Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July

Prem chand pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Prem C. Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Prem Chand Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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

Submitting on behalf of

Added links for deleted article Imtial -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I got proper time then I will try to write article Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Founder Director, NCAOR, I asure you Dr. Prem C. Pandey, IIT Bombay is another person and Prof. Prem CHand Pandey, Emeritus Professor IIT Kharagpur is retired person from NCAOR, Goa as a Foundation time director when only official land was aquired and no single quarter was there in 1997. and in 1998 it is officially registered ans NCAOR, goa. He was HOD of MOG group SAC/ISRO, Ahmedabad upto 1996. I have not used single link of PC Pandey, IIT Bombay, but may be repeated link for Prem Chand Pandey it may be improve.

i thinks all references in case of Prem chand pandey is belong with Earth and planetary science discussion or environmental or oceanographic related centres discussion and much more related ecxactly refernces as NCAOR director as you will not get single references of NCAOR, Director Dr. PC pandeyProf. Prem Chand Pandey and Second and present Director Shri Rashik Ravindra on any google web page serch or you can take personally the history of Director ships at NCAOR. yes Bhaskar Rao was workink director for some time there after retirement of first director Dr. P.C. Pandey.

Then why you hesitate if pc pandey's iit bombay's reference I have not submitted to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs)

• That is hardly comprehensible, but I gather that we once had at
  Tikiwont (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think you have parsed the request correctly. It was misfiled on the DRV/Active instead of the daily log, so I moved it here. Looking at the protection log, it was also in February recreated at
    GRBerry 14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• One part of the passage above reads I will try to write article Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Founder Director, NCAOR. It seems that we're being told this is not the same person as another Prem C. Pandey. ¶ Prem C. Pandey was largely and I think exclusively about the person at NCAOR. (Hard to be sure, because it was in such idiosyncratic prose.) It was deleted as the result of an AfD. Prem Chand Pandey and Prem chand pandey were largely and I think exclusively about the person at NCAOR (same caveat); both were deleted as re-creations of the article deleted via AfD. ¶ Like Tikiwont and GRBerry, I don't understand the appeal above. However, if it is "The article titled Prem C. Pandey was about somebody who didn't work at NCAOR but I want to write about somebody who did work in NCAOR", then my response is no, the first half of that is factually untrue. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. (Remind me - my only involvement has been to protect Prem C. Pandey and Prem Chand Pandey - yes?) Before we look at the article, could I have an explanation of the apparent sock puppetry: Ashok rp and Ekbal anuj seem to be very similar in their activities. But to latch on to one small point: do I take it that the article proposed for restoration is similar to that currently at user:Ekbal anuj? That article refers to the Pandey in question having won the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievment Medal. The AfD discussion also mentions it. It seems to my simple and confused mind that the article being proposed for undeletion is about the same person as was discussed at the AfD. The AfD was pretty unanimous, there is no claim that the person has become notable in the last six month, so - endorse deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion unless a more comprehensible rationale for restoration is advanced. Ideally such a rationale would include details of which of the criteria at
  talk) 08:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ashok has provided on his talk page a user draft that I moved to
  Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not yet. Assuming the article in question is User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey. This could possibly be a suitable article, justifying a move to mainspace, but not yet. Clean it up. Be sure that the best independent secondary sources covering the subject are cited in the lead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have given you the entry it may be from old resources or new but if there are many person's are in notable list or in emeritus professor list or SSB Award list or NASA award list of wikipedia, then why Dr. Pandey's names should not be any where. I accept that in his main time he refused offer of NASA people to work for NASA but is in this global world America is not getting any benefit from India Human Resources, which was produced by Dr. Pandey like people. I was doing research on psychology of general wiki commented people on Dr. Prem Chand Pandey, they not know Indian Culture is oldest in the world and he belongs an oldest historical family of Indian Brahmin and he don't give extra value to any country's people. It was his drawback in other peoples eyes who are like a bubble in the modern world having no knowledge of brain power of Indian people and alway not seeing back the American History and only treating which american supported people well tell that will be only true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please another person about which page you have confusion he have nothing to do with earth snd environmental science and he is electrical department professr in IIT Bombay and BHU Product. Prof. Prem C Pandey's profile [5] PCpandey iitb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• see Professor Prem Chand Pandey(Dr. P.C. Pandey),Emeritus Professor IIT Kharagpur, retired (Founder Director)
  Polar Remote Sensing Scientist he have nothing to do with electrical department. [6]and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Seems enough evidence here that a speedy wasn't appropriate, and should at least have been an AFD. And perhaps not even that if the publications are as valid as they seem. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was an AfD. Look, a series of usernames and IP numbers, all writing in a single, distinctive style, have repeatedly been writing long and only intermittently comprehensible articles on one Prem Chand Pandey of NCAOR. You can see one of these even now at User:Ekbal anuj. The AfD was closed (by User:Bongwarrior) with "allow for possible future re-creation" but I presume that this was hurried shorthand for "allow for possible creation of an article on this person that intelligibly describes achievements that are not discernible here". -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That AfD appears to be for a different individual. According to the archive.org cache the article the previous article was for a professor in Electrical Engineering at
      Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur which is confirmed by his bio. They are clearly two different people, and the AfD was for a different person so the Speedy was not appropriate. That the original article had an error with the NCAOR information seems to be part of the problem. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Good sleuthing! But in the state in which I found the article immediately before I slapped the AfD template on it -- this state (unfortunately only visible to admins, who should also see the article history) -- the bit about the electrical engineer was pretty much unchanged and the huge majority was instead about Ashok rp's favorite, as even now written up here. Don't take my word for it, ask another admin to check. (Unfortunately Pandey's deletion seems to have predated Deletopedia and Deletionpedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yet another example of why this should be an AfD instead of a speedy. Your asking us to debate whether the article is valid, without letting us see the evidence; it just doesn't work. We don't have to accept the article. All we have to do is reject the speedy, and then judge the article on it's own merit - possibly with an AfD. I don't disagree that something might be amiss here. Perhaps we should not be restricting deleted articles to only a few people. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you like "temporary review"? If so, just say which form you'd like it in, and I or somebody else hereabouts will oblige. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Presumably starting point for restoration would be User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey? Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is pretty typical of the other versions, yes. But again, if you want "temporary review" of any of the others, just say so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok rp (talk)Now it will be clear what I have mensioned about Dr. Pandey's special co-operation in CORALs Department of IIT Kharagpur please see his involvment in all sponsored project list taken by CORALs IIT Khargpur Project list of CORALs IIT Kharagpur —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The speedy deletion was appropriate because the new version does not adequately address the deficiencies of the original, although it is a slight improvement. When I stated "allow for possible future re-creation" in the original AfD, I had hoped for a more concise, understandable version. Both versions of the article are so muddled that whatever notability exists is completely obscured. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is part of a walled garden of articles promoting this individual and a small closed circle of family members, largely the work of
  vanispamcruftisement, enough already. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

• Comment. Wrong way round! First tell us why you think there should be an article on this title. You can edit your existinbg draft. Unprotection is "automatic" if the decision is "re-instate". Anticipating a proper nomination, my view is: no opinion. I am pretty apathetic about politics here in the UK and as for American politics - yawn. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be an article on this subject because she is notable. See
    talk) 11:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• There is a high potential for BLP/coatrack problems here. I've taken the current second sentence out of the book article twice because the source used is inadequate (partisan blog, referring to internet archive for something deleted from web, yet the internet archive link in the blog is not (now?) working). The more significant claim to notability is related to a politician article protected or semi-protected for almost the entire last week due to allegations involving this individual - and the editorial consensus was not to mention this name in that article. Unless you can demonstrate an article that clearly passes BLP muster and has enough other material to handle discussion of the allegations without becoming a coatrack, I'm not going to support this.
  GRBerry 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree completely that there is a high potential for problems here. But such potential is not reason enough to prevent an article if the subject is notable. I would be happy to lock down this article immediately or if problems develop. I agree that the editorial consensus at
    talk) 12:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The way to show that coatrack won't be a problem is to provide (well-sourced, of course) a significant body of unrelated content. She is only notable by Wikipedia standards if you can find significant coverage that is primarily about her.
      GRBerry 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The notability standards do not require me to find "significant coverage that is primarily about her." I need only show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have done
        talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Decline restoration at this stage. The subject does not pass
  WP:BLP1E, she should be covered only in the context of our coverage (if any) of that affair.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree that
    talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Decline restoration at present, as per
  WP:BLP1E. You may note that our coverage of the situation is quite limited at the moment, specifically because mainstream media hasn't really picked it up and the world would lurch to a halt if we were to use the National Enquirer as a reliable source. The sandboxed article, moreover, does not assert notability, to my view. Outside of the allegations, she's not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline restoration, I guess. The sandbox version of the article doesn't show how she's notable. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, possibly redirect to
  talk) 09:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline restoration as per above. As an answer to
  WP:BLP1E, try showing that you name should be mentioned in at least two other wikipedia articles. The claim is that she is notable because of her connection to John Edwards, yet her name doesn't appear on that page! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline restoration - As others note above, this is a coatrack/POV magnet that serves little useful purpose. Though she's been thrust into the spotlight by tabloid accusations, she has no true encyclopedic notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Favour restoration Like David Kane, i think that there should be a Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck) article. In addition to her work as a film-maker, and the alleged current connection to John Edwards, we also have the notability of her connection to the 1988 roman a clef novel Story of My Life written by her then-lover Jay McInerney: This well-known author has gone on record that the book's main character, named Alison Poole, was based on the real-life Druck (now Hunter). Google has 171,000 web pages on the search term <"Rielle Hunter"> in quotes, plus 6,020 for <"Lisa Druck"> in quotes, as well as 4,650 for the combined <"Lisa Druck" "Rielle Hunter"> together with each in quotes. To put the 171,000 "Rielle Hunter" pages in context, "Elvira Mistress of the Dark" produces a comparable 166,000 hits and Cassandra Peterson / Elvira has a Wikipedia entry. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being the subject of a popular novel is generally enough for us to write an article on said person unless there is evidence that the person is well known because of it, which I don't see from current sourcing. The only reason why people seem to care about who she is is because of the JE controversy. I'm sure you'd find countless novels with real life people as an inspiration most of them without articles on the people because the people were never/are not notable Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The is a fast moving controversy, so let me provide some updates. First, I have

• Suggest redirecting to
  John Edwards love child allegations. Kelly ^hi! 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • ..which has now been speedily deleted as an attack page, a deletion which could well spawn its own DRV discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the consensus at ANI was that article was not an attack page, and the article has been restored as
      John Edwards paternity allegations - though that is currently at AfD. Consensus seems to be leaning toward "keep", though it's still early. Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Decline restoration. The brevity of the proposed article should make it clear that she is a non-notable person;
  WP:COATRACK and a magnet for vandalism. Ms. Hunter doesn't need this article, and neither do we. Terraxos (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• article
  )
• article
  )
• article
  )
• article
  )

Images can be claimed under fair use and is somewhat necessary to help visualize this design concept. — OranL (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn — OranL (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been more efficient to contact me at my talkpage if you need some fair-use deletion resolved—or any deletion, for that matter. If you're going to fix some old fair use rationale, it would be best to do dump a list of images, and not flood my talkpage with DRV notices, as DRV notices carry the conotation of "zOMG the abusive admin did a bad deletion. If it's one, it's fine, but three in a few minutes, startles me, for lack of a better word. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've combined the images into one DRV because they more than likely stand or fall together.
  talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The images were deleted for lack of a
  talk) 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree with Stifle, if you can provide a valid fair-use rationale for them I see no problem with them being restored or re-uploaded. If you do indeed have a valid rationale I doubt there would have been a problem in just informing the deleting admin of that fact, making this DRV irrelevant. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Lack of fair use rationale, at times of deletions, and now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Comment Before someone goes and yells "OMG WP:OTHERCRAP", the nom here does make a good point. It would likely make for an interesting discussion to review what was different, if anything, between those two AfDs. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment That's a question more for a sociologist than for DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would help us when considering similar AfDs in the future. This deletion review, after all. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• suggestion Maybe some of this content should be merged with United Airlines Flight 93? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I am neutral on the DRV, but I think if it is endorsed, there should be a redirect to
  boldly done so (with a DRV tag explaining it) --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • while bold, it has removed the cached version from Google so we can no longer review it. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, fiddlesticks. Sorry. Well, the history should probably be restored anyways if the redirect goes in place, if that's the result. Can it be done? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The victims are less notable for encyclopedic purposes than the hijackers. One group were incidental to the event, the other caused it. I have no objection to the redirect. DGG (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Both AfDs were close, but there is no apparent procedural problem. I imagine that a good article could be written despite
  WP:BLP1E on the basis of good independent secondary sources covering the subject. Things appear in goodle. I'd guess that there are books covering all of the victims. Create the article in userspace. Restore the history and talk page, but maintain as a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Keep in mind that there were 40 victims and only 4 highjackers. In the entire incident there were 3,000 murders, over 6,000 injuries, and only 19 highjackers. It's not unreasonable to see that there perhaps should be articles for those who perpetrated this. Also in cases of murder, it's customary to have an article for the murderer, but not the victim.
  Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) (which isn't finalised) suggests that there should not be an article for the victim, unless they were otherwise notable, and that there shouldn't be an article for the Perpetrator, unless they are otherwise notable, they killed a famous figure, or the motivation or "execution of the crime is unusual". And the execution of this crime was indeed most unusual. Though I don't see any reason the 4, or even 19, highjackers wouldn't have a single article. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also note WP:NOT#PAPER. We can have 3000 pages for the victims, as long as there is different source-based encylopedic content (whatever that means) in each article. We could also easily have 3000 redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Al nami’s page was kept in spite of the facts that Felt is more notable and more is known about Felt’s actions during the incident both of them are known for. If wiki wants to claim it’s neutral, Felt’s page should be restored. Steve8675309 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Normally there are not pages for victims of crime for which this is their only claim to fame. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse One event notability as a crime victim has been established by long-standing consensus as inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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

I'll just repost what I said on the deletor's talk page: I don't see how you can consider that church (which incidentally predates three provinces and two territories) as not notable. The article notes the role it had in the development of Westboro village and bringing in and supporting the Ottawa Baptist community, it has a larger congregation than the eponymous US church and its name has brought it much infamous attention. It and All Saint's Anglican are the two big main churches in the area and it's also has the only Montessori programme in the immediate area. I always planed to add more info (and noticed the deletion because I was going to) but I thought it already had enough info to allay any notability concerns. Moreover, churches with less history, less importance and less information remain here on the Wiki, but this one was deleted? You should have put in a notability tag on the article or contacted me with any concerns or at the very least put it up for a deletion vote, especially considering your unfamiliarity on the topic, instead of unilaterally deciding it didn't have importance and speedy deleting it. Regardless, it is an important church today and had an important impact on the development of Ottawa, please restore the article.

