Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May

The detour (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a community, non-profit radio station that has been in existence for over a year in Johnson City, TN. We are also an affiliate of the Pacifica Radio Network. We have several volunteers that dedicate countless hours to giving the local community and region an independent voice. Thedetour (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You might find it easier to understand why this article was deleted if you read up on our core principles and polices. Please review our notability
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We have been featured in our local newspaper in this news article, are supported by the local group Democracy Now Tri-Cities. We are also featured in Pacifica Network's directory. What is notable is that a group of people in the community have taken the time to build a radio station. This article was deleted about 3 seconds after it was created. I do not think enough time was taken to review it. Other community radio stations have been featured in Wikipedia. Did we provide to much information for it to be considered "advertising"? Thedetour (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'm afraid that you probably do not meet our inclusion criteria. The first source reads like a rewritten press release and the other two do not appear to have come from sources that meet our
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The first source was written by the local newspaper (for a town of 60,000...everything they write sounds like a press release). It was featured on the front page. The person that wrote the article has no affiliation with the station. What kind of sources are required for inclusion? We have an established web site, several other sites that link to us. Must we have had several articles written about us, etc. to be included? As I have stated before, other community radio stations have been included in Wikipedia with little to no other "sources". Thedetour (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional source: East Tennessean article (official student newspaper for East Tennessee State University Thedetour (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some questions: Were these sources in the article? Was the article talking -about- the station, or did it promote it? Did the article explain why the station was notable? If not, then of course it would be deleted. What I would suggest you do is to re-write the article in your user-space and address the concerns of the speedy deletion (it was blatant advertising for the station, and it didn't indicate notability), then we can help you with it. Bringing a draft article to DRV helps your chances. If you want the old info to work with, any admin can help you out. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it if I could get the old content for the original page I wrote and revise it with the new sources included. I would also like to withdraw this review request. How can I go about doing this? Thedetour (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, don't withdraw the request yet. Second, just ask for the content. You can try leaving a message on the deleting admin's talk page (Cobaltbluetony, or just wait here for an admin to do it. When you're done, let people know here, and we can help you out more (or use my talk page). --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help. I will ask the admin that originally deleted my article for the content back. Thanks again Thedetour (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is the beginnings of a fully sourced article about an institution that has received a lot of media interest and is thus clearly notable. What is the exact (detailed) problem here? Put another way, if this is not in full conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what changes can be made to make it so. I think this is an important and notable topic and needs to be made in a format that it acceptable to all and of encyclopaedic value. This should, in my view, be achieved through editing and discussion, not deletion. Happy to discuss further in detail. SCISInfo (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Moved to proper log page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Second note: Fix't to proper page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the admin who closed the CSD nomination by deleting it. It's a poorly sourced BLP (a blog is the source confirming an arrest?), and seems to be created as a
  WP:Coatrack. It was deleted as an attack page (as nominated) and questions of notability were not factors. Would support a rewrite with reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment doing a little searching on this, it seems that it is in fact a notable rip-off at the least, and there are newspaper sources to be found, such as the Evening Standard. But we cannot allow re-creation without them. Rewrite first, and place it in user space & let us know. But it will be deleted even from there if not fully sourced to good published sources suitable for the burden of the charges made against the principals of the company, according to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. DGG (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Nowhere in that article is "fraud" or "arrest" mentioned. Saying it is a "notable fraud" here might be a BLP issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the word to a term the paper thinks safe to use. DGG (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion under
  GRBerry 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not understand why it was closed as No-consensus. The AFD discussion had a lot of comments, and delete opinions showing the subject's non-notability. The "keep" opinions could not refute the main non-notability issues. The new "references" added during the AFDs were either trivial mentions, or non-

