999 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Several people have done that in this DRV, in fact every comment except the nominator provides some such evidence... it won an Emmy award and over 1,000 published sources seem to exist. --W.marsh 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I missed the link and forgot to uncheck the "past month" box when I did my own search. Double mistake. Apologies, Guest9999 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure per above. Appears to be the action of a disruptive
  SPA. Caknuck (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure per overwheming precedent, notability guidelines have established that any television series broadcast on a national level at any point in time is de facto notable, and then there's the little issue of the Emmy Awards it won. 23skidoo (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This DRV is nonsense. Corvus cornix_talk 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I'll
  WP:RECENTISM, which is one of the few things on which non-deletionists frequently agree. I don't think anyone else in the project has really seriously argued for notability being based on "sticking power". --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure per above comments. D.M.N. (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy keep. Nomination was at best misguided, at worst deliberate disruption. Emmy award winner, long-running TV series, etc. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Having looked at the article and the above comments, the show appears to be notable and neither an AfD nor this resulting DRV was needed.
  1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure, although I certainly would have given it more that 20 minutes and one comment on AfD, the fact is, there's no way it would be deleted, and re-opening the debate would serve no purpose other than worship of bureaucracy. --Stormie (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Greg Benson AfD discussion was closed as a no consensus/default keep despite there being a clear consensus to delete. Although two editors actually submitted multiple keep votes, their comments were overwhelmed by seven votes in favor of deletion. Those commenting in favor of deletion included the article's original author, who changed his mind after finding out that the article's subject would rather have it deleted. Further, several delete comments specifically addressed and discounted the sources used in compiling the article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's rather disturbing that information in this article is basically sourced to his birth certificate. The other sources are all YouTube and IMDB and others that are not optimal for writing an encyclopedia article, the only real prose one is just a press release. This article is built up skillfully but the sourcing is really weak, I'd have voted to delete at AFD, I think. And reading the AFD... this probably should have been closed as a delete... the two people who wanted to keep it didn't provide very strong arguments. Either Relist or outright Delete. --W.marsh 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural objection (as closing administrator) no effort whatsoever was made to discuss this closing before listing it at DELREV. This is contrary to the instructions provided at
  WP:DELREV. I would have expected an administrator nominator to know this and at least try to follow the instructions. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is true. I'm not sure any admin has ever objected on these grounds since that wording was changed... I'm not really sure what we're supposed to do. As I said on
    WT:DRV that wording is problematic since it doesn't make sense to invalidate an otherwise valid DRV over a lack of notification before the DRV. So you're setting a precedent, Jerry! --W.marsh 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Sorry, this was a hasty oversight on my part. I have asked Jerry to engage in a dialog on his talk page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've agreed to continue the discussion here. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omg! Do we now have an even more complicated system then we used to where admins can now object to a DRV because the right forms were not filled out in triplicate first? I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this. DRV is to help users get decisions reviewed and adding hurdles simply adds to the concept of one rule for admins and one rule for everyone else. I'm sorry by I procedurally object to Jerry's procedural objection. I agree that the nominator should have contacted the closing admin but we have all been at the shitty end of this kind of thing and its just one of the joys of being an admin.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Straw polls are not a substitute for dialogue. If a difference in opinion can be rationally explained to a sufficiently reasonable admin, the admin can choose to overturn his/ her own closing. Also he/she may be able to point out a fatal flaw in the objector's logic, and the objector may say "oh, yeah, my bad." This would eliminate the need for a 5-day mudslinging, feeling-hurting, bad-faith generating, space-wasting, time-consuming, crappy shitty-ended delrev. To raise an objection and create time for such a rational dialogue seems prudent. But when the mudslinging starts in earnest anyway... then away we go. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with your principle and indeed agree that lack of attempted discussion should be highlighted, but per
        WP:NOT a bureacracy we wouldn't invalidate a DRV discussion on such a basis. (I'm sure there are plenty out there who'd happily wait the 5 days and if they didn't get the result they wanted dive in with lack of discussion as a reason to run the whole thing again). In addition to the scenario's you point out, for speedy's few admins will turn down an established contributors desire to fix up a broken article. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • There's further discussion about this rule here. --W.marsh 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Even as a person who favored "keep," I find it odd for someone to declare there wasn't a consensus to delete. In the second discussion, I think I may even have been the only keep! While it's not a vote, and I stand by my reasoning for going with "keep," the consensus the other way seemed pretty clear to me.Lawikitejana (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Closing admin) I felt the discussion was sufficiently divided among responsible wikipedians, which I used my discretion to determine that consensus was not achieved. The benefit of the doubt goes toward keep. Also, several of the delete's said article lacks sources altogether, which seemed to have been subsequently added. Here was my specific assessment:
• Delete