What I find really questionable is the capricious and spurious nature of the speedy deletion especially considering the nescience of the deletor in regards to the topic, the confusing explanation of "Doesn't indicate importance or significance" despite the historical section demonstrating its significance in the early development of the Ottawa region and the complete lack of anyone else having had issue with the content or quality of the article. And given his unfamiliarity on the topic, why didn't the deletor first attempt to either put a tag or post on the article's talk page or send me a note to inform me of his notability concerns or at the most, nominate it for deletion? D'Iberville (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There really wasn't anything there that asserted imporance much, I'd have to agree, but I still will argue to overturn because I'm loath to give
  A7 ground over churches. I'd much rather see an AfD for this, though I do believe it isn't likely it'll be kept. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The faux outrage here is irritating. I made perfectly clear that I was happy to reverse my deletion if a reliable source demonstrating importance could be presented. To take this as some sort of tyranny on my part and to go storming to DRV instead of the far simpler act of showing me a source makes me deeply unamused.
  talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So you're just going to create a straw man with some ad hominems of "faux outrage" and "storming down here", "saying you have a tyrannical behaviour" and attempt to avoid the principal point that your deletion was overzealous and in error; you didn't attempt to warn someone or post on the page that you questioned the notability, you didn't even nominate it for deletion— you didn't do anything to allow me or anyone else to attempt to improve the article and allay any concerns, you just flat out deleted it. This is the problem I have and since I believe you were wrong in your original deletion, rather than attempt to appease you to restore the article, we should make it clear that you were wrong since it will not only restore this article but you'll probably think twice before speedy deleting other articles without prior warning or discussion.--D'Iberville (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm going to say "Look, you can get this undeleted easily and without drama. Please, by all means, do so." And yet instead of taking this easy out we're here.
      talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Again, you completely avoid the point. You shouldn't have unilaterally deleted it in the first place. If you had bothered to write a quick note "this article needs more X or it'll be deleted" or "I'm nominating for deletion because of Y", I or someone else could have listened to those concerns, attempt to mollify them and either succeed leading to a better article or failed leading to a community consensus of removal. But I am not going to attempt provide any incentive to convince you to reverse your action since that original action was wrong from the get go.--D'Iberville (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It had no assertion of notability, and was a valid speedy target. I'm happy to reverse the speedy if you provide even a modicum of a reason for me to do so, and find your pontificating to be convincing evidence that you don't have a case.
          talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I would have to question why, if it indeed had "no assertion of notability", why as I noted previously, other articles about churches with even less history and less information found within Wikipedia remain whole. To reiterate yet again, you were wrong in deleting it as evidenced by the fact that if only a "modicum of reason" was needed for it not to be deleted then implicitly the speedy deletion of the article was a dubious decision and it remains inexplicable why you simply did not ask for any modica before acting. As I already noted at the start, I discovered the deletion due to my wanting to add additional information to the article but I will not validate your erroneous action by providing you any reason to reverse your mistake which might give the perception that you were originally correct in deleting it and moreover, no one should be required to provide a reason to undelete something that shouldn't have been speedy deleted in the first place.--D'Iberville (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • They exist because nobody has gotten around to deleting them. Their existence is not evidence that they are in compliance with our rules. It is merely evidence that nobody has deleted them.
              talk) 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • reliable sources to support your claim. <Editor comes back with a source.> Phil: That's not a reliable source -- Allowing it is more than my job's worth. <Editor finds information supporting the reliability of the source.> Phil: Well, it might be reliable, but it isn't reliable enough.
                I've seen the Lucy and the football routine before from this admin. My dim view of that technique continues unabated. --SSBohio 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
                ]
• Endorse. After looking over the deleted article, the filer's complaints and assertions don't seem to hold. The article did nothing to explain the church's role in the development of Westboro village nor did it illustrate the church's role in Ottawa's Baptist community. There is no indication that the name has brought the church any sort of "infamous attention", except by self-reference to an archived old version of the church's website explaining the lack of affiliation. That information was also presented with
  other less noteworthy articles exist" and "it's important"). I'm also concerned by the first overturn comment, as there's no substantive reason to treat churches differently from other topics in relation to inclusion. Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wikipedia editors collectively are a bit divided on what a church is. Some think that it is a building, and thus we get all sorts of articles about the buildings that ignore the people who use(d) it. Under this interpretation, such an article is not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. Others think it is a congregation of believers, and we get articles on congregations that barely mention or don't mention the building. I'm in the second group, and since a congregation of believers is a group of people, I consider churches eligible for A7. In this case, I'd looked at this specific article last month when sorting all articles in
  GRBerry 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well that's the thing, I wanted to add some more information (including incidentally a line about the building itself) which should reduce a bit some notability concerns (and there is a book in the Ottawa Room of the Central Ottawa Library that has substantive information about it but it can't be taken out of that room and honestly I have a big list of other priorities I have to do before spending an afternoon reading it). Again, my beef is not with whether or not the article should be deleted, it has to do with the manner in which it was deleted. I, nor anyone else, was given the opportunity to try and fix the article as we weren't even told there were problems with the article. And a quick comment to Vassyana's comment. If you check the webpage right now, you'll see a large message stating that they aren't affiliated with Phelps and the article, from what I remember notes this so it isn't just "an archived old version of the church's website". It is a big problem for them since people still keep thinking they're somehow a Canadian chapter. Also, if the article stated that the Church was "slightly more progressive than mainstream Baptism" and in actuality it's "mainstream Baptism", I would not consider the whole of the commentary to be "grossly inaccurate". Ideally, I'd like the chance to improve the article and if nothing else, this whole conversation will help me to do so, but not I, nor anyone else was were told that there was a problem or even given the chance to improve it.--D'Iberville (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As GRBerry has well explained, there are different interpretations on how to deal with church articles, and depending on interpretation, this article may or may not have been a valid speedy deletion. However, looking at the deleted article, two things are clear: (1) There was no indication of why the subject is important or significant (2) without such an indication, sourced to
  reliable sources, it is exceedingly unlikely that this article would survive an AfD discussion. If D'Iberville or some other editor is confident that they can establish notability, I'd be willing to undelete the article for them to do so, but without some reference being provided, it just seems like it would be a waste of time. --Stormie (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Definitely endorse deletion now that Tikiwont has found that an article on this church was deleted after an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywide Church. --Stormie (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I concur with the assessments above. There was nothing in the deleted content which asserted the notability of this church. (The sole comment that included the phrase "well-known" referred to the Topeka church. Notability is not inherited. One does not gain independent notability merely by being named the same as a notable person or organization.) On the question of whether
  WP:CORP (and by extension, CSD A7) apply to churches, I think in this case it is clear. There is no assertion in the article or in this nomination that the church is at all notable for its architecture or for any of the other factors that sometimes distinguish churches from other organizations. (Neither did the picture of the church show any distinctive architecture.) Unless someone can come up with independently sourced evidence why this church is special, it should be subject to Westfield's generally accepted inclusion criteria as an organization. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• From the logs, one can see a deleted redirect as a previous article was moved to
  Tikiwont (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Because this was a
  CSD A7 is for. --SSBohio 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I just wanted to highlight the following: Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. From the second link:A man tries to build a house. (...) Soon, a building inspector comes by. (...) "And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on." "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!" The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

As you can see by the dates of my contributions, editing Wikipedia is not something I do on a regular basis. Though I do go to this site several times I day, I only edit when I see something that needs editing. When I created the article, I believed there was enough content in it to satisfy it's inclusion and planned to add more information at the usual leisurely pace to which I contribute. However I did put the article on my watch page and periodically verified it to see if any problems or concerns reared up. None did. Now one person came upon this article and didn't believe it merited inclusion. That's fine (and the comments here clearly demonstrated that the article does need a decent amount of improvement). But instead of voicing his concerns or giving advanced warning, he immediately removed it. And I only find out when I come to add additional information, proverbially improving on this unfinished house. But the difference in this case is that the building inspector did not tell me that there were problems with my house nor warned me that he was going to demolish it.--D'Iberville (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I understand where you coming from and am sorry for this being a frustrating experience. One suggestion we have in such cases is to let things grow as drafts in user pace. My own issue is mostly that there has already been a deletion discussion which I now have linked at the top as well, albeit under a different title and seemingly unknown both to you and the deleting admin. So there has already a house been built by another editor in the past and it was decided by community consensus to take it down. that doesn't mean that there should never ever be such a house but rather that it needs a better plan than what we've seen so far even if we restored it. It already had a chance and its potential has already be evaluated once. So if you really think there is sufficient potential to address also the previous concerns, building it calmly in userspace and reviewing it here, might be the way to move forward.--

Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn Westbury--not a speedy, and that's all there is to it. Makes a claim to being an historic church. Whether it is sufficiently historic to be notable is for an afd. Tota;lly wrong for admins to delete as A7 on theb asis of their opinion of whether or not something is notable. That's for the community if challenged. I cannot see further why any admin would turn down any reasonable request to undelete and send to afd . DGG (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Citywide Church, as there was a valid AFD. Overturn Westboro, as I don't think A7 applies there.
  talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I notice that Westboro had been moved to Citywide, but the article content seems to be different, so a G4 isn't valid. I stick with my original opinion, in so far as it makes sense.

  talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• List at AfD for the speedy. The nominator here is asserting notability. CSD#A7s should be listed without drama on the basis of a good faith request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Westboro, A7 doesn't cover buildings and churches are organisations but predominantly they are buildings. RMHED (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - there is more than enough evidence that this shouldn't be a speedy. There is no cache available, so we need to do an AfD on this, or else most people can't see the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. What on earth is the point of undeleting these and sending them to AfD just because you disagree that a church can be interpreted as an organisation per CSD A7? The articles gave absolutely no indication of notability, no independent sources and were generic directory entries at best. Sending to AfD is needless process wonkery. A church is an organisation (and that, friends, comes from the Bible itself) so these are legitimately covered by A7 even if the organisation has chosen to build a building around itself. That, plus the
  WP:COATRACK issues with the Citywide article in particular, makes for a problem that was rightly solved by nuking the articles. Feel free to try a sourced, neutral, non-coatrack rewrite in userspace. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have no idea what was in the Citywide article and didn't even know of its existence until someone mentioned it above and this deletion review has nothing to do with the Citywide article which was removed because it was really an attack piece (though I add, it was removed after an AfD so there was fair warning to those who did contribute to it) and there is no issue of an agenda with the creation of this one. Also, there is clearly there is a debate whether a church is a building or the people within the building as seen in this discussion. Regardless of your position on this particular topic, the purpose of the article was to give basic current information about the church and indicate the role that that particular church had in the past eight decades in the development of Westboro. There are a couple of rare books in the special Ottawa Room of the Central Library of the OPL which do the latter however, whenever I do have free time, reading those books is not the first thing I think of and as I noted earlier, editing Wikipedia is not something I do on a daily basis. As a corollary of this, I do not know the ins and outs of every requirement, bureaucratic rule or essay considered as policy but I do know that one of the cornerstones of this site is supposed to be that the community helps in the creation of an article by improving it themselves (which is admittedly somewhat difficult with this article unless you live around Ottawa) or indicating the problems and shortcomings of the article. I thought I had inserted enough information to give it enough credence to survive but I still checked every day the two weeks after I created it and a couple of times a week afterwards to make sure that there weren't any problems. Now I came back here of my own accord to improve the article by adding more info and it's gone. No template on the article, no warning on any talk page and no AfD. Now whether or not you believe this article should be deleted is not the issue at hand, the issue is that it was unilaterally removed by one person who did not attempt in any way to advise anyone that the article was wanting in anyway. Now, though I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the law of Wikipedia, this action, to me, seem to violate the spirit of Wikipedia.--D'Iberville (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you are in a position to judge for yourself that the articles gave absolutely no indication of notability, but the rest of us aren't. You have come to your conclusion, but your conclusion is not the only one reached

Speedy deletion is not a justification for deleting an article when whether the article meets the criterion cited is a matter of dispute. If you are convinced of the absolute lack of assertion of notability in this article, then undelete it and AfD it; That way, we'll all see what you see. Until then, your arguments are being advanced without any factual foundation while you exercise a tremendous advantage through your access to the content in dispute. I call on you to level the playing field and allow the community to determine what should happen to this article. --SSBohio 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion. Whether or not A7 was properly applied in this case, the article should be deleted and will certainly be deleted inder whatever process the closer of the DRv adopts. under the principal of
  WP:SNOW, I suggest that it simply stay deleted rather than being undeleted for a pro forma five days just to chastise Phil. Send him a trout if you want but there is no good reason to overturn what is clearly the correct ultimate decision. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The point of going through the motions of listing for discussion and then deleting after five days is not to chastise Phil, but to respect the right of process for the newcomer DRV nominator. There is the chance that the AfD will be a valuable learning experiences, as opposed to the crushingly empty speedy deletion of a good faith attempt to contribute. There is even the chance that the article can be improved to the minimum threshold (suitable sources found) during the five day discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Eluchil404, per your Snowball link: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause." This discussion clearly demonstrates that there is no unanimous decision. Moreover, again from your own source: "What the snowball clause is not: An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate." From the very start I stated that I created the article with what I thought was enough information to satisfy notability with the idea that I would add much more information at the unhurried pace that I usually edit. Since the editing of this article was never a priority with me and since no one brought forth any concerns, there was no reason to go to the library to get the information required to meet the notability standard. Now given the esoteric topic at hand, I have difficulty seeing how anyone here can assume with any certainty that notability can not be met, especially when considering that those of us who would be more familiar with the topic and have access to specific local information on the topic weren't given any warning: there wasn't an AfD, there wasn't a message on the talk page, there wasn't even a tag warning about notability. So given the topic at hand and given that we had no warnings nor chance to ameliorate the article, how can anyone here state with any certainty that the article is doomed from the get-go?--D'Iberville (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thomas (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted because it apparently didn't meet

• Endorse deletion Player fails
  WP:CRYSTAL violation; there have been hundreds if not thousands of young players who have signed for professional teams and never played. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Saying he's likely to play in 2 years is a
    WP:CRYSTAL violation. Saying he's likely to play within 2 weeks, expecially when all indication shows he -is- likely to do so, is not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This isn't a young player. This is a 24-year old striker who is playing regularily with the first squad in pre-season games, scoring goals, and has plenty of media coverage that passes
      WP:BIO - see here, though there are 25 - many are local, but some are national and significant; these are only from the last week or so, I didn't look back any further.Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn. If there are several sources to indicate notability (and I'm taking the nom's words at face value here when they say this), there's no reason he shouldn't have an article as he meets the general notability guideline. Besides, this idea that a player isn't notable until he actually goes out and kicks a soccer ball is absolutely silly. Apparently this player is very likely to play. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - This player does not currently meet
  Jay 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion I too feel that having to kick the ball in a game is a silly basis for inclusion if WP:N is otherwise met. But that seems to be the consensus. I'd !vote to keep in the AfD, but the close was fine and what I'd expect. Oh, and the nom right before he's likely to play verges on disruption. But, again, the close was reasonable. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I understand it "having to kick the ball in a game is a silly basis for inclusion if WP:N is otherwise met" isn't true. In fact
    WP:ATHLETE is one of the additional criteria. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I agree with that and would have !voted exactly that way in the AfD. That said, it appears that very reasonable view was in the minority in the AfD. Silly in my opinion, but just because I disagree with the result (fairly strongly in this case) doesn't mean it was closed incorrectly. IMO this never should have been sent to AfD, those !voting should have gone for keep based on WP:N, and the closer could have closed it as keep because the keep arguments were stronger. But, the delete close is the expected one in this case. Were I an admin and the closer, I'd have gone no consensus to delete on this one. But his close was reasonable. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You think the close was wrong, but since it was reasonable, the deletion should stand? Wow.
        Process is important, but not that important. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • There is a difference between "wrong" and "different than I'd have done". The joy of all things subjective :-) Hobit (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone even looked into
        WP:N during the AfD. It got overlooked by us all. Nfitz (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Endorse Deletion - I can't see much more than trivial coverage in most of the independent google news hits linked to above. So he moved from Boreham Wood to Crystal Palace. I can't see how that makes him notable until he at least makes a professional debut, and I'm beginning to think that even that is too easy a mark to hit. - fchd (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion - we have jumped through these hoops more time than I can remember. The position is clear; once he kicks a ball in anger, i.e. takes the field for Palace, or another league club, in a competitive match, he gets a page. This applies to all footballers. Whilst it is an arbitrary standard it makes sense to have an unambiguous cut-off. Also, though the nominator may be correct in saying "it's entirely expected that this player will be playing professionally in a fortnight" we don't crystalball because, however unlikely it may be, he could have a career-ending injury in a pre-season friendly and we are stuck with a page on someone who didn't make the cut. Oh, and there was nothing wrong with the close which is actually what we are judging here ;-)
  talk) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There is more than one way to meet the notability threshold than
    WP:ATHLETE. He has apprently received independent coverage in multiple sources. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. I've looked into this a bit more. It's not a
  WP:CRYSTAL clearly isn't violated. Nfitz (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And how do you reckon he's "almost certainly" going to be playing? He's just another squad player at the moment. As said above, if he DOES play, fine. Until then, I can't justify restoring the deleted article. - fchd (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)?
  talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ah so there is - I used to know this, and it skipped my mind. It would help if this was number 1 in the intructions, rather than being a separate box on a very crowded page. Though I'm somewhat jaded on this. I've asked Admins before to expand their reasoning, and all I've ever recieved are comments that they don't have to, that it was clear, that the votes carried it. I've actually been following this procedure on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerardo bruna before doing a DRV, but after 3 weeks I can't even get a response from the Admin. Oh well too late now ... I did notify the Admin and he hasn't commented at all. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Lack of commentary in sources, failure to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Delete !votes were sound and policy based. A keep !vote mentioned news stories. Provide the stories, or quotes from them, as a basis to recreate as a better article. I'd have preferred a redirect to Crystal Palace F.C. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This deletion seems to come down to one thing:

1. He doesn't meet
   WP:ATHLETE yet, because he hasn't played a fully professional game. Yet he's only recently joined Crystal Palace F.C.
   which is between seasons, which starts in about a week. He's consistently been used during the first team games in the few days since he was signed - as opposed to other players who've been playing in seperate second team games. Every indication is that he is part of the first team and will inevitably be playing. This would lead to his notability and recreating the article in the next few weeks.
2. I think that if we all knew that he'd be playing within a few weeks, then
   WP:CRYSTAL
   doesn't apply and the article should exist.
3. So what it really comes down to, is will he be playing? I've been looking for a definitive reference from someone, saying something like "he is clearly a critical part of the first team" but to be honest I've failed to find one. I can't find any good discussions of what the team will be - which seems odd to me - perhaps a reflection of just how many teams there are in London area compared to the number of media outlets.
4. When we look at the course of events, on July 23rd he was signed [10]. He immediately started playing with the first team in pre-season matches, scoring a goal in his first outing [11]. He played in the July 29th match, and presumably will be available for the final pre-season match on August 2.
5. Surely knowing the background of this player, his age, that he has been given a relatively high shirt number (17) with the first team [12] one can be confident he will play soon, and an article will be created.
6. Given all this, it just seems silly going to the trouble of deleting an existing article that will only have to be shortly recreated. Given the inevitability, and short time-frame
   WP:CRYSTAL
   doesn't apply.
7. Does anyone out there really think that this player won't be playing soon?

Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say on the issue is to remind you that I posted on your talk page on June 26 an offer to undelete any article on a footballer that was deleted for failing

WP:ATHLETE, upon them taking the field in a game in a fully professional league. Is it worth all this argument to try and get the article undeleted a week early? --Stormie (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes it is worth all this argument. If this player plays, it's quite likely someone will be trying to recreate the article before either I or you have an opportunity to touch it. We've had a whole series of AfDs in the last few weeks for players that will have to be recreated shortly after the season begins next week. Is it worth all this argument to try and get these article deleted for a week or two? Deleting these articles and requiring a few select individuals to recreate the article violates the principle that Wikipedia violates 2 of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia

"Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". We need a more rational way to deal with this mass of deleting articles for players that are clearly going to be part of Tier 1 and Tier 2 first-teams, only to recreate days later. This DRV is intended to clean up the process and make it simpler for everyone. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nfitz, the subject failes the weakest criteria. The most important criteria is that there are independent secondary sources covering the subject. Bending the weakest criteria currently writen into some guideline, ignoring the lack of suitable encyclopedic sources is to create directories, which is not what we do as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This subject can be mentioned in other articles, such as Crystal Palace F.C.. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. My point is that we know he will very soon pass this criteria which will lead to article recreation, so there is little point expending a lot of effort AfDing dozens of similiar articles days before the beginning of the season. Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, close reflects the debate correctly. Notability is about sources, there were no non-trivial independent sources provided, so that's it really. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source appears non-trivial - BBC - [13] Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted based on

Wow, that's a terribly obvious overturn, since the delete reasons weren't valid at the time of deletion. Also, while I can't get at the label's web page (Firefox can't connect?), AllMusicGuide lists the album as having been released yesterday. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Overturn. I'm shocked this got deleted. It's selling on Amazon. Nfitz (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin: I'll overturn my decision. I simply saw that all the !votes were for delete, and missed that fact about the release, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolver (John Legend album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

From what I understand this article was deleted because it did not have sources? >:[ The deleter person must have missed the VIBE.com source I added.

Anyway, here are many more sources: http://news.google.com/news?q=john%20legend%20evolver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubfan789 (talk • contribs) 13:29, July 29, 2008

• Okay, the history here is a little confusing. First, endorse the closure of the AfD as the consensus in it is obvious and the version deleted had those failings (sorry, admin only link). Then, overturn the most recent deletion as the VIBE.com link is enough for me to want another discussion and recreation should have meant obviously disputing the PROD; so we rule out
  WP:CRYSTAL violation still. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I deleted the article most recently, and have since restored the full history. The original AfD discussion raised
  WP:CRYSTAL concerns raised in addition to lack of sourcing, however I accept it would have been better to go through another AfD per lifebaka. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Now seems to meet WP:N. No objection to re-sending to AfD, but just a restore (as done by PhilKnight) is fine too as our long-term solution. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). An article with this title is, by definition, speculation and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The opinions in defense of this page primarily hinged on comparisons with other articles of a similar nature. The sources alleged to defend the deleted content were reviewed by other participants of the discussion and found to be insufficient (with one person explicitly commenting on the nature of the sources). Additional sources were added later in the discussion but they did not overcome the core problems with verifiability - they remain speculation about future releases based primarily upon press releases of the entities themselves. As to the comparison with other 2009 in foo articles, the right answer when we find pages violating policy is to clean them up too, not to lower the project's standards. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe articles like
    hasty generalization based on one out of so many sources hardly constitutes a valid review of the sources. Futhermore, no one addressed the ten sources that I added, and the additional two that I added before the article was deleted, which should have been sufficient on their own to support the existence of this article. When independent reliable sources report on "future releases based primarily upon press releases of the entities themselves," this is not speculation, but reporting on facts. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles about future events, such as 2016 Summer Olympics. Since an article on "2009 in music" will almost assuredly exist within the next six months, when exactly do you think it is appropriate for it to exist? DHowell (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Personally, I do not think that Wikipedia should be attempting to write an article titled "2009 in music" until at least 2010 when there is at least a chance to have some sense of historical perspective. But I know that interpretation does not currently have community consensus. What I think does have consensus is that 2009 in music can not reliably exist until 1 Jan 2009 when the things that we are reporting upon have actually happened. Plans for the Olympics are, by definition, significant to many, many people and require large, predicable lead time. The topics covered in the "year in music" series are largely product releases, subject to significant last-minute changes and even cancellations at the sole discretion of the producer. They do not have the stability that justifies the predictive articles about other topics. Rossami (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in television (decided 29 Jun 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 in music (decided 30 July 2007) contradict your thought that there is consensus "that 2009 in music can not reliably exist until 1 Jan 2009". DHowell (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Sorry to the closer, but this is a case where the delete !votes were wrong. The article in question did not violate
  WP:MUSIC#Albums, and the only issue is that the rest need to be removed. But that is an editorial issue and not a deletion one. So, after restoration someone will probably need to go through the article with a chainsaw and a belt sander to chop off the messy bits and clean up afterwards. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For the sake of transparency, I'd like to note that I've nominated quite a few of the albums from that list for AfD. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Realistically the article should have been deleted per
  WP:CRYSTAL, as even with the sources for these upcoming albums, it is little more than a directory of items. IMHO, all of the XXXX in music are horrible articles, and really should contain commentary and discussion about important developments in the music industry in any given year rather than a laundry list of albums released, but that is neither here nor there. In any case, the contention that the !votes to delete were wrong is true (CRYSTAL does not really apply as most of the items were sourced) and there was no policy-grounded consensus to delete - therefore there is no alternative but to overturn. Shereth 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn
  WP:CRYSTAL concerns, his was the strongest policy-based argument. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn on grounds of common sense. We are now 5 months from 2009. Some events that will happen in t hat year are now reasonably certain enough to be listed. In at least some fields of music, major events are planned a number of years ahead. DGG (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, I find myself in agreement with Lifebaka and DGG. While this article certainly will require vigorous pruning to keep myriad
  WP:CRYSTAL violation as a whole as the delete !votes in the AfD suggest. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse based on the consensus of the users. DRV is not AFD2.
  talk) 09:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Three questions: 1. How are you determining "the consensus of the users"? 2. What exactly does "DRV is not AFD2" have to do with this DRV? 3. If DRV is not AFD2, and
    consensus can change, and we all know where to find AFD2 (and AFD3,4,5,...,14) for kept and recreated pages, where exactly do we find AFD2 for deleted pages? DHowell (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • As to #3 - if consensus changes, it will be due to the presence of new information or new arguments. So show us a relevant policy/guideline change (I dread the day the notability guidelines change materially - this page will be overwhelmed), or give us new relevant sources, or show us that sockpuppetry was a problem, or ... but don't repeat arguments that were made in the XfD - they are not new.
      GRBerry 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

The closer stated "The result was no consensus , leaning towards keep. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article ". Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind. Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing

• Comment from closer: I opted to close as no consensus instead of relisting as I did not and do not feel that more discussion will lead to a consensus, though I don't really oppose an overturn and relist. I believe the same could be accomplished by re-nominating the article in a few weeks with no other action, however. And Stifle, before you chime in, it doesn't bother me that no discussion happened before this DRV was filed. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think being at Afd for a week is long enough for the necessary improvements to appear, especially as the creator and chief supporter of the article was highly motivated. I don't agree with short time periods between Afd nominations, and in my experience, a second nomination in such a short period would be speedied anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, something I wasn't aware of, the article was created in precisely one edit, (the first edit by
    talk · contribs), a suspected sock of Jonty303 (talk · contribs)), and was not subsequently touched bar Afd process edits. Odd to say the least. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's unfortunate. While this is ongoing I think I'll ask Wiw8 to try to improve it, since he seemed interested and the state of the page shouldn't have any bearing on this process. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't have bothered me much since you dropped by here so soon, Lifebaka :)
    talk) 08:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn and relist delete would seem appropriate to me, with a 4-to-2 vote for "delete" being closed as "keep". Also, given the reports of alleged past sockpuppetry, can we check whether Wiw8 and Rabidfoxes are actually distinct users? -- The Anome (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If this would have influenced the close then it is a valid grounds for

  GRBerry 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Go ahead with your checkuser - I am nothing to do with User:Rabidfoxes. I do find it upsetting to be accused of duplicitous activities simply because I responded differently in an AFD, and I stand by the arguments I made in that AFD and by the neutrality of my editing history. Incidentally, I count 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8) in

  AFD isn't a ballot - it's the argument behind each vote that counts. Wiw8 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse as reasonable keep though no consensus might have been better. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, it was closed as no consensus. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, opps. No clue how I did that. I read the AfD, but... Hobit (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete - the threshold for deletion for BLPs is lower tan needed than for other subjects. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of looking like an idiot twice in one AfD, BLPs look like the only "additional hurdle" is due to being "non-public persons" I don't think Jonty qualifies there. Of course, that policy means we need to be sure everything is sourced. But at first blush, it all looks like it is. Further, I'd assume those discussing it would take policy into account so any issues with BLP would be part of that discussion and folks would be assumed to have considered it. Could you explain exactly what you are getting at? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete Strong
  WP:BLP1E, created by likely sockpuppet of subject. See this incident report for further details. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Closure as no consensus within reasonable admin discretion. Disagree with closer that it was leaning towards keep but there was a disagreement over whether it was a
  WP:BLP1E or not making no consensus a reasonable decision. There has never been agreement that BLPs should have a lower threshold for deletion and is not supported by policy. Having said this however personally I think that the article should be moved to Porthemmet Beach and rewritten about that with Jonty Haywood covered as part of that article. The beach is notable enough to merit a seperate article rather than as a section on Emmet (Cornish) which it seems only loosely connected with. Jonty Haywood himself is marginal for notability and could be covered sufficiently on an article on the beach. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It won't get merged if it is endorsed, so this is a moot vote. To vote for a merge it needs relisting. A 4-2 vote is a nothing result for a marginal BLP, especially one suspected of manipulation. MickMacNee (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge or move does not require an AFD, I would be quite prepared to join a talk page discussion to help bring a move about and would definitely help with creating such an article. Endorsing a no consensus does not prevent this from taking place. I strongly support AFD not being a vote and there was reasonable arguments for and against deletion. I think the best thing to happen would be a proposal on the talk page for a move/merge to the beach which I think we could get consensus for. Davewild (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would only sanction that if it is possible to protect the resultant redirect from Jonty Haywood and leave a link to the history of this person and his attemts to promote himself in all sorts of ways on this site for any future admins who may be asked to unprotect it in the future. It would be simpler to overturn and delete to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that but don't think we should bow to poor behaviour by deleting what would certainly be a legitimate redirect. I see no problem with protecting the redirect until/unless he gets more coverage to establish independent notability. Davewild (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: per the request of the AFD's closing admin, I have rewritten the article. Wiw8 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see what the rewrite fixes. Creating a simple website about a topic with very little to write about hardly makes someone an expert or notable. It's still a clear
    WP:BLP1E created by a repeat self-promoter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 'Comment It's changed nothing except adding a 17 year old 'journalist' at wikinews as some sort of reliable source. This guy has still not responded to an FYI on his wikipedia talk page about the Afd, and the comments page on the interview are not exactly encouraging that this was a scoop of the century. And the beach/signs have been separated into two notable events. If anything, the article just reads now as a little more ... desperate? to be noticed than before. The presence of the Canadian press source alone still fails 1E. MickMacNee (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I attempted to make the article read more like an encyclopedia article, removing some of the unnecessary superlatives, as well as focusing more on the relevant facts in the sources. There may be room for expansion, but it's a start. The article doesn't say that creating the website is what made him an expert, it says that the media turned to him for his expertise on the subject and summarises what aspects in particular he is reported (in the cited sources) to have researched via his site. Jamie, it may be your opinion that
      this section of WP:BIO. MickMacNee, I did deliberate before referencing the Wikinews article, and decided to go ahead and do so because a) of Wikinews's commitment to fact checking and accuracy and b) the reporter that you personally attack in your post is one of relatively few Accredited Wikinews Reporters, a status which as far as I can tell makes them recognised members of the press. Wiw8 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Check the interview pages, there was no fact checking, he basically covered himself by starting every sentence "Haywood said...". MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but you are missing the point entirely. This is not a DRV about The Game, so whether or not Haywood's statements about The Game in that article are factually correct is completely irrelevant. The point is that both the Canadian Press and Wikinews, both of which have strong journalistic reputations to uphold, turned to Haywood for their information on The Game, which serves as a good indicator of his status as a notable figure in this field.Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • This is an argument that should have been going on in more detail on the AfD. However, I will note that the claim that he is notable because news sources have turned to him is not by itself compelling. The requirements of
              WP:N are a bit stricter than news sources using someone as a sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Oh absolutely - I wasn't suggesting that this fact should be taken by itself to satisfy
                WP:BLP1E arguments seem a little far fetched. Wiw8 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
                ]
• endorse close No compelling reason to override the closing admins decision. Claims of BLP1E are hard to understand when none of the material is negative and he is listed as being notable for multiple things (the hoax and the material related to The Game). Moreover, the claim that it was likely created by the Haywood is irrelevant if our current version of the article is in fact well-written and NPOV which it is. Finally, it strikes me as a bit absurd that people can claim deletion due to BLP which is designed to protect the subject at the same time they argue it should be deleted since it was written by the subject. Just a small contradition there. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protection isn't the sole pupose of BLP, be it 1E or whatever. It's a general standard for inclusion aswell. A person's persistence at being included, when they don't meet the minimum requirements for inclusion, should not be included, whether they really want to be or not. And we don't know for certain people's identities here, the sexing up of the article is being done by someone we currently have to assume is not him. The game website is completely non-notable, there's no other way to see that as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I'm not "sexing up" the article; I was asked by the closing admin to try to improve the article, and I have attempted to do so by writing it in a more encyclopedic manner, including more relevant information from the available media sources and making it read more NPOV. Secondly, regarding your persistent implications that I am Haywood or Rabidfoxes or some other affiliate - of course I cannot prove that I'm not some agent of the subject's, just as you cannot prove that you aren't someone who has a sworn mortal grudge against the subject. This is an unfortunate reality behind most internet based media, and it is the reason why we need fundamental principles such as
      WP:BIO. Wiw8 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • This is an odd twisting of logic. Eactly how do you become a notable creator of a website by creating a non-notable website? If he is a non-notable creator of a website,(which the sources provided dealing with just that act), then he fails BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that it is a "non-notable website", I said that we aren't discussing whether the website on its own satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for having its own article - an event or achievment doesn't have to have its own Wikipedia article in order to contribute to a subject's notability. Incidentally, the sources discuss his research into the origins of The Game and strategies as well as just the website. In any case, this DRV is meant for discussing whether the closing admin drew the correct consensus from the AFD, not for repeating the same argument that grew stale in the AFD, unless new information has arisen which would have supported a different closure, which apparently it has not. Wiw8 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's clearly a non-notable website through WP:WEB. If you can't even see that, then I don't know what else to tell you. And frankly, talking about research on 'strategies' for The Game is just pure nonsense, bordering on WP:MADEUP. Show me a single quote about this 'research' that didn't come from Haywood himself. You don't understand notability and you don't understand third party sourceing. The only person trying to repeat the Afd arguments that I can see, is you. I am perplexed by your repeated attempts to split the notability of events from the person, to try and dismiss the whole point of BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that protection is not the only point of that (but it is certainly the point behind arguments made by for example Sceptre above), but when we have a reasonably closed AfD you need a really compelling reason to overturn it. Not liking the result might make sense if there is a serious BLP issue, but if one is simply saying that one doesn't think he is notable it is hard to see why a DRV makes that much sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the nomination, I'm not argueing Afd II here, I simply don't understand the closing rationale given the arguments made. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse closure - In my opinion the AFD was correctly closed; no consensus was reached in the AFD and subsequent arguments for deletion made thus far in this DRV have just echoed the
  WP:JNN arguments made in the AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure as no consensus. On personal review of the evidence presented in the AfD I probably would have voted delete in it myself, but given that DRV is not here to act as "AfD 2.0" I certainly find myself agreeing with the closer that there was no consensus to delete it and further discussion was unlikely to change that. Relist if necessary, but this looks like a good no-consensus close in my view. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further discussion was unlikely to change" seems a bold conclusion given the low number of contributors originally. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD almost entirely relied on peoples' subjective opinions of
      WP:BLP1E. Nobody seemed inclined to change their viewpoint and there's no compelling reason to suggest an additional length of time would have turned up any further information that would massively change the situation. I don't think a relist would have caused any kind of problem, but I don't see any reason it would have helped. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn and delete. With two-thirds of the "votes" being for deletion, there were no real standout arguments by the keep side that warranted the closure made, especially keeping
  talk) 08:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: While AFD is not a ballot, since vote tally is being referenced in this DRV, in the interests of accuracy it should be noted that the "4-2" vote count quoted by the DRV nominator is false. The actual tally was 3 delete votes (Users OhnoitsJamie, The Anome, MickMacNee) and 2 keep votes (Users DGG, Wiw8). Or, arguably, 3 deletes and 3 keeps if you count Rabidfoxes' arguments in favour of keeping the article as a keep vote, or 4 deletes to 3 keeps if you also count the nomination by Sceptre as a delete vote (I'm unsure as to the policy on this). In any case, it was a lot closer to 50:50 than the 4-2 quoted by nom. Wiw8 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally people do count the nominator as a delete vote unless they've specifically said something to the contrary or provided no rationale. I've also been treating Rabidfoxes' arguments as a "keep", The fact that he doesn't prefix them with Keep doesn't change the fact that they're clearly in favour of the article's retention. So yeah, i'd call a raw tally 4-3 in this case. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers for the clarification there. Looks like for the purpose of tally-based arguments, 4-3 it is. Wiw8 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Rabid foxes is clearly a sock of a banned user, banned for preciesly trying to get non-notable information hosted on wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, to slam home this point, every single one of his entire 24 edit history on wikipedia, since his first edit to actually create