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I was actually reading through the comments and coming to the same conclusions above earlier today, but when I clicked "edit" to close the discussion as delete, I saw that it had already been closed as no consensus. While this is not the conclusion that I had come to, I think the case was close enough that the difference in opinion is merely a product of personal interpretation rather than a misreading of consensus, hence my endorsing of a close that I would not have made. Although I agree that the specific arguments presented by
  WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think User:Bearian's comments provide a strong enough argument in favor of keeping that Pigman's close is justified. --jonny-mt 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• endorse certainly the sourcing is less than it should be, but policy-based keep arguments were made. No point appealing this, make another try for sources & if you do not find them, nominate again for AfD in another month or two. DGG (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since I was the closing admin on this one, perhaps I should give my rationale. First, I dislike reaching a "no consensus" close decision. I prefer to read the opinions voiced, apply policy, and reach a firm decision one way or the other: keep or delete. I try not to force an AfD decision into those absolute results but that's my preference and bias. In this case, I thought the argument that there might not be enough English sources but there were likely foreign language sources to be persuasive enough to give doubt. The sources in the article seemed diverse enough to indicate actual notability. I considered a "delete" close but thought arguments were split enough to give doubt to consensus. I applied my best judgment to the AfD discussion but I'm human and admit it could have easily come up delete with a different closer (jonny above for example.) Funnily, I'm generally more of a deletionist in borderline cases. The preceding is hardly a spirited and definitive defence of my closing decision but that's the breaks. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure was within reasonable administrative discretion.
  GRBerry 18:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Isn't the way we run wikipedia frustrating? I personally would have closed it as delete but the close falls within a reasonable interpretation of admin discretion so there are no procedural grounds to overturn the close. I'd suggest you simply waited a couple of months and if the article hasn't developed renominate it.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Three !voters stating "fails WP:N" with little or no explanation, does not a consensus make in the face of four keeps, and this is not AfD round two. MrPrada (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why was this relisted for deletion? The vote was 5 keep and 3 delete (If you remove Ragib's vote who is putting this up for deletion) and each supported with valid reasoning. Particularly, the Deletion vote by User:Cirt states if the article is expanded, it should be kept and in my opinion the article has expanded and is more informative than other similar articles. The deletion vote by User:Nsk92 is also questionable. He votes for deletion because there were only two references but that has been addressed and article now has eight sources. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still misleading to claim that the article has 8 "sources". The army.mil ref has nothing to do with the subject, rather is entirely on a tangential topic (that Pakistan/Afghanistan are neighbors with turbulent relationship). Except for the two references from the newspaper Dawn's trivial coverage of the topic, there are no reliable sources. One is from Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, The rest of the refs are self-published or NN sites themselves ... AfghanAct.org, smc.org.ph etc. One is actually from a talk flyer from a Canadian club. Such links/urls are not reliable sources, and claiming their use has made the article well-referenced will be a misstatement. --Ragib (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't overturn looking at the
  AfD I don't see much merit in the the keep opinions which seem to be largely be based on arguments that have been widely rejected by the community. Having said that the article has been developed since the close of the AfD so I don't think the delete opinions are necessarily relevent to the "new" article. Take back to AfD if necessary. Guest9999 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Notability: My approval of the G5 tag was mistaken (user was blocked, not banned) but I also thought at the time it was an A7 and still do. However, my deletion of the article has been disputed and I believe the notability of this topic can be helpfully talked about here. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I requested this DRV on procedural grounds because User:Finaldrive, the author of the article, was requesting an unblock based on the notability of the article, which seemed odd. I can't see what was there. He needs to support his claims of notability with reliable sources, which he has yet to do. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - article shows no notability whatsoever. Yes, they may have released albums, but there's no indication that they've released them on any major or independent record label. Yes, they were involved in a music competition, but there's no indication that they won the competition, nor that it was a notable competition. _GB^T/C 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Although the original {{db-band}} was declined by an uninvolved editor, I think an A7 speedy deletion would be appropriate here. Participating in a reality show is not a claim to notability--winning one is. --jonny-mt 07:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Gb. Hut 8.5 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The claim to notability (participation in a TV show) was unsourced, and in any event would not make the band notable enough. If it did we would have to include all the hundreds who were shown during auditions of the various "Idol" programmes. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 'cuz it makes A7, and I'd like to note that I'm the uninvolved editor mentioned above who declined the A7 speedy. Turns out I was wrong about that. The claim that the band appeared in MTV's Battle for Ozzfest is false, only a single former member of the band actually appeared on the show; this makes a better claim for her notability than the band's itself (perhaps someone can create an article on her; I can't find her full name though). As a side note, Gwen sent me the content through email after the deletion because I thought I could find something to save it, but after some searching I couldn't find a thing to establish the band's notability. Anyway, cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the current trend is clear, should it change the closing admin needs to be aware that the 2007 versions of the article were deleted for a copyright violation problem. This issue hasn't been asserted of the 2008 versions.
  GRBerry 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - fails the tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually this didn't meet any speedy criteria as the assertion of notability was sufficient to require an discussion. Gwen, if you need help getting the hang of the CSD criteria you might like to consider joining #wikipedia-en-admins for sanity checks on stuff like this. This clearly isn't going to survive an AFD and we have a pretty clear consensus here that this doesn't pass our basic inclusion threshold. Endorse
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi Spartaz, if you mean Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, the article's reference to the MTV appearance does not assert this, although I understand how the wording could lead some editors to think otherwise but, thank you very much for reminding me about w-e-a! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to most notably recognized for their involvement on the

Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see how some would let it go through. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, as written, would, yes. But it's not actually a true statement. See my comment above for that. Gwen, the CSD are meant to be interpreted pretty tightly. That sorta' thing should tip people off that at least a search should be done, so a slower process is usually better. The end result here would've been the same either way, so it's no biggie, but it's usually better to err on the side of caution. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one advantage of a slower process that I like, is that considering the effort involved in these appeals, and the general dissatisfaction that it entails, I find it simpler to say to anyone who objects in good faith to my deletion: Ok, undelete, and will take to Afd and let the community decide. Less trouble in the end. DGG (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I most often do this (or try to help editors who ask get by CSD with rewrites), but there is some history here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

• endorse the "keep - no consensus" decision we do not vote, and the closing admin's thorough analysis shows that those who !voted delete did not provide policy backed reasoning that overrode the reasoning of the !votes for keep.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that you don't provide arguments that can be used against you in the exact same way. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that comment really called for? — Becksguy (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there were actually an argument to be made, one would assume Sceptre would have made it. In cases where there is not policy backed reason to delete, the default is keep. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, yes, there is a policy backed reason. It's a content fork, proven by the author's intent and his refusal to fork off two equally suitable sections into articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's basically saying "really, I could swap the keeps and deletes, and it'd be as good an argument". Sceptre ^(talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool it. This isn't useful. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sandstein's usually got a pretty good eye for these things, and he was completely right here. There isn't any reason that the article needs to be deleted. Personally, I'd say consensus is that we don't want the information at that title or at that article, so a move or merge is in order. But a merge means we don't delete, and a move (and possibly rewriting the article to avoid POV) also isn't delete, and my own opinion isn't worth an overturn. I'd suggest working on the article talk page to figure out what to do with it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete or merge - Last time I checked, "The article is a POV fork" is a reason for deletion. We need to remember that policy is descriptive not proscriptive - if that many people say that the article is a POV fork, then consensus says it probably is. Actual consensus always overrides the word of policy. Its not up to one person to discount all their opinions because they aren't exactly inline with the wording of the policy. If that many people see it as a POV fork but the policy, as written says it isn't, perhaps the policy wording needs to be changed to reflect real consensus. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It's a bit of a
    WP:SS guidelines just in order to delete this one article, and all the more so to say that these votes somehow make those guidelines say the opposite of what they currently do. But, be that as it may, at least get the guidelines changed first and then resubmit for deletion. Don't vote "overturn and delete" based on some future version of the guidelines which don't even exist yet. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The guideline may not be rewritten, but it isn't a suicide pact either. If a consensus of editors doesn't think policy needs to be followed strictly to the letter in this case, we don't. That's how consensus works on Wikipedia and the reason we have
      WP:IAR. Mr.Z-man 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That's just where we part ways;
        WP:IAR in my view. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • quite apart from personal views, IAR is only applicable when the decision is obviously strongly supported by the community and there is no exact way to do it under the existing rules. The discussion here & at the AfD shows that deletion was not clearly strongly supported by the community. IAR is not a way to support a disputed position--it does not mean "Ignore all rules so it comes out the way some of us want." DGG (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, IAR can apply in any situation. If it only applied when the rules didn't exaclty apply, it would be completely useless. And I don't care how this comes out, I have no vested interest, I've never seen the article before this DRV, so I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Mr.Z-man 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse obviously. That this article was nominated for deletion all of 30 minutes after it's creation took me by surprise; as the content pertained to and was duplicated in two disparate articles, and exactly because there had been complaints of
  in the merge discussion. The merge process and AfD processes should be separate ones, in my opinion. So, until that consensus forms I'm happy with the status quo, and agree that there's no pressing need to delete. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I personally don't think we should have an article with that title. But I read Sandstein's closure of the AFD, and it's a textbook example of how to handle a difficult case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The call was correct, thoughtful, and sound. Its the power of the argument, not the power of the votes that are supposed to count. But even if we care just counting votes, there was obviously no consensus so the default is KEEP. However, when we look at the merits of the arguments to keep vs. delete, there was no contest. Those claiming POV fork, etc. failed to show that was the case. Simply proclaiming this does not make it so. On the other hand, the facts about this article, which is growing larger now as it has its own article, stands unrefuted. Any problems can be fixed via editing it. The title can be improved. Currently there is a discussion about this and related terrorism articles going on, anyway. This well-source information has its place and home on wikipedia no matter how much those with a contrary POV want it deleted. It won't happen. The Terrorism articles are here to stay, per Wikipedia policies. The fact is that minority view points such as this can not be placed in the main articles (debate article) due to