1. Seriousspender - no third-party sources. Also recommends redirect.
2. Michig - No significant coverage. No real claim to notability
3. Secret account - sources are unreliable
4. Master Of Puppets - notability isn't inherited
5. Earthbendingmaster - per above

• Neutral

1. anetode (nom) - says "I'm not sure that there's enough here to establish notability" and does not make a specific recommendation.

• Keep

1. Shoessss - subject is notable for creating/producing notable shows
2. Jammy0002 (creator) - the article is very new and thinks the article can be improved. He later said delete, but under false logic of subject request.
3. Lawikitejana - third-party reliable sources have bene added, including a second honor for film work, selected as a finalist in prestigious competition, weeks of being featured on Amazon.com's main page.

• Contradictory

1. lifebaka - article is a coatrack and fails
   WP:N
   , He removed the section that had sources, and says it now lacks sources. But then he goes on to say that addition of references would likely fix the problems with the article.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Discounting Jammy0002's change of vote as being under the pretense of "false logic" is not within the discretion of the closing admin. I don't think it makes sense to lump him in with the keeps.

He provided valid rationale for keep, and invalid rationale for delete. The delete needed to be discounted per the rough consensus guidelines. Please do not take the format of my rationale above as a votecount. It was just a organized way to list my analysis of each person's comment.JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't twist a delete into a keep. When an editor decides to strike out their initial appraisal, it is not in the administrator's discretion to select which suggestion they like better. Besides, Jammy's rationale for deletion was firmly grounded in

WP:BLP (if not explicitely invoked). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Although I might have not made it sufficiently clear, I was not a neutral party to the discussion. The nomination was put forth because I think the article should be deleted.

I took your words on face value, and assumed it was a procedural nomination, as it quite common. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I'll be more specific in future noms. I nominate articles for deletion when a speedy deletion might be controversial - this one wasn't far off from being a clear A7. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it makes sense to discount lifebaka's vote as self-contradictory. It appears that lifebaka was not satisfied with the sources used in the article and went on to do something about it. The suggestion to provide more reliable sources did not invalidate the original comment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that he removed sources and stated if reliable sources were added then according to him his delete recommendation would be self-discounted. Such sources were added, so I understood his comment as "ignore me if reliable sources get added". People seem to sometimes leave such a comment if they know they do not have the intention to follow-up due to time constraints or lack of interest. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to evaluate whether the revised article would have passed muster by lifebaka without his input. I take it that you meant to classify his comments as discounted and not merely contradictory. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Contradictory could be construed to mean bad faith or nonsense, which I did not intend. Discounted per his own recommendation might have been a better way to summarize that on my part. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn & Delete The article was nominated on the basis of notability and if the article had no real world sources then policy says it needs to be deleted. Consensus needs to be judged against policy and my reading of this was that notability was not established
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and delete sources, sources, sources, if an AFD has an issue with lack of sources that wasn't rebutted, it most likely should be closed as delete, AFD is policy based consensus. Secret ^account 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, OK, but 3 sources were added. Didya notice that bit? Same question to that guy above you. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and none were acceptable... press releases, birth certificates (!) and database results do not make for an accurate, neutral and complete encyclopedia article. --W.marsh 00:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concede (as closer) from the responses here, it is apparent that I determined rough consensus incorrectly. Nearest admin please close as "speedy overturn with closing admin's concurrence" JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not quite sure why the page to this important movement in contemporary art has been protected. Please make it possible for me to edit it. Thank you. --talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this page has been recreated many times but all versions have the same problems. I think we need to keep deleted unless you can show independent sources talking about how this movement exists and is considered important. --W.marsh 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion make a passable article in userspace and then request an admin unprotect and move it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm presuming this is a request for the page to be unsalted. The last deletion was a copyvio and the ones before that were valid G4 ones. Please follow Jerry's excellent advice and create an article in your userspace and resubmit it for approval here. This will require at least two
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - found some sources (some better tha others) not really enough to overturn the
  coatrack). Guest9999 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Survivor Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2)