  trout slapping. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Point taken, I probably should pay more attention to that. Remove his vote and it certainly does look like a 4-2 from a pure tally point of view. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't believe how far some of you are going to try to defame me purely because you dislike the subject of my posts, but that's a topic for my talk page, not this DRV. What I'd like to know is how any of the above is relevant to whether or not this article should exist? If the subject satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WPIO then the article should exist, regardless of who the article's original creator is, or what the subject of the article has done on Wikipedia in the past. I'd understand if the article was filled with non

  talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I and others have commented on all the above policies. My pointing out of your activities here are relevant when the expression of those views is being undermined by attempting to include you in a vote count. You can exclude ONIJ if you want, but then we get back to the original issue, the number of views expressed in the Afd to achieve consensus becomes so small as to be meaningless, and definitely worthy of relisting. You may be entirely innocent, but examining your actions is a perfectly legitimate part of the wiki process. As for past actions of the subject, repeat attempts to overturn past decisions without cause can and does lead to censure, so sock puppet concerns are more than valid. Wikipedia is not a webhost, NPOV has nothing to do with that central policy. Wikipedia is not myspace, reliable sources on one event do not justify a biography. Your attempts at leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia using the bio as justification given his clear BLP1E status are clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way. I've created bio's for people, I certainly wouldn't start entering them in 'notable persons from' lists as the 'founding father of...'. It's odd behaviour to say the least if you claim no connections at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't come here for a fight or to promote somebody... When I made the Haywood article I added what I thought were the relevant links to the Emmet and Truro articles. I also attempted to add one to The Game article for obvious reasons, but after discovering it was protected I commented on the discussion page instead. All of this I assumed was normal procedure for when a new article has been added. I created an article and made what I felt were appropriate minor edits to related articles. What you are expressing is an extremely biased and misleading account of my contributions, describing my edits to two articles and one talk page as "leverageing the profile of Haywood all across the pedia". Also you keep trying to make a big deal of the fact that I created the article in one edit - what's so odd about that? I used the preview function until I got it how I wanted it.

  It's one thing to quietly "examine my actions" but it's another to outright call me "clearly a sock" and a "banned user". If anything, you appear to be working equally hard (if not harder) to have all trace of Haywood removed and permanently wiped clean from Wikipedia by your extremely persistent and fairly lengthy AFD and DRV comments, your immediate nomination for DRV (without discussion) just because you disagreed with the AFD outcome (which clearly was no consensus to delete), accusing everyone who disagrees with you of sockpuppetry, and making suggestions like applying protection to the page after deletion when there is clearly no reason to do so right now. By your logic are these not also "clearly odd actions for someone who is not connected to Haywood in any way" (i.e. having something personal against him)?

  talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "Clearly was no consensus to delete". Well, we'll await the outcome of this shall we?. Question my motivations all you want, you won't find anything odd in what I've done. I first voted in an Afd, then listed it at Drv to legitimately dispute its closing interpretation, and then comment on what look like very weak points made to defend the original article and the Afd closure. As for your contributions, they are there for everyone to see, and quite clearly show an intent here, as do all your talk page contributions across your account history. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You've missed the point of my comment entirely. I just used your own logic against you. I've been arguing for this article to be kept, and you accuse me of having a history with Haywood. You've been arguing for the article to be deleted, maybe you have a history with Haywood too... My point is that you are making unsupported accusations, not assuming good faith and generally attacking anyone with opposing views to your own.

  talk) 18:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I would love for you to find any evidence that shows that I am as linked to Haywood as you are on wiki. I came here from an Afd, simple as that. Even now as I deal with other things on wiki as well as this Drv, for some reason protecting Haywood's bio is still your exclusive interest on wiki. Not even a spelling correction edit to an unrelated article anywhere. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't expect to find any evidence linking you to Haywood, and I don't expect you to find any linking me to him. That's the whole point of what I'm saying, you are making accusations without evidence. Maybe I would have moved on to making more contributions to Wikipedia but my first contribution has been met with such hostility that I've been wasting all my time trying to argue why it is a valuable contribution.

  talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Just to clarify, you brought this to DRV less than one hour after Lifebaka closed the AFD. Nothing had changed and you made no new points that hadn't been discussed in the AFD. You also did it "in precisely one edit" which according to you is "Odd to say the least."

  talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If you are now resorting to criticising the listing of the Drv in an attempt to deflect from the reasons for it, which nobody else has, then go ahead. It's fine. I am not supposed to make any 'new points' in nominating for Drv, apart from commenting on the closure, which I did. Read the instructions. 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  Your "new points" regarding the closure refer solely to (miscounted) votes. Which, as I've stated below, are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have read the instructions for opening a DRV but I'm beginning to think that you haven't. The very first instruction says "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." Further instructions say that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.", "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead." and most importantly "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate."

  talk) 18:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv. Well go right ahead and have this closed then, if that is your argument. The key line is "you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly" - which is what I have done. As for the votes issue, you don't understand the policy at all, I explicitly stated that all the arguments in the "vote count" were valid, hence the description of closure was innacurate, subsequently confirmed by others in this review. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "You want this review closed becuase I didn't contact the closer first, who had no problem with me raising a Drv." This is incredibly flawed logic. How could you have known that he wouldn't have a problem if you didn't contact him first? He only said this once you raised the DRV. Again, you're twisting my words, I'm not saying this is the reason the DRV should be closed. Just that you ignored the Wikipedia guidelines for starting a DRV, the guidelines you seem so keen to tell everyone else to read. Just because a vote is "valid", by which I assume you mean supported by policy, doesn't mean that all "valid" votes are equally weighted and that an AFD can be determined by a count of "valid" votes. You really seem to be missing the point. The vote count is irrelevant. AFD is a discussion in which users refer to relevant policies to reach a consensus on whether the article satisfies those policies. It doesn't matter how many users vote either way, just whether the article satisfies policy. I'm not sure how I can explain this point any further...

  talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I forgot to mention your scathing comments about a respected Wikinews journalist where you infer that he is not a proper journalist and that he is unreliable as well as mocking his age, his fact-checking, the article he wrote and accusing him of "blatant free self-promotion". Interestingly enough though, you also reveal that you "know little of their activities to be honest so can't judge if that is an acceptable piece". All this because he chose to report on a subject which you apparently hate so much.

  talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Feel free to dispute any comment I made about that, without any actual answers to the points, that's all it is (bar the misquote). What fact checking was done? Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?. What are the policies regarding using wikinews as a reliable source? (I peersonally have never seen wikinews used as an RS). I am certain anyone but you can easily see it looks more like a press release than a journalistic interview. Explain the comments made over there in reaction to it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game. The fact he didn't get involved in the AFD is hardly a reason to insult him like you did. Maybe he's busy. This is a perfect example of your gross exaggerations, you say "Where is this journalist that was requested to comment at the Afd?" when all that was said on his talk page was "w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 28 has a deletion review of the Wikipedia article on Jonty Haywood." What comments are you referring to "over there" exactly? One unregistered IP who doesn't like the website? By the way, what are you claiming that I misquoted? Would you like me to add links to your two comments I have quoted exactly?

  talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "The fact-checking was done by interviewing somebody who the journalist felt was a reliable source of information about The Game." There is nothing else I can say about this that isn't already shown by this comment. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well why don't you say something about my examples of your massive exaggerations of both the contact with the journalist and the comments made about his article. Or the fact you accused me of misquoting you when I did no such thing.

  talk) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If you are going to discount my vote based on entirely circumstantial evidence, maybe you should discount OhNoitsJamie's too. He's admitted to having conflicts with Haywood since 2006, so surely his opinion is a clear

  talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Read the Drv nomination rationale, the vote count is perfectly valid a topic unless it is deemed somebody made a vote wholly outside policy, which nobody did (barring sockpuppets). MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  From

  talk) 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm fine with the reviewer only considering the new contributors here, that is partly the reason for my nomination. Read it again. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, you keep telling me to re-read your opening comment...

  "Firstly, the basic vote vount is 4 deletes, to 2 keeps, with no invalid arguments made for my mind." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.

  "Two of the delete votes refer to notability in general, with two others citing WP:BLP1E, so I don't see how the delete opinions do not refer to the article subject." They refer to it but they clearly didn't make good enough points for the closing Admin to reach a consensus.

  "I think with so few votes this was a candidate for relisting." Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote count is irrelevant.

  Quite frankly I'm getting tired of responding to your gross exaggerations and you ignoring the points I am making. As far as this article is concerned, the vote count is irrelevant, who I am is irrelevant, Haywood's history with Wikipedia is irrelevant. You have brought no new information to this discussion, and you have ignore the Wikipedia guidelines for opening a DRV (most importantly you did not contact the closing Admin first). Yet you keep arguing, repeating yourself, misquoting the policies and accusing others of not knowing them (and of much worse things like sockpuppetry too). I just hope a sensible Admin is reading these discussions so that this DRV will be closed soon.

  talk) 18:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thankfully the things you seem to think are irrelevant are often considered quite rightly in these issues. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me try to summarise everything I have been trying to get across to you throughout this DRV: The only thing that is relevant here is whether the article satisfies Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. How you can think differently baffles me.

  talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: If we are going to base this debate on vote count, then I would suggest that either the AFD vote count was too close to establish consensus either way (4-3), or if you discount ONIJ and Rabidfoxes votes as suggested above, then the vote count was not only too close to establish consensus but possibly too low for a meaningful consensus to be reached, suggesting a relist may be appropriate. However, the closing admin gave reasons for not relisting, putting forward that further discussion was unlikely to lead to consensus either way (which would appear to be the case looking up at this DRV) and requesting improvements to the article itself (I have since attempted to improve it somewhat by making it read more
  WP:NPOV and improving the level of referencing and detail). Although - as per my DRV response above - I still believe that the closer's analysis of no consensus leaning towards keep was the correct analysis of the debate, given that there was very little that the closing admin could have misinterpreted about the debate, I can understand how some may feel that a re-list may be appropriate even if I disagree that it is now necessary. I would, however, strongly contest the suggestion that overturning and deleting would be at all appropriate in this case; as mazca commented above, DRV is not here to act as "AFD 2.0", and as the DRV instructions state, we are supposed to be discussing whether the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the debate, not whether we disagree with their decision. Wiw8 (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, delete. Passing and trivial mentions, likely vanity page. Relist also acceptable, but the article is
  WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: Hiya Guy; I would argue that this article passes the sourcing guidelines by having multiple, reliable, published sources (see article and AFD for links to some) - I don't think "number of unique Google hits" is part of the sourcing guidelines, but correct me if I'm wrong there. In any case, please note that votes in this DRV should be based solely on whether or not you think the closing administrator misinterpreted some aspect of the AFD debate, not on the number of Google hits for the subject. Cheers.

  Actually, since you mentioned Google hits, I thought I'd do an experiment to see how "low" 156 unique hits actually is. Some examples of notable people from Truro alongside their unique Google hit quantity:

• Henry Louis Gibson — an expert in medical uses of infrared and pioneer of its use in detecting breast cancer - 39 hits
• Richard Lemon Lander - explorer of West Africa - 261 hits
• Barbara Joyce West - second to last survivor of the RMS Titanic - 177 hits
• not from Truro, but even
  notable for one event ;) ) only gets 624 hits
  . Note that all of the above are in a similar order of magnitude of unique hit count as the subject.