  WP:UNDUE, but having it link to its own article is perfectly appropriate and consistent with other main/ancillary articles provided NPOV treatment of this discourse.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Burden of evidence is to those wishing to include. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • but the burden for AfD is to show consensus to delete. DGG (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the essay
      WP:NOONUS is correct is a matter of debate in any case, Sceptre. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I was talking more along the lines of
        WP:BURDEN. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Fair enough, but all this material is "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" so I don't see why you'd trot that out; no one made a
          WP:V argument in the AfD. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • The spirit of the ruling, not the letter. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – of the three reasons given for this review, I find the first inaccurate and the other two irrelevant to the call. To the extent I'm familiar with the procedures for closing an AFD, they were followed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the no-consensus closure as appropriate. I personally would have argued to delete this article, as well, but from a procedural standpoint there is nothing incorrect with the way that the discussion was closed. Considering the article itself is very new, perhaps it is better to let the dust settle, anyway, before launching it straightway into AfD. In any case, the no-consensus keep means that it can always be renominated without prejudice.
  Arkyan 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure and kudos to
  boldly make and for which consensus should be worked out on the respective article Talk pages (not in AFD). Nor does this closure prevent renomination if attempts to improve the article prove unsuccessful. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse - The AfD was not closed as "Keep", it was closed as "No consensus", which defaults to Keep, and that's not the same thing at all. The closer notes that the consensus to delete was not persuasive enough. The closer also notes that there were no core policy based violations that required deletion. The problems, if any, with the articles can and should be dealt with consensus based editing, per
  WP:POVFORK. I don't see a supermajority of at least 24 votes to delete (based on the closer's counts), so that rationale also fails. Since this is not AfD round 2, and I don't see any process violations, the close was correct. — Becksguy (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse Sandstein gave cogent reasons based on policy. And I was one of the "delete" editors. We need to stick to deletion policy, such as it is, because AfD shouldn't be a popularity contest. The
  talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. There was no consensus, even to merge and redirect. I could not decide either way, I commented and hoped one side would persuade me. I couldn't agree with any of them, hence, the "no consensus" call definitely applies. MrPrada (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete or
  Consensus on Wikipedia is not always finding a result that everyone will be happy with but finding the result that the most people are willing to accept; looking at the discussion with that in mind I think the article should be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Change to endorse, rereading the discussion the reasons given for deletion are not as strong as I previously thought and the closing is adequately persuasive as to why there is no consensus on the issue. Guest9999 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the outcome of the article being kept as is. In my view, the argument that the bombings were state terrorism are an opposition viewpoint like any other, and not one so greatly held that it a separate article for that viewpoint only is needed. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should cover this. The term "terrorism" is also loaded, and furthers my concerns over this article. However, I can no fault in Sandstein's close and rationale, and share the viewpoint of the ever wise Rossami that this "no consensus" close is not the final word in the matter. It is not the job of the closer to enforce his view, or my view. The job is to gauge consensus and if necessary, balance it against core policy requirements, and in that respect, the job was done correctly. Hence I will endorse closure. My disagreement is with the people who wanted the article kept (and even these people were reasonable and rational in their arguments), not the one who evaluated the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The closing administrator's rationale was exceptionally well-written. Also, the absence of consensus is clear. However, that doesn't mean the article cannot be relisted. By the way, whether one sees the article itself as a POV fork or a legitimate spin-out seems to depend on whether you compare it with
  Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. It clearly has a different point of view than that of the former article, but I was not able to discern whether it is a POV fork of the second article or not. In conclusion, I think that it should be merged into Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The "no consensus" close leaves this possibility still open. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