Looking through the first few pages of the hits for

vanispamcruftisement. Wiw8 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse closure. A couple of points worth remembering: DRV is not AFD 2 (so arguing over the notability of the subject here is pretty silly), and AFD is not a vote count. There may have been slightly more users arguing for keeping the article, but their arguments weren't much stronger, and the margin was small enough that this falls within the grounds of 'admin discretion'. A different admin might have closed this AFD as 'delete', but I think a 'no consensus' close is entirely legitimate, and in fact probably more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clearly notable; see his German entry. Contesting prod. Chubbles (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are about different people. The German entry is about a German comedian (according to the google translation) while the deleted version describes him as a "Celebrity tattoo artist Mario Barth" who was born in Austria and as the "owner and chief tattoo artist at Starlight Tattoo". Davewild (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, then you can close this. I'll put in a translation request. Chubbles (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has now played in the 3. Liga, a fully professional league [15]. Also applies to

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

I think you have the wrong forum. If you feel the article should be deleted then feel free to renominate it at AFD as the previous AFD was six months ago. Davewild (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks. ShimShem (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

A notable wiki listed on Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, also studied by a scholar in comparison to Wikipedia (mainly on POV and OR policies) --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC) fix[reply]

• Overturn and find a way of preventing further nominations. The first AfD closed as an "obvious keep" in 2006, the 2nd as "keep", the 3rd as "no consensus" , the 4th as "keep", the 5th as "keep" in Sept 2007 by Xoloz, whoproperly said also "Further nominations are discouraged, absent new information, or new arguments." (bold face as in original). Sure, consensus can change, but it looks like a poster child for the practice of nominating repeatedly until it happens to get deleted. If AfDs have, say , an 80% accuracy, 5 tries gives a 66% chance of deleting any article. Abusive nomination in the first place. See my comment there, and that by Nhprman, who called it "Trial until guilty". I note no new arguments were presented, only the old ones, with a different group of debaters, and a different evaluation by the closer, who preferred one argument to another. (He had not yet been notified, so I did so just now.) DGG (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking it'd only give an 80% chance, since in order for there to be 5 AfDs the first four would have to be either keep or no consensus (usually, at least), but the point stands that

WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is bad. (take this to be playful hole-poking in your argument :P) lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn per DGG and previous AfDs.--ragesoss (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have corrected the AfD link above to the correct 6th nomination. --Bduke (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's Comment - any vote count is fraught with peril, as canvassing took place at Wikinfo. The discussion is pretty clear - Wikinfo fails every notability guideline or policy, as every mention of it is trivial (~1 sentence, in contexts not about Wikinfo) and this wasn't really denied, only "Abusive nomination" which was not evidenced (or really explained). Straightforward delete. Past naval gasing is not really an excuse, and six nominations is not near the historical maximums (GNAA was ~20, for instance, and eventually (and correctly) deleted). WilyD 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Checking the votecount anyhow, it's ~28-18 for delete, ignoring the problematic canvassing of keep votes. WilyD 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article isn't actually deleted, it was userfied to User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo, with the full history. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted we have repeatedly ignored notability guidelines that we enforce rigorously elsewhere for topics that have some relation to Wikipedia. The number of AfDs is high, but for the early ones arguments included "it's a fork of a notable project" which don't pass the current notability guidelines. For several of the discussions people just said "keep per the previous AfDs" without discussing the merits of the article, and one of them wasn't even closed as Keep. Nobody has still addressed the problem that there is no non-trivial coverage in sources. Hut 8.5 12:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted policy was finally applied... no new evidence provided here. With the logic of some people in this thread we'd still be providing free webhosting to people like GNAA. Sometimes it takes multiple AFDs to get past the anti-policy lobbyists. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one could just as well say that "sometimes it takes multiple deletes" to get past the people with reasonable notions of interpreting the notability guidelinesDGG (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying we have reasonable notions of the notability guidelines? I'm flattered but think you probably meant "unreasonable notions". At any rate, it's not really true... an article that is deleted once at AFD for notability/sourcing reasons tends to stay deleted until sources are found. See ED which was undeleted once sources were found (and I argued for that undeletion) verses GNAA which stays deleted because no sources have been found. For WikInfo to be undeleted, better sources will need to be found. --Rividian (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously I do think that my interpretation of everything is the most reasonable one, and everyone ought to agree with it --as presumably everyone else her things about their own opinions. The people who either do not know what they think or do not care are probably not joining in the discussion. But more seriously, of course I recognize there is a disagreement about the notability of most types of things, and that my view is not always representative (that's why I never close disputed AfDs, by the way; I will argue for my views but not try to impose them.) The overall consensus at multiple AfDs is likely to be more correct than at any single one of them. If the 4 keeps had been followed by a non-consensus, followed by this delete, I would be arguing a little differently, because consensus might be changing. But the sequence is keep-keep-no c.-keep-keep before the delete, with the last keep a specific recommendation not to bring it to AfD again on the same evidence.DGG (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It seems this nomination is requesting AfD2, in that their argument is invalid for DRV; there is no argument for improper closure, and it certainly appears (although I grant I cannot read the article) that
  =/\= | 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • As noted above, article is avaible here: User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo with only extremely small modifications (mostly, removal of logo as unfree in userspace and delinking of categories). WilyD 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WilyD brought this same notification to my talk page; I saw it above, but neurons misfired and I didn't make that connection. Thanks. —
      =/\= | 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • How can one talk about "AfD2" in the circumstances. This was AfD 6, and the count was 4 keep to 1 no consensus to 1 delete. The delete happens to be the latest. The system is biased towards deletion. If you dont like AfD2s, support a proposal to require a deletion review before even trying an AfD2 after a keep as well as after a delete. I'll be glad to join. DGG (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, I believe that he means the point of the DRV is to conduct a new argument, not to examine my closure of AfD6 - i.e. this is AfD6.2 not DRV. Of course, if new information has come to light, it makes sense to examine it and see if the closure was based on incomplete information (but I see no evidence of this). WilyD 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may, in my argument above "AfD2" = "the AfD process again". Sorry for that confusion.

      A DRV is for when procedural or administrative mistakes have been made (iirc), and this nomination reads like a request for an AfD argument again as opposed to an examination of procedure. —

      =/\= | 22:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • DRVs are also appropriate if you believe new evidence has been uncovered (for instance, if you could dig up nontrivial sources, a DRV would be appropriate here) although its recommended you ask the closing admin first. WilyD 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As much as I like reading the site, being a fork or somehow related to/of Wikipedia doesn't give any special homework credit for notability standards. All it needs is a handful of extra sources to be recreated. Shouldn't be hard with some research to track down, but its not ready yet.
  T) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Consensus for deletion in AFD6 is clear. Should significant coverage in independent and reliable sources ever be published (i.e. coverage about this subject, not merely mentioning it in passing) it will be time to revisit.
  GRBerry 14:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I'm not sure how I feel when it comes to the page being in the mainspace or not, but I should point out that we can still link to Wikinfo (both directly and to the non-article space page). It shouldn't be much of an issue in regards to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets (where I've already corrected the link), or even for an EL link in some articles, should a Wikinfo version be different and evaluated as a good EL. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The interwiki link for Wikinfo is [[Wikinfo:, in case anyone was wondering. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closure was entirely competent. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. No procedural issues within the purview of DRV are raised here. Systemic concerns about repeated AfDs resulting in unmerited deletions belong in a proposal to reform AfD, not here. If the AfD outcome was wrong, one can simply recreate the article with better sources. Moreover, the closure correctly assessed consensus, and no serious argument is made here that it did not.  Sandstein  16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, especially per the convincing argument made by Hut 8.5 and Sandstein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article has gone through two AfD's, and was deleted a year ago in the second AfD. Since then, the blog's been mentioned on various notable media sources, ranging from minor references to substantial coverage:

• The blog's mascot, Mr. Destrucoid, appeared as a playable character in Capcom's video game Bomberman Live
• G4 (television show, an editor appeared as a commentator) [16]
• Kotaku [17] [18] [19]
• Wired.com [20] [21]
• Joystiq [22] [23] [24]
• Ars Technica [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
• GameStar [32] [33]
• Gamasutra [34]
• La Stampa [35]
• The Jerusalem Post [36]
• The Providence Journal [37]
• Redding Record Searchlight [38]
• The Daily Campus [39]
• The Inquirer [40]
• Miami Herald [41] (may need registration)
• Shack News [42]
• Red Herring (the website) [43].
• Edge (the website) [44]

One of the rationales for the last RfD was concerning Google hits, which is clearly not a problem anymore. While the last few references on the above list may seem minor, the sheer number of references by notable media sources indicates the notability of the subject. Also, having the site mascot appear in a video game by one of the industry's largest companies (Capcom), clearly shows that this isn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill blog. T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been through a small set of the links you provide from the top half of the list (since you say the later maybe minor) and all those I saw would be trivial passing mentions. You couldn't write a source article based on the them since they just say "destructiod has an article on x", or "destructiod mascot to appear in a game" etc. i.e. they tell you nothing about destructoid itself. Are there any where the subject of the article is destructiod itself. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't trivial references since they do focus on Destructoid (just certain aspects of it, like the mascot or blogging practices) and references to the site aren't just made in passing. Also, as I've said, I believe that the sheer number of references, however minor, by other notable sources justifies the notability of the website.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I guess I've been unlucky in what I followed then. The wired links, the first link is a blog post telling us the mascot will be used in a game. The second covers nintendo, the destructoid connection is about the photo noting "but Nintendo's press conferences still bring out the crazy fans, like this Destructoid.com writer in a robot mask.". The joystiq links are of a similar ilk, "Destructoid defines five reasons why gamers should wait" is a report on an article on destructoid. "Destructoid made some adorable graphics comparing the prototype Revmote" again a report on an article. The others I read through were all similar. These tell you nothing factual about destructoid itself other than perhaps it get's reports on it's content elsewhere. This proves existance, doesn't get beyond the "non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources" required for notability, and would be of little use in an article, unless that article is going to be a list of trivia or mentions, i.e. not an encyclopedia article. The sheer numbers are unimportant, what is important is has someone wrote about destructoid itself, not has someone wrote about something destructoid has reported on etc. Notability question aside, if someone hasn't written about destructiod itself we'd fail
      verifiability anyway --82.7.39.174 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I've looked through the lower half of the list, and they are all of the "Destructoid website said this..." variety. Trivial mentions, that is to say, and nothing that satisfies the basic WP:Notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of those are blogs in their own right, and notable for just pulling content and summarizing with "via" links, and doesn't really establish notability. The first wired source doesn't even appear to be valid. Check the author's email address. I think that is a user submitted blog. The second one is a caption for a photo. If you honestly have to stretch this far for notability, Endorse Deletion. I just looked through about a dozen links and these are the epitome of trivial coverage.--
  Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Unfair_Deletion KingSenna (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: was closed by Jerry with this comment:

  Procedural close; no article by this title has ever existed, no deletion history in MySQL database. Please get the title right and resubmit the request. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  I've reopened—after looking at the nom's deleted contribs—with the correct page title. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorta' endorse.
  smack and we're done here, I think. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is no rule stating that an admin cannot delete an untagged article if it qualifies for speedy deletion. Indeed, such a rule would drastically slow down new page patrol.

  talk) 19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion, deleted article looks like a textbook example of A7 and G11 both. --Stormie (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)?
  talk) 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

as has been mentioned before, this is deliberately not made required, because it tends to scare off some users, rightly or wrongly We should not set procedural blocks before people who wish to appeal--doing so would be, in my opinion, somewhat BITEy. (since the afd was carried out single handed, no surprise someone might have been reluctant. Yet another argument why such admin action should be prohibited, at least for matters requiring judgment like A7 and G11--they tend to arouse antagonism and lead to unnecessary deletion review). I however do NOT mean to imply that the admin was wrong in deleting the article: I certainly would have deleted it as either A7 or G11. I am therefore certainly not saying to overturn.) DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question is this the same article as Alchemy Systems? I asked the editor on his talk page but didn't receive a response. I can't see the deleted article but the name seems similar. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, totally different: Alchemy Systems is a Texan producer of training software, Alchemy_business_solutions, according to the deleted article, is an English accounting firm. --Stormie (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Just checking. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfair_Deletion KingSenna (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as
  WP:CSD#G11, blatant avdertising. The article was entirely a bio of a non-notable professional that reads like a paid advert. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, deleted article looks like a textbook example of A7 and G11 both. --Stormie (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but Same comment as above, it would have been better to tag and let someone else carry out the deletion. But i think any admin would have readily deleted under either. DGG (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

not a CSD Anthony (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Care to elaborate? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I ran into Barrapunto when researching Gnupedia. Barrapunto is the first place that Gnupedia was announced, which makes it important. Upon further research, I see this is a website already covered in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was indicated in the article, and also makes it significant, if you really want to get all boring and technical. And as a lark, I decided to check out Barrapunto in Google Trends. There are more people who search for Barrapunto than Wikinews! So therefore Barrapunto fits neither within the letter nor the spirit of A7. And you all need to get a life. Anthony (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, then. Did the article say why this subject was notable? If it didn't, the deletion was valid, regardless of how notable it actually is (note that inclusion in another Wikipedia doesn't mean much). If it didn't, it was a valid A7. If it did, it wasn't. Either way, there's nothing stopping you from recreating it, I say go ahead. Also, you may want to lay off the attitude. Doesn't make people want to help you. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that comment wasn't the slightest bit rude. Did you read the end of that essay, Usas, about how invoking it may be a good sign of being subject to it? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd love to, but I don't have time. I apparently need to go get a life. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This was an article about web content that did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. A classic A7(web). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original deletion (EDIT: but keep current version now that problems have been corrected), perfectly fits both the letter and spirit of A7. --Stormie (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 

    "Because of the huge traffic generated by the site (position 86 in the ranking of sites according to Spanish Alexa), [6] way to cover a news produces a notable increase in visits by the linked websites." [45] Surely the spirit of A7 is not to delete articles about such popular sites simply because they aren't finished being written. The spirit of A7 is, I would think, to make it easy to delete spam, which I assure you this is not. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting Barrapunto. I came across it while researching Gnupedia, was disappointed that the best information I could get on it was a poorly translated version of the Spanish Wikipedia, and decided to do something about it. Anthony (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough (and I see that an improved version of the article has been created which does assert notability". But the version which was speedily deleted per A7 said, in full: "Barrapunto is a Spanish-language Slashdot-like website. The name is derived in the same manner as Slashdot, with the Spanish "http://" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra" and "http://barrapunto.com" pronounced "hache-te-te-pe-dos puntos-barra-barra-barra-punto-punto-com". Barrapunto runs Slash, the open source software used by Slashdot, and materials are published under CC-BY." It could hardly be clearer that this is "An article about .. web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." --Stormie (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion didn't indicate any importance or significance. Hut 8.5 12:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It's obviously a notable subject (see the es-wiki version of the article), and expanding it to including an assertion of notability will be trivial.--ragesoss (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've undeleted it and expanded it a little bit, since it's clear from a quick search that there are plenty of available sources to put notability beyond doubt, even just in English.--ragesoss (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...certainly the version I see right now isn't indicating the notability of the subject. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And now?--ragesoss (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is. Keep current version, but the speedy was technically proper. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wasn't appropriate. You should wait for the DRV to finish. I would urge you to redelete the page pending the conclusion here.
      talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I didn't simply redelete. I expanded it so that the reason for deletion is no longer a concern.--ragesoss (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stifle, care to explain the sensible, good-for-the-encyclopedia reason to delete it again? It's clearly a "notable" subject and if it was speedied before simply because the article didn't say that, then undeleting or recreating and then editing it to explain "notability" is a good response. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think he meant that the page should not have been undeleted while the DRV discussion was going on. Normally I would agree, but he undeleted it to fix the problems that led to the original deletion. There's no problem with that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; a clearly notable subject, whether or not the deletion was valid at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn or keep current version - Subject passes
  WP:NOTAVOTE is ignored. As a side note: I would like to remark that it would be nice if administrators didn't take the lazy route before hitting the A7 button: if they would do a google search and check if it's notable, and do the tiny bit of legwork to make the article assert notability. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is how the article was written when it was deleted. This is A7 and was rightfully deleted. Administrators are not responsible for "[doing] the tiny bit of legwork to make the article assert notability". Finally, being speedily deleted is not prejudice against re-creation as an article that satisfies well-established policy. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it behooves administrators not to delete an article an hour after it was created when notability is so easily seen, even if they don't want to do the legwork themselves. Deletion zeal is one of the greatest sources of ill-will by outsiders and new editors.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has now established notability. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broad homeland hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I closed this AfD but one of the people who contributed has asked me to list this here for further discussion. He said on my talkpage:

Before requesting a review, I ask you to reconsider the following:

• Six votes in favor of keeping
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, FIVE (Merzow, Mathsci, DBachmann, PhilKnight aka Addoc and Doug Weller) have a history of escalated clashes with the main contributor of the article (me) involving severe current as well as reluctantly resolved (apparently) content disputes (4X), mediation disputes (2X) and personal attacks (4X).
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, only TWO are active on archeological articles. Only ONE is aware of the PIE homeland-related literature at issue. My kind explicit and long standing request to this most violent and influential attacker to supply the requested diffs to back up claims of
  WP:SYNTH and take things from there [47]
  has been ignored and thus should be seen as rhetoric and personal attack.
• Two voters for keeping qualified the nomination as "content dispute"; additionally one voter for keeping criticized the obvious clash on what would be the "best" theory, and with me this makes four.
• Seven against six is no indisputable headcount consensus for deletion: rough consensus?
• The topic, describing the common linguistic ancestry theory that involves a "broader homeland", has been defined and described extensively in reliable sources. Nobody openly doubted the reliability of names like Lothar Kilian, Häusler and especially Mallory. Thus, there is no lack of sources that define this topic and comply to
  WP:V
  .
• Sources have been compiled, not synthesised, within the scope and definition of the topic: the theory of common linguistic ancestry of archeological cultures delimited by the broader homeland according to Lothar Kilian. To contest this, is a matter of content dispute that can best be resolved by expert review and third party "neutral" verification of sources.

I suggest the article is deleted because of a content dispute and personal agony, using wrong arguments that compromise objectivity and fact, and that it should be restored. Any true doubt on the content should be resolved by expert review and constructive discussion on TALK. Thank you. Rokus01 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for review. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Article has evidently had a lot of fair scrutiny, consensus to delete was reached after very carefuly checking of sources by some of our most competent editors, in whose judgment I have full trust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Future Perfect at Sunrise. I consider several of those who voted for deletion to be Wikipedia's best experts in the field. They have my full trust, also.--Berig (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I object to the counsil of Berig: he has been involved in personal attacks, stalking and alliances ever since I criticized his use of out of date books and maps that favor antics on a Germanic homeland in Scandinavia by proposing an obsolete deluge theory. His mentioning of "best experts on the field" (archeology) is in contradiction to my statement above and does not specify. Rokus01 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a court of law, you don't get to object to people.

  talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The debate was, in some ways, obscured by a content dispute but underneath that, the core issue raised by those arguing for deletion was never successfully addressed. No reliable, independent sources were ever produced demonstrating that the topic actually exists outside Wikipedia. This decision was well-within responsible admin discretion for closure. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the obvious confusion between topic and title should be addressed. I addressed the validity of the topic, even to the extend that the theory was notably qualified as one widely accepted theory by a reliable source. The suggestion to discuss the title by one of the voters has not taken into consideration.Rokus01 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (I was the AfD nom). I looked long and hard, and so did several respected editors active in science WikiProjects, and none of us could find any reference to the "broad homeland hypothesis" in any academic source. It is a creation of Rokus01, a synthesis spun together out of speculations by academics regarding alternatives to the Kurgan hypothesis. However, most of these alternatives are not yet named, it seems, and certainly none are named the "broad homeland hypothesis". This is original research at its most sneaky, particularly because on its face the article looks encyclopedic. - Merzbow (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sneaky", this is suggestive to the atmosphere created and fail to substantiate the main accusation: that the theory would lack any academic source. I really don't understand how people that uphold an outstanding reputation dare to put this at stake, unless they are confident that nobody would ever verify their insinuation. So why did I mention a respected and much cited book like "In Search of the Indo-Europeans - J.P.Mallory, Thames and Hudson 1989,

ISBN 0-19-507618-4"? I can't accept that this contradiction is settled by the word of one against the other. The theory is mentioned there, extensively, and thus an existing topic. To make a false statement on this is a very serious offense. Rokus01 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You've been asked many times to produce quotes from academics that define a theory called the "broad homeland hypothesis". Neither of those books above do so. - Merzbow (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well it was Lothar Kilian's theory, and also that it was the theory that tied together Corded Ware with Kurgan culture into one "common linguistic ancestry theory" that brought both cultures together into one single "broader homeland". Knowing this, you should come up with the proper question: "How the academic world refers to this theory?" Because it does, else it would not be "widely accepted". It was the "widely accepted" thing that triggered your nomination and now your offense is that you deny the existence of notable sources referring to this theory, even when they are explicitly quoted. You should have been honest and nominate this article for not complying to

WP:NAME and nothing else. I could have proposed "Kilian's theory", but just like the actual Steppe theory doesn't "belong" anymore to Gimbutas (except for those too ignorant to be cited) due to countless contributions of others including partial refutals; just like this example, in my opinion the name Kilian is immaterial to the course this theory took afterwards and nowadays. Still, the theory rather deserves an unfit name than deletion. You should have proposed a better one, since you are the criticaster to the one I proposed. Rokus01 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Mallory says that some theory for which he provides a description but no name is widely accepted. He also describes several other theories with notable support. Again, the theory is not named - you gave it a name and decided on one definition. We do not know if other scholars who are talking about something that appears similar means they are talking about the same theory. I would suggest a new article called "Alternatives to the Kurgan Hypothesis" and have sections named after each notable scholar, listing their descriptions of the alternative theories. The Anatolian hypothesis seems to be the only such alternative that has a name and a definition, so that can be in its own section. But you cannot cite multiple scholars in support of an unnamed undefined theory, which is what you did in this article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an extremely sensible solution/compromise. Renata (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I nearly closed this debate with the same result, and obviously I agree with the close. I don't see any procedural issues with it. Shereth 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn since even its possible over-enthousiastic compiliation does not justify the complete obliteration of a topic that is sourced, valid and that treats an existing theory, even cited as widely accepted. Rokus01 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I should have gone back to work on it, but among the possible sources are Colin Renfrew,Archeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Cambridge Univ. P, 1987, which discusses the earlier history of the field. The discussion at the afd was based on a total misunderstanding--this is an older and now rejected theory, now being espoused again without any sound basis. The article was POV as if the theory was correct, but that needs editing, not rrfejection of the article, because as an older theory, it was still notable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, debate was correctly interpreted, concerns of
  WP:SYN were not successfully addressed by keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. AFD process was followed correctly; the article was pure OR. —
  gr 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Only two homeland theories, the Steppeland theory of Mallory and the Anatolian theory of Renfrew, seem to have been presented extensively in the literature. Lothar Kilian's theory, which this article is about, has not attracted a following amongst other scholars and has been criticized in the academic literature for its lack of scholarship. The rejection of Mallory and Adams' 2006 book as a source was also problematic. Chapter 26 of that book was devoted to discussing the problem of determining a homeland from various points of view, but it took a completely different tack to the article under discussion, which was an extremely narrow synthesis with some misrepresentation of sources such as Mallory and Häusler. Note: I have absolutely no expertise in this area, but do have access to the academic literature. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion, but as a courtesy undelete and blank-protect so as to make the edit-history accessible. Even though the article topic was dubious, the article body did contain valid material. --
  dab (𒁳) 09:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Seems unchallenged that sources exist, and the subject is real. There were editorial concerns that are not reasons for deletion. AfD to me looked like "no concensus". At worst, I guess that editorial judgement would conclude with merge and redirect to
  Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  there were no "editorial concerns", there were concerns that the topic of the article is a non-entity (as in, zero google hits). "The subject is real" isn't an argument, I don't get to write an article on my toenails, which I assure you are real too. That said, I would be satisfied with a "redirect" outcome instead of deletion per my note above. --

  dab (𒁳) 10:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There were sources, but no ghits? Are you ignoring

  Wikipedia:GHITS? Agree that a redirect is a satisfactory outcome. It seems to be a verifiable theory, but verifiably wrong, and without special commentary, it should at best be a section. As a valid academic subject, a redirect hould exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  no, I am not "ignoring GHITS". You clearly haven't been following the discussion. Rokus01 in the AfD was trying to argue that this was "an important theory", which somehow miraculously escaped being referred to by any single name, but rather leads a kind of ghost-like existence under "descriptive names" like "Maximum geographic extend theory", "Common linguistic ancestry theory" or "One widely accepted IE homeland theory". Of course, we will need to rely on Rokus' skills of synthesis to find out which "descriptive names" do in fact refer to this "important theory".

  dab (𒁳) 07:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse - with no prejudice to work out another solution (like one that Merzbow proposed). Edit history might be needed for some other alternative. But I oppose right away recreation as the article needs to be re-written from scratch and it's better to have a clean and fresh start. Renata (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The most I see as viable is an additional note in
  GRBerry 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse seems to lack a real name, which makes it questionable for us to be writing an article about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - correctly closed, the central problem was
  WP:SYNTH, which can't be resolved by editing. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

House1630 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, bad A7. Article contains many assertions of importance, such as being the oldest wine cellar in Germany and housing the oldest wine barrel in Germany. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Clearly not a speedy deletion candidate with several assertions of significance such as "With its history over 600 years the Ratskeller of Bremen is the oldest wine cellar of Germany". Davewild (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Buildings do not qualify for A7 speedy deletion.
  talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Misapplication of A7; the speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow in scope, and widening the net even slightly is inappropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 does not apply to buildings and it asserted notability anyway. Hut 8.5 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad or contested CSD#A7. List at AfD if necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IfD | article

)

The closing admin also failed to address the issue of which articles the alleged keep consensus was valid for. The image has been claimed for as many as five articles: Scouting, Scouting in popular culture, Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America, River Phoenix, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (Of these five, Scouting isn't covered even by a fair use rationale, but nevertheless the image was immediately restored to it after the close of the IfD; rationales for River Phoenix and "Uniform and insignia..." were removed during the IfD.) Even if one were to concede legitimacy of use in Scouting in popular culture, on which most keep arguments focussed, use in Scouting is blatantly unnecessary, as it merely replicates its use in the detail article (hence illegitimate under NFCC#3); while its use in the film article must be assessed totally separately. It's one thing to say that the image is necessary for a discussion of the role of scouting in popular culture; it's an entirely different thing to say it's necessary for understanding a certain plot element in the film (which, quite blatantly, it is not.)

Therefore: Overturn and delete from all three articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. There were serious challenges to the fair use rationale. Could use further debate. A proper close requires far more explanation. If there is no consensus that the various fair use rationales are solid, should the image be deleted, or does no consensus mean keep, even in these cases? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion below seems sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the correct process was followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • False. Non-free-content related IfDs have to be closed based on policy, not just on consensus. The closer needs to explain exactly how the image fulfills the requirements and how the challenges posed by the delete voters have been met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, but remove the image from the two articles it clearly does not belong in (the Scouting ones). This isn't IFD part 2, so there's no need to argue the details, but a valid argument exists on both sides and I can justify a keep, at least for the article on the film. In the other articles, though, it's just there to pretty it up, and there are already several other, better images used as examples. On a side note, the copyright is falsely attributed to the Boy Scouts, not to the filmmakers, and used under the idea that the BSA gave permission to depict their uniforms on Wikipedia. This permission wouldn't apply to this picture. This should be fixed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This just goes to show how poor the result of that IfD was. I would argue to the contrary: If anything, the "Scouting in popular culture" article has a relatively stronger claim to legitimacy. In the context of that article, one could at least argue that the fact of Indiana Jones appearing as a scout had some significance. In the context of the film article, that fact plays absolutely no role at all. That he goes through some adventures as a boy is important for the film; that he does so in a scout uniform seems to be of no significance. The IfD failed to clarify even these basic issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and leave wherever a reasonable argument shows it relevant. If it is relevant to show him going through the adventures as a boy, it has to be shown with him wearing what he wore in the film- or it doesnt serve the purpose of providing context. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude in a close that all of the contexts listed made sense. DGG (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the image shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't show the adventures. Whatever it is that it shows, it doesn't help me to understand the film. If the article had some analytical commentary about the acting or the casting, regarding the actor they chose to play the young Indiana, that might provide an angle for an NFCC case. Just him staring at that object is simply nothing of any significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S.: Actually, looking at the article again, I now notice that it does discuss the casting: "Ford personally recommended Phoenix for the part, citing that of all the young actors working at the time, River Phoenix was the one who looked the most like him when he was around that age". Now, if the image could be linked to that bit, I guess I could actually support it here. But remove from the other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The image does comply with the NFC policy but only on the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade article. IMO Its use on the other articles really is trying it on. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep closure, but the image should really be used only in the one article, per RMHED.
  talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and figure out exact limits of non-free use, and delete if no legal use is found. Certainly (and per above) no reason for use in Scouting articles has been given. Kusma (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This received due process and was discussed for one week. All sides articulated their views thoroughly and Dreadstar rightly concluded that the image's use satisfied NFCC for the two articles where it is presently used and where FUR are provided, namely Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Scouting in popular culture. Having said that, however, I have added additional content to the latter article and the associated image FUR to address Fut.Perf.'s concerns, to clarify that this is a notable example of Scouting in film, because the fictional Indiana Jones' career as an adventurer is depicted as having its beginnings as a Boy Scout, wearing an authentic early 20th century uniform. Mere prose alone cannot possibly convey this conceptualization and context adequately to the reader seeking to understand the imagery of Scouting in film. JGHowes ^talk - 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying so don't make it so. Just making that assertion over and over again won't help. Tell me exactly, what piece of visual information in the image is it that would render the article incomplete? (And no, your recent rewording doesn't help it either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse - there's a rough consensus for the image to be kept, but I have reservations about the image - mostly, where the supposed cross is. I can't see it full-size. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own closure of this IfD. I was asked to provide more detail. This was an
  IfD
  , which are focused on whether or not to keep an image on Wikipedia, not which other articles it should be included in. Once the decision has been made to keep the image on Wikipedia for any article, then basing the decision to include in other articles should be on case-by-case talk page discussions, consensus, and policy. But I’ll be happy to address the other main article, because I did weigh both very carefully.
  1. The two strongest articles to consider for appropriate fair use of the image are Scouting in popular culture and the article on the film itself, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
     1. There is no doubt in my mind that the image fully meets all criteria for inclusion in the film it is taken from. The image illustrates a key plot point, a significant event in the life of the title subject of the film. Clearly this is a significant image from the film, depicting major elements of the character’s history and makeup, showing us the beginnings of an iconic fictional film character.
     2. Indiana Jones is clearly an iconic pop culture figure, and the image of him as a Boy Scout during the formation of what later becomes the adventurer-archeologist is a notable and a true poster-child for Scouting in popular culture. In recent years, it’s very difficult to find a pop cult figure of such magnitude, and as pointed out by others, there seem to be very few images of Scouting in film; with virtually all of those copyrighted as well, so the choice is between one fair-use image and another, or having no image. I think the image adds a lot to the article, and is a clearly notable illustration of the Boy Scouts in pop culture.
  2. The image meets all ten
     Wikipedia:NFC#Policy
     criteria for use of the non-free image. For the film article, as well as the Indiana Jones reference in the Scouting in popular culture article, there is no free equivalent. Indiana Jones is an iconic pop culture figure, and scouting was a major plot point of the film, this image cannot be replaced by a free one that carries the same effect. The film itself was the top grossing film of 1989, The image provides a visual context that text alone cannot convey, so textual representation cannot replace it. The image use is in no way likely to replace the market role of the original.
  3. It also meets minimal usage, minimal extent of use, previous publication, and media-specific policy. It meets the one-article minimum, significance (addressed above), restrictions on location, and has an adequate image description page - containing proper attribution to the source and copyright holder.
  4. Image use also meets
     Wikipedia:NFC#Images
     requirements, 8: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. The mage is clearly used for “discussion of the cinema and television” in both the Indiana Jones film and Scouting in popular culture articles.
  5. The image also does not fail under any of the
     WP:NFC Inappropriate use of images
     criteria.