This album has now been released officially and is listed at All Music Guide link, referenced in a news article here link, and has a third party review here link RobDMB (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The sources provided are substantial enough for me to believe that this page should be undeleted, especially now that the album has been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be happier with a userfy (if you want) to fix any of the problems that'd be caused by tone changes now that it's released then a move back into mainspace whenever
  Just do it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question I recreated the page once before with what I thought were credible sources, but I was still referencing non-credible sources. I'm really new at this so I want to be sure that if I recreate the page that I'm doing it with good sources. I don't want it to be taken down a third time. I also am not sure what you mean by userfy, I'm a total nOOb here. RobDMB (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that an admin will restore the article in full, with history, at a subpage of your userpage. Say, at User:RobDRMB/Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album) or something similar. From there you can continue to work on it and have other editors make sure that it's kosher before moving it back into the mainspace. Cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

What was the reason for a A7 deletion as 46,000 ghits, taking in the "model" tag within the search and a few magazine covers otherwise prove notability. Looking at this link of the deleted article, all it needs is some source Jay Pegg (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't see the original article, but I can't find any reliable sources for her. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I can see the deleted article and its a valid A7 deletion. There were no sources listed and the description of this individual contained no assertions of notability. If you want this back we need to see some sources please.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse The first hit on Google is a forum, which isn't a good sign. No reliable sources seem to be amid the hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse Looking at the article, the link above is indeed a copy of the WP article. While on the one hand "Charlotte is also a "Page 3" girl of the The Sun newspaper" could be regarded as a claim to importance, the total lack of sourcing after 2 years here and a very dubious quote that her former headmaster thought her nude modeling career was "a perfect demonstration of the school ethos:" makes it unlikely that the article could possibly stand. First find some real sources. DGG (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - A valid A7 deletion. The verdict could change if better sources were provided. Someone would need to go through all the Google hits and find something we can use. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

The page describing the GKOS keyboard was deleted due to missing references even if it is a proposed standard that is documented in the global ITU-R contributions that ARE referenced on the page. ITU-R is an international telecommunications organisation under United Nations. Please consider undeleting the page. Description of the GKOS concept, intended for future mobile telecommunications devices, in the widely agreed technology trends documentation of ITU-R makes it notable. Tiptyper (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralRelist. I think the administrator's judgement towards notability was likely correct, and the AfD was left open for nine days, so there was no reason to keep it any longer...but the discussion was never relisted. I'm not much for two-person consensus with one dissenter, thats more to the realm of XfD, so I was suprised to see it wasn't relisted. If and when the closing admin comes here to comment, I may change my opinion. MrPrada (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist without to get some more views on this article. DGG (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own deletion as AfD closer. I've restored the article at User:EdJohnston/GKOS keyboard for reference during this discussion. The claim that the GKOS keyboard is an ITU standard can't be easily confirmed anywhere. GKOS is mentioned in an ITU technology trends report that appears a bit vague on the subject. You're all invited to try to interpret this language:

  Annex 13, as an example, describes a proposed method for combining text entry and a large display on a single compact mobile terminal. The annexed presentation of the GKOS back panel keyboard (Global keyboard optimized for small wireless devices) demonstrates that completely new types of physical user interfaces can still be found, and hopefully encourages manufacturers to study this issue more and maybe further refine the proposed concept to obtain a common standard for this kind of solution. The concept is an open standard and was first published on 5 October 2000. For more detailed information on GKOS, check also http://gkos.com.

  So GKOS has been referred to as an example by the author of a draft ITU report.'The 'concept is an open standard' probably means that anyone can implement it free of patent or licensing fees. I don't see this as making it an ITU standard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, notability not asserted, and no reliable sources except for one passing mention, create a new page with no history as a redirect to Chorded_keyboard#Commercial_devices. If merge of information is necessary, then restore history under the redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, while low on participation, AfD outcome seems to be right. The requester has picked up above suggestion of redirecting and adding a sentence to
  Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article on the optical design software Zemax

• Email content to user. I believe the request is prefectly resonable. If necessary history of previous can be restored under new content. Or each can be userfied for you, but that'd make a history merge a little more complicated. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It was deleted quite a while ago, and Srleffler certainly makes a good case for us being able to have a proper article on this topic. I have undeleted it, since I think this is the easiest way to let people work on it again. I'll leave a note on the talk page explaining, so hopefully nobody decides to speedy it again in a hurry. Friday (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly doesn't have any reliable sources, and seems to never to have had. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Good work by Srleffler. Corvus cornix_talk 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow the restore. I'm endorsing Friday's undeletion (see above). As improved by Srleffler in the last 24 hours, the article now has enough reliable sources to justify its existence. I don't believe a new AfD is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Current state of the article absolutely establishes notability and is of a quality encyclopedic tone, not an advertisment at all. No problems here anymore. --Stormie (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion since currect article has addressed issues raised at AfD. Awesome work by Srleffler on sourcing the article --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper use of

This is kind of old so my memory may be foggy, but IIRC, Blueberrypie12 (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppeter of numerous accounts and was blocked indefinitely as a result. If I am not mistaken, Blueberrypie12 was a recreation of a banned user, and the contributions by Blueberrypie12 were deleted with the G5 criteria. I think there is more to this than what's seen at face value, and I am pretty sure I noted this at ANI. I'll see if I can dig this up later tonight or tomorrow, or ask other administrators who were involved on their opinion of this case. seicer | talk | contribs 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you remember correctly that BlueberryPie was an extensive sockpuppeteer. And a very frustrating