  Dreadstar † 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Showing a significant plot point is simply not enough. You claim that "textual representation cannot replace it". Saying so don't make it so. Of course it can. As long as the claimed justification is just the thing about scouting. As I said above, I can see a different angle of justification elsewhere, to support the commentary about casting. Now, that really is an analytical statement that needs visual support to be understood. That's the only reason why I'm prepared to let this DRV rest. But I can't let this misrepresentation of policy pass uncommented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the criteria used is often of interpretations, different interpretations does never mean misrepresentation of policy. The interpretations by Rlevse, JGHowes and closure rationale by Dreadstar above, convinced me that this image should be used on both Wikipedia articles. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While there remains a group of editors that feel that there should be no non-free content on the project, that is not even close to a consensus opinion. The close of this IfD was not controversial, nor was it out of process in any way. This is an easy call to endorse the "keep" closure. S. Dean Jameson 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I was trying to think of this word yesterday, that image represents a pivotal moment in the character's history; as he's holding the cross, with the realization that this important artifact of history belongs in a museum and that there are forces that would take it for personal gain. His Scouting background is obviously in play here, not only by giving him the positive moral view to rise above selfishness, but also the tools and training to actually do something about it. It's really a pivotal moment in an iconic character's life. And the point brought up by Fut Perf fits right in, that image is exactly what Spielberg wanted to convey, how he looked as a youth and what motivating forces he saw behind the iconic character of Indiana Jones. It's also a symbol of what drives him to seek the holy grail. The movie starts off with the cross and ends up with the grail.
  Dreadstar † 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And do you have reliable sources to back that up, or is it just your opinion? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. There aren't any reliable sources to back up the claim that this is "the most famous instance of scouting in film" at all. In fact, Indy being a Boy Scout is almost completely irrelevant to the plot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No clear error in IfD closing. Folks have to deal with the fact the some of the NFCC rules are subjective and opinions (headcount) does play a role. There are good arguments on both sides, but closing as keep seemed reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I stand by my original position that this image meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The image clearly has an appropriate use. If it is inappropriately displayed in another article/user page, it needs to be removed from that page, not Wikipedia altogether. If other discussions erupt, they should be contained to that talk page and then work their way through
  WP:DR as needed; this page isn't the place. I also disagree with the assertion that anyone who nominates keep needs to explain how every other delete argument is wrong and they must state how it satisfies every criteria. That is not in accordance with policy and will only serve to significantly lengthen a discussion for every image which has a keep !vote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Further comment. Future Perfect has now removed it from Scouting, (and threatened a block in his edit summary if anyone restored it), erroneously claiming that it's an obvious violation of NFCC #3 in doing so. Not only is it not an "obvious violation", it's not even a technical violation of NFCC #3 to have it in Scouting, as I outlined at the talk page of the image. S. Dean Jameson 17:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would both of you please take a deep breath and work this out on the article's Talk page rather than via edit-warring? While there is room to reasonably debate whether the use of this image in the Scouting article would qualify under fair use, over-the-top allegations that it's "the most famous image of scouting in film" show problems with the fallacy of recency and don't materially advance the debate. It may be popular and it certainly is recent and that may or may not be sufficient to meet fair use for a section titled "In film and the arts", but it is nowhere close to "the most famous image of scouting". (If I had to guess, I'd suspect one of the Norman Rockwell paintings.) At the same time, it is inappropriate to threaten blocking while the question is worked out. I can't find any consensus to either add or remove the image from the page. In fact, I can't find any evidence of discussion at all on Talk:Scouting. Please make your respective cases and work out your differences there. This is not the place to work out a content dispute. Rossami (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was gonna say something, but you EC'd me right out of it because I agree with you 100%. In any event, I don't think anyone (even the nom) supports deletion of the image anymore, it's just a matter of where it's used. This is now a content dispute. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On Scouting, there is no mention in the article even of the film, let alone of the specific scene, let alone analytical commentary involving it. Moreover, at the time I removed it, the image didn't even have a caption identifying what it was. Plus, it was supposedly doing the same thing there as in the detail article Scouting in popular culture. You don't get to use the same image twice in two articles for the same purpose. Non-free image use has to be "minimal". Doing the same thing twice is not minimal under any understanding of that word. There's no way the image can be tolerated on that article. No room even for debate here. As an administrator on this project, I will do what needs to be done to prevent this obvious case of abuse, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn I'm swayed by the arguments above that NFCC 8 was not met. the fact that river pheonix was cast as a boy scout and that he held the cross of coronado (a throwaway plot point, BTW) can be explained without loss by text. If, perhaps, we had some image of Harrison Ford at that age and listed the two side by side along with the sourced point that Phoenix was chosen specifically by ford because he bore some strong resemblance to him, I could see it meeting NFCC 8. the fact that some hypothetical non infringing use exists mean that I would only move weakly to overturn the keep closure. the image in current form and applied in the current articles does not convey any understanding that can't be conveyed textually. the cross of coronado is a gilded cross. Indy was a boy scout. he once held the cross. these are things expressed by the article but easily expressed by text as well. Even if removal of the image somehow prevented us from discussing the plot point at hand (assuming that the image conveyed some quality inexpressible in text), the plot point the image describes is vanishingly minor. On balance I don't see good arguments to keep this image. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't the IfD. It's a rather strange DRV regarding an IfD closed as "keep." The only question before us is whether the closing admin was wrong to close it as such. If the "keep" close is endorsed, then open a new IfD after a while and make your above argument there. It has nothing to do with whether or not the IfD was closed properly. S. Dean Jameson 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize my statements can be broadly taken as a rehashing of an IfD, but it seems appropriate to this DRV. In this case, consensus pointed to keep and the nominator's (of the DRV) interpretation of policy pointed to delete. Insofar as policy might trump consensus (and it ought to for FU images), making a clear interpretation of policy is important to endorsing or overturning the close. So, to clarify. In my opinion, application of
  WP:NFCC trumps anything but a resounding consensus and the proper application of NFCC is to treat the image as not meeting #8. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here's the thing: a few people (are you one?) feel that NFCC is cut-and-dried, and that this image clearly fails #8. The fact that so MANY people disagree with that view of the policy means it's NOT cut-and-dried. Therefore, our opinions on the merits of the image itself have no place--none--in this discussion. The only thing up for debate is whether or not the closing admin made a mistake in determining consensus.S. Dean Jameson 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. NFCC 8 isn't cut and dry, but the application of it as it may be understood is. If the admin weighed consensus against a violated fair use criteria and determined that anything less than overwhelming consensus moved to keep the article, the close was wrong. Part of the review of the deletion comes from hashing out some definition of the policy at hand. IF this were an article and we were reviewing a deletion per
  WP:N, we would have cause to point that out. In this case there is more to be said at the DRV than "3 people moved to delete citing NFCC 8". Again, if the image violates policy, then the question becomes "did the admin make a mistake weighing policy against consensus", not just "weighing consensus". Protonk (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• But significance is a matter of opinion, and so we look for consensus. There can't be an objective violation of #8 as it is currently described. It is a matter of opinion and degree. So the closing admin shouldn't be overriding consensus. At least that's my take.

• Overturn and delete per every precedent set here at WP:DRV, this image in no way meets
  talk 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'll repeat what I said before: this isn't IfD. These type of arguments are appropriate at an IfD. They're not appropriate here. Your citing of "per every precedent set here at DRV" makes little sense, as DRVs don't overturn "keep" decisions simply because the deletes didn't get their way at IfD. We know you think you're right about NFCC #8. Many other people felt you were wrong in your interpretation. This is NOT the place to rehash the IfD. It's not a "do-over" for the deletes, it's a review of the procedural decision made by the closing admin, period. S. Dean Jameson 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the decision of the admin violates Wikipedia policy, then an error was made and the decision needs to be overturned. I contend that he did, based on precedents set in this forum for the way this image is used. -
  talk 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Actually, no. Your interpretation of NFCC#8 doesn't matter as to whether the close was procedurally correct or not. That's all DRV is really for. It doesn't matter whether or not you think his close violated your interpretation of WP policy or not. Again, this isn't IfD. S. Dean Jameson 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think his close violated the consensus established here at DRV for non-free images being used in this manner so his close cannot be procedurally correct. And it doesn't matter what you think DRV is really for. -
  talk 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse This image is FU eligible, certainly for Scout pop culture and movie articles. This is one of the most iconic Boy Scout images from pop culture so its use in those two articles is precisely what FU is all about. To say it isn't is stretching the FUR to the limits. FUR is not as black and white as that. — Rlevse • Talk • 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. If this is such an iconic image, why is there no critical commentary of it anywhere on Wikipedia? The
  gr 09:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - decorative image. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepCritical commentary is not required, it is only one way to meet fair use. The keep closure at IFD was with consensus and policy.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image uses the {{Non-free film screenshot}} template, which requires "critical commentary on the film and its contents". PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is setting a guideline/policy? Where is that derived from? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more content to Scouting in popular culture and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, particularly elaborating on Steven Spielberg's use of lighting and adding critical commentary by Roger Ebert regarding this specific scene; see diffs here and here JGHowes ^talk - 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turners Falls Road Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing admin apparently did not check the state of the articles before deleting. While the original articles prior to the AFD were indeed lacking, significant improvements have been made during the AFD that satisfy the requirements of

• Overturn for all six articles. It seemed to me that the concensus of the discussion was to keep the articles. Agree with above statement that closing admin did not review articles for improvements made since nomination. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for all - The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the articles and as pointed above, the closer didn't seem to notice improvements made to them. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all Sources were added to the articles during AFD but unfortunatly nobody seems to have mentioned this on the AFD. Sources added addressed the policy grounds for deletion -
  WP:V - and provides an arguable case for notability which many of the contributors to the AFD accepted. Could see a reasonable no consensus close but considering the changes to the articles during the AFD, delete does not seem to be appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn all. Certainly improved by the time of closure. Ian¹³/t 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus and the closer seemed to impose his own personal view rather than defaulting to keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion (no consensus might have been better), and nobody discussed the improvements made to the articles. --Hut 8.5 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all - per previous comments - Denimadept (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)?
  talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I only notified the admin about the deletion review but have not discussed the matter prior to this review. Is that really an absolute necessity though? The deletion review is by nature a discussion in which the closing admin is specifically invited to participate and also reaches a few more people than a one-on-one discussion. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's customary, at least, to discuss the matter first with the admin as oftentimes they will realise that the deletion was in error and restore the page there and then, without having to go through a five-day listing here. It's also common courtesy, I think. Thanks for your quick reply. Overturn deletion per all above. No consensus to delete (or, for that matter, to do anything else) is discernible from that AFD, and the standard result in that case is a keep.
      talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn all; bad close. --NE2 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn ALL. Before the articles were nominated, they did not have many reference citations (which was apparently the reason for their nomination). During the course of the AFD debate, for the (3) road bridges in particular which were claimed to be less "notable" than the (3) railroad bridges, citations and references were added to the articles (books and publications about Connecticut and Massachusetts bridges). The "AFD Discussion rules" to keep from deleting should have been posted initially so that the significant majority who had voted to Keep could have posted accordingly. Instead the closing Admin ignored both the significant changes to the articles as well as the comments of the majority who had voted to Keep. Those who voted to Keep probably did not understand what the Admin required in terms of defending Wikipedia:Notability, accordingly one or more good notability examples should have prevented them from being deleted. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to article content and not article existence, so Notability was the only criteria which needed to be defended against deletion.

For example, Notable features of Turners Falls Road Bridge:

• Carries 3,944,700 vehicles per year (2003) National Bridge Inventory
• $2,987,000.00 was the estimated cost to make standard bridge and highway improvements to it in 2006.
• 135.9 metres (446 ft) long over the Connecticut River composed of (5) piers in the water and (6) spans
• survived several Connecticut River floodings, whereas the previous (White Lower Suspension) bridge was destroyed by flooding at the same location
• documented in/on several Connecticut and Massachusetts bridge books, lists, publications and sites.

LeheckaG (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my interpretation of the consensus in the AfD. Consensus is not only a head-count. How the arguments are covered by policy is the most important factor. In this instance, there were no arguments that showed how the subjects in question were notable in Wikipedia context, and many arguments that can be disregarded out of hand. There were editors, however, who effectively argued that the articles lacked notability, which is policy- (in this instance, guideline) backed. Therefore, the consensus based on policy-backed arguments was that the articles should be deleted. There were improvements made during the AfD. However, none of the participants in the discussion addressed these as granting notability or not. Perhaps the sources added notability, perhaps they did not. It is not my place to decide, as that puts my own interpretation of the notability guideline above consensus in an AfD. Now, given the improvements, a relist to gather consensus as to whether the improvements addressed the previous concerns would have been a more acceptable course of action, but there no indication that additional sources had been added that could have granted notability was given. I stand by my assessment of consensus as correct. However, in light of the new sources, and therefore the complication it adds in closure, I'm fine with it being overturned. However, I do ask that the closure be overturned and the articles undeleted with no prejudice toward a future AfD should another editor find the sources lacking, and therefore a wider consensus can be gathered based on the new state of the articles. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize that no one at the AFD mentioned that improvements were made to the articles during the discussion that may have satisfied notability for at least some of the articles. This is not meant in anyway to malign the closing admin as the action was completely proper based on the AFD discussion alone. The deletions, however, should be overturned and articles nominated separately (the bundling of bridges that have widely varying degrees of notability was a problem itself) if some people still think that one or more of the articles are not notable. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: As the nominator of the AfD, I was gratified to see one of the uncommon instances of a closing nom support policy over consensus. The
   RGTraynor  06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What you patently fail to understand is that these so-called "policies" you worship are totally non-prescriptive and non-binding. We don't have to obey them, ever, at all, for any reason. No so-called "policy" ever trumps consensus in a particular case, and no community servant has any legitimate business to act against consensus in a particular case because a so-called "policy" says otherwise. You've got Wikipedia backwards. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No 1500 foot long bridge is "nondescript", I'm afraid.... but more importantly, you've got things backwards I think. You say: "one of the uncommon instances of a closing nom support policy over consensus" ... Um, I think maybe you're not totally clear on how policy is formed here. Policy follows consensus. If consensus consistently comes out ("uncommon instances" notwithstanding) in contravention of apparent policy, the policy is what has been described wrong, not the consensus, because policy is descriptive of consensus, not prescriptively counter to it. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And if there has been a Wikipedia-wide consensus declaring that
   RGTraynor  04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I was one of people adding notability to the subject articles during the AfD process and didn't consider it necessary to repeat the information in AfD discussion since more people were endorsing a keep than a delete. So I will give a sample of the information I found here for just one of the articles.

The

U.S. Representative. He operated the Fitchburg Railroad. This rail line would eventually extend to the Hoosac Tunnel, a civil engineering landmark. Mr. Crocker bought land and developed Turners Falls

. Because he built the rail line and the bridge, a cutlery factory opened in Turners Falls. I found a biography on him (Life and Times of Alvah Crocker By William Bond Wheelwright) that stated that Turners Falls would not exist as it is today without Mr. Crocker building that "non-descript railroad bridge."

Those of us with a passion for bridges realize that a community will shape a bridge before it is built, but once constructed, a bridge (no matter how small) will shape a community for decades to come. This is often taken for granted as people do not see the effect a bridge has until it is gone. These articles were stubs and probably would have been better suited to be combined together and discussed in an article like Connecticut River Crossings in Franklin County, Massachusetts. That way the impact they have on the community (which I might consider to be their notability) can be discussed as a group. You are very much right that

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges

needs to develop notability criteria.

I guess I must still be a newbie, because the deletion of the articles by the admin felt like a

WP:BITE to me (very one-sided). - PennySpender1983 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that a portmanteau article would be appropriate, but just in considering that sample paragraph above, the editor's mixing up his bridges. Turners has, in fact, three bridges crossing it; the one up for deletion is the least notable and least noticeable one of the lot, and I didn't touch the (relatively notable) Gill-Montague Bridge, the main route into Turners, or the (relatively notable) General Pierce Bridge. The Amtrak/Springfield Terminal Railroad Bridge is something like sixty miles south of Turners Falls, is in Connecticut, and nowhere near the Fitchburg Railroad or the Hoosac Tunnel routes. That aside, as stated before, every bridge was built by someone, most bridges involved economic development, and whether a bridge or not has a notable impact on the community after it is gone is speculation which I don't find in

 RGTraynor  23:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe the railroad bridge being referred to as the Deerfield Springfield Terminal railroad bridge. --Polaron | Talk 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I added information on three of the six bridges. The Suffield/Enfield railroad bridge was an example in an Engineering textbook that was listed as an external link in the article. It was also mentioned in one of the cited sources as being one of the earliest iron bridges in the United States that was built before the end of the U.S. Civil War. It was built overseas, disassembled, shipped to the U.S., then reassembled. The Northfield road bridge was prominently discussed in a book about the history of the town. It was also the first bridge in the U.S. not to use falsework during construction. The Turner Falls road bridge is also highlighted in one of the added sources as being crucial for the booming of the manufacturing industry in the village in the 19th century because it brought it in direct contact with the county seat. It is also notable for being bypassed by State Route 2 because of concerns of being washed away (the area apparently suffers from its bridges frquently being washed away). WP:N only something requires being discussed in secondary sources. Note that the added sources do discuss the social and economic effects of the bridges and offer some engineering novelty as well. The sources have more information but I only added what stood out to me. These three plus the Deerfield railroad bridge discussed above for sure meet the requirements of WP:N. The other two bridges I have begun searching for sources during the AFD but have not found any that discuss the bridges (rather than merely mention them) unlike the other four. --Polaron | Talk 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too Penny, me too. At this point, I'm more interested in starting a new Wiki for structures past, present, and future than I am in continuing here. I'm trying to determine interest atm. - Denimadept (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn all - articles improved. Also the closing comments smacked me as "I don't like these articles thus I am going to ignore anything the opposers said." Renata (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all at the very least, they should have ben relisted individually. DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all a shotgun nom seems not the way to go, individual discussions would be better. The closer should have closed no consensus based on the strength of the arguments in any case. I have merged the content of Joseph E. Muller Bridge, a 1500 foot long bridge, and thus likely notable in its own right anyway, into Joseph E. Muller (who is notable as a Medal of Honor winner), and was about to do the same for others when I realised there was a DRv underway. These articles should all be undeleted to allow for review by participants. That includes undeleteing ALL revisions. Turners Falls Road Bridge for example, has only a notice. The rest of the edits, which would allow non admin participants to judge whether there was substantial change in the article while the AfD was underway, are deleted. That seems incorrect to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which arguments supporting keeping had any basis in policy or guideline? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... how about the fact that multiple sources were added during the course of the nom satisfying notability: "It is one of the earliest iron bridges erected in the United States." with a five page writeup in an 1881 engineering text, for example... That was one of the articles you deleted. That you didn't catch that suggests that your review was not as careful as it could have been. There is no shame in a bad close or a bad delete, people get overturned all the time, it happens to me too. Where there is an issue is in not admitting your error but instead digging in. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't view it as a closing administrator's place to review modifications to the article and deem them as addressing the AfD concerns or not. In this instance, because of the presence of such modifications, a relist of the AfD would have been more appropriate, and I already admitted that. But, purely based on the AfD, there were no "keep" arguments put forth that were in-line with our policies and guidelines. Length of a bridge does not grant notability based on our notability guideline, and therefore none of those arguments were valid. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to process wank, be my guest. Relist the lot at AfD so they can be snowball speedy closed as keep by me, and we'll move on. Or just overturn them all now yourself and admit you erred. OR... dig in and look increasingly like you're more concerned with process than with improving the encyclopedia. How many people telling you this was a bad close do you need? ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is what we do. (Yes, that's circular, and rightly so.) If common practice and policy/guidelines do not match, one or the other must change. --NE2 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn all. If the closer is correct to delete these articles because of our notability policy, then the policy is seriously flawed. Our policies are supposed to describe our practices, which are determined in forums like AFD. So the notability arguments can get extremely circular. Towards the end of the discussion, I asked what actual harm there is in having articles like these. That should be the focus of our discussion. Nobody is questioning the existence of these bridges, or any of the facts in the articles. There is no problem in maintaining the articles. They are not a target of vandalism. All the information is verifiable.
  I strongly believe that there are good reasons for having a policy about notability. Notability standards help us judge the sources used to verify an article and weigh their reliability and accuracy. That is not an issue here. Notability standards help us keep Wikipedia being unmanageable. This is the only issue that seems relevant to this discussion. I can understand why we might want to put some limitations on the notability of music groups to control the exploitation of Wikipedia for reasons of self-promotion. In cases when there is a problem with contributors exploiting Wikipedia by some means, a notability standard is a useful way to reign in the behavior. The Bridge Wikiproject is a pretty sleepy backwater. We don't have many issues or controversies. We are not being overrun with articles about every overpass every constructed. We have never had a need to create strict notability standards. Again, I ask for someone to explain how articles like these are harmful to Wikipedia. The only harm that I see is from the deletion discussions like this one that may scare away newbies while wasting the efforts of numerous editors on both side of the debate. I think we would all be better off looking for more important problems to solve. --
  ☑ SamuelWantman 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  We're not being overrun? :) (just kidding; that's on the National Register of Historic Places, which probably does confer "inherent notability" because of the existence of nominations that cover the history in detail) --NE2 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Improved during afd. Sourced. Part of a set best completely documented rather than half-documented. Subject of much officially held data. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Seriously? Just looking at the AfD, how was it closed as delete?
  ^T 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - ridiculous to apply notability guidelines in this manner, and there's a notable gap between the arguments and the claimed result. Terrible decision - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all — misfeasance by closing admin ➥the Epopt (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia "POLICY" see Wikipedia:List of policies); Wikipedia:Consensus says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." When the majority voted to "Keep" in the AFD discussion, I had thought that the "Consensus" was to "Keep", but apparently the Nominator and the Closing Admin felt differently - repeatedly citing Wikipedia:Notability (which is a Wikipedia "Guideline" and NOT a policy see: Wikipedia:List of guidelines). The "Notability guideline" is primarily intended to curtail "self-publishing" and spamming, and to consolidate some brief articles into fewer articles about the general subject area or topic when there are not enough verifiable details for each one to stand on its own merits. The Notability guideline is meant to be a tool to direct editors to merge non-spam "orphan" content (and administrators to delete content which is CLEARLY "self-promotional spam") which was wrongly applied in the case of historic/older sizable bridges over a significant river. Hopefully this review will more clearly show the difference between: "consensus", "guideline", and "policy" than the original AFD outcome. What SHOULD have happened originally (BEFORE any AFD nomination), was FIRST "flagging/tagging" the articles with regard to being "Stubs" or not having enough citations/references so that the contributors/editors in the relevant projects could have remedied them rather than "fighting" an AFD debate and then this subsequent review of the AFD closure which went against Consensus. Initially, the nominated articles did not have the appropriate WP Bridges and WP Trains project templates on the talk pages - so they were "off the radar" of the relevant projects. Unfortunately some Wikipedians spend more time deleting than contributing or editing (I agree that spam and clearly "erroneous" content should be deleted, but I have seen accurate content get deleted for lack of a reference - which probably goes against a guideline or policy?). I have gotten in the habit of separating "References" into (3) sections: "Notes" for Cnote/Cref elaborations which do not fit in the main text, References for ref/Cite tags/templates, and General references for research materials not yet or not otherwise cited in the text. First adding General references when I can, and then starting to add the content to the article. But sometimes uncited/unreferenced details need to be flushed out first to get some generalities down before one can really find "authoritative/primary" reference citations, in the case of most bridges they are known by several different names and tying the "common" name together with the published ones takes some effort which results in stub articles being there for a while until someone can tie the details together. The "chicken and egg" issue I see is that while some people write entire articles themselves, I am guessing the majority of contributors work on certain aspects of articles - so that collaboration is generally beneficial. What is needed are "collaborative sandboxes" for such articles perhaps in "Project" or "Portal" namespace? so that such stubs can be created and collaboratively drafted without facing the wrath of those who would delete "unfinished/unreferenced articles" rather than actually contributing to them. LeheckaG (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "collaborative sandbox" you ask for is called a "wiki". Unsourced stubs are an essential part of wikis. Unsourced material is only a problem if is unverifiable. That is not the case here. --

☑ SamuelWantman 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This can not be considered advertising, the article describes a non-profit non-commercial organization. Similar rational was used at Talk:DataPortability. Significance and notability were asserted, let this article live so it will begin to see improvement. riffic (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Nonprofits advertise, too. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Should contested speedies be assumed to be entitled to be listed at AfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new (recreated?) version Looks like advertising of "The Open Web Foundation". Needs third party references to demostrate otherwise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure that this is a normal process... Looks like it's on the way to a speedy but has been hung on. As it is, I would say Delete as it seems to fail
  notable. --Pmedema (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse previous speedy, and it looks like the current one needs deleting as well. Not everything is important, I'm afraid. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please elaborate on your comment "Not everything is important." I am failing to understand what you mean by that. This topic is notable in multiple recent references, and is made up of significant member organizations. They are also going to be leading the development of leading open protocols such as OpenID and OAuth, which are significant enough to warrant their own wiki entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was announced yesterday, my gut reaction is that it isn't notable yet. Still, I could be wrong and it could be made into a good article. My opinion isn't likely to change on this for at least a few weeks, though it's fine if consensus doesn't swing that way. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion of the page at time of deletion. The deleted version was far too promotional in tone and speculative in content. It was an appropriate application of criterion G11. The recreated version is at least somewhat more neutral and better sourced. I'm still not sure that it meets Wikipedia's generally accepted
  inclusion criteria for organizations but at this point it's a question for AfD to sort out. As a side note, comments like "going to be" are real red-flags. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for press releases. We document and synopsize things that have happened and have been written about by others; we are not supposed to speculate about the future. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, but allow re-creation I too would have speedied the article at the time of deletion, in large part because I fully share Rossami's views about "going to be" and its many equivalents. Once it a while it happens that they are left in from a previous wording or press release and whatever it is has since become important, but almost always it's reasonably conclusive evidence otherwise. I think that all admins closing speedy do similarly. DGG (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish anti-Zionists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists is a category that exists. It's not a POV magnet yet this one was deleted because it is? Also, more votes requested a keep than delete.Comradesandalio (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

• CfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_2#Category:Jewish_anti-Zionists

• Comment. Part of the closer's rationale "There is nothing to stop editors from creating cited lists with this material, and that is, by far, a much more appropriate way to include this information in Wikipedia" is contrary to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, specifically "These methods should notbe considered to be in conflict with each other". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Closing admin was correct in his explanation. Consensus is not and never will be a vote count. --Kbdank71 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Consensus is not a vote count, but the closing admin, if he does not agree with the general balance of rational arguments, must join in the discussion and let someone else close. Consensus foes not mean whatever the closer happens to think is the right arguments. The closer is not to evaluate according to his statement: "the arguments made during the discussion must be weighed against any relevant policies and guidelines", but just to discard the arguments not based on policy. We are qualified individually to decide what is or is not policy, but balancing them is not an individual matter. The community, not the admin, decides which policy is controlling and when to make exceptions. Incidentally, the reason I did not participate in the CfD was that i thought the matter was too obviously a keep to need my arguements also. DGG (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying 50 people saying something like "Keep, because it's been
  WP:BLP? After all, both are policy. The closing admin can and should weigh the arguments made, and should not be pigeonholed into "is it policy or not?". Because then we're just back to counting. --Kbdank71 16:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn there was no consensus to delete. Admins closing rationale is fundamentally flawed. RMHED (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Kbdank71. Because there is no way (that I am aware of) of providing a citation to justify someone's membership in a category, it is not possible for this category to comply with
  talk) 18:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, closer's reasoning is compelling. This is too contentious and too nuanced to be handled by a category. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - discussion did not show any consensus --T-rex 00:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. (Note: As the closer, it would have been nice if issues with my closing were discussed with me before bringing it here. It also would have been nice to be informed about this review. I just happened to stumble on it by accident.)
  Over the years we have discussed categories very similar to this one and in numerous decisions have decided to delete categories that label people this way. Consensus does not mean counting up votes every time the same issues come up. Closing an argument does not mean just taking into account the opinions of the few people who made comments. We must consider the entire community, and take into the account the precedents of other decisions. To do otherwise would mean that we'd be recreating all our guidelines constantly. Our guidelines may be wrong. If they are, we need to discuss the ways in which they are wrong. The nominator cited the precedents and history that led to nominating this category. The arguments and reasoning that led to those decisions of the past were left essentially unchallenged by those wishing to keep the category. To close the discussion as a "keep" would mean that I was going to ignore the past without good reason. I believe that consensus can change. In fact, there are many established practices that I wish would change. However, I think anyone who is advocating a change needs to present convincing arguments. --
  ☑ SamuelWantman 08:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Article subject has been the subject of multiple independent reliable articles, interviews, and other sources. User:Orangemike speedy deleted while initial article version was being drafted. Other editor had nommed for speedy deletion earlier, but seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc. I recreated the article after Orangemike's deletion, left him a talk page message, and left a note on the article talk page asking for community discussion on subject's notability. He summarily deleted article again and protected it. I have asked him to undelete and submit to AfD for proper sense of community consensus. The sources were in notable newspapers and one was published by a major cable television network. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The following sources appear (from a cursory google search) to be independent of the article subject, suitable under
  WP:RS
  , and readily verifiable:

(1) Pre-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article

(2) Post-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article, and TV network bio

(3) Self-published (suitable for establishing non-controversial biographical details like birthday, etc.): auto-bio

• Overturn There was enough coverage in reliable sources provided in the article to make at least an arguable case for notability and thus not a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Could see an AFD going either way but is not the clear cut case required for speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is the point where it should go to AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or List at AfD. Either needs more time, or deserves nore consideration and explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Regardless of whether it will survive AfD, it passes speedy, and that's all we need discuss here. DGG (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD, which is, I guess, the same as saying Overturn. I am the editor who "seemed amenable to waiting for initial draft to be completed with reliable sources, etc."; I was planning on re-examining the article today and submitting it to AfD if it seemed appropriate. I don't believe this article can meet the guidelines of
  WP:REALITY and I believe that the AfD will determine the outcome of this in a fairly permanent way, which is what I would like to see happen -- regardless of the outcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment

WP:BIO standard for notability, which is as follows: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." DickClarkMises (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Everyone could've saved themselves a lot of trouble (still could) by just redirecting to
  Project Runway (season 5), and expanding her listing there. All of her notability thus far has been in connection with her participation on that show. Postdlf (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment This assertion, that the article subject's notability is entirely related to the television show, is clearly incorrect, as the sources linked above demonstrate. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-PR, all you have is local coverage of the local boutique she opened. Whatev, if that is enough for you. Postdlf (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf: True or false?: Multiple sources independent of the article subject and otherwise meeting

Notability is not temporary. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and send to AFD. Enough assertions of notability there to avoid an A7 speedy.
  talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Even if it fails speedy, I can't see any justification for over-ruling a {{hangon}}, as I understand happened here. That's for the bad stuff, not mere judgement calls over notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - per consensus, I've restored the article and removed the protection; I still feel that this is just another NN reality show contestant, and will fail AfD. (At least the number of
  Pokemon is finite; the number of non-notable reality show contestants is much larger, and apparently infinite.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Think About Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am bringing this here at the suggestion of the admin who closed the AfD, as I have found multiple sources that were not mentioned in the discussion; see below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting overturn as per the following, copied from User talk:Waggers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Waggers. Would be be open to restoring this article you deleted? In the deletion discussion no one actually said they had made attempts to search for sources to establish notability. Yet sources exist as follows:

• "Think About Life's Van Pelt Builds Miracle Fortress",
  Pitchfork Media
• "Miracle Fortress and Think About Life Tour Eastern Canada", Exclaim! magazine
• "Dream team: The pop-culture pick-up games of Think About Life", Montreal Mirror
• "Accidental plan: Things go wrong the right way for Miracle Fortress", Montreal Mirror (it's about Miracle Fortress but has verifiable relevant content to add to Think About Life)
• "Fortress of solitude,
  Montreal Gazette
  (ditto)
• "Triple threat,
  Hour
• "Think About Life: L'Urgence de la Pop", Voir
• "Think About Life: L'harmonie du chaos", Voir

(All of those were found with Google.) There's also (found in my library):

• Dunlevy, T'Cha. "Raw, corny and somehow compelling. Let's Think About Life", Montreal Gazette, p. D3, 2006-06-08. (A 700-word article entirely about the band, with the most relevant content to add)
• Wenzel, John, "15 buzz bands at small to midsized venues",
  Denver Post
  , p. F4, 2006-04-30.

Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore based on new evidence (original closure was correct one based on the AFD). New sources providing significant coverage, which were not found during the AFD, which now appear to establish notability. Concern of the AFD was the lack of sources which has now been addressed. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore looks like good sources to me. I'm actually a little sad that I could find a number of reasonable sources by going to Google and typing '"Think About Life" band' in both news and web. While AfD close was fine based on comments, folks probably should have spent a few more moments before !voting. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion These sources are more than enough to establish notability and make a half-decent article. Paragon12321 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - these sources appear to meet
  WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and restore based on new sources, notability established.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I wouldn't have deleted the article if the above sources were included in the AfD discussion. Waggers (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the admin's closure based on the information available at the time, but now overturn and relist to get a view of the community consensus based on the new sources.
  talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – Looking over others' comments here, I may be in the minority with this viewpoint, but I think it is improper for an administrator to close a discussion as "delete" (per lack of sources to establish
  WP:JNN ("just not notable"). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Commando Krav Maga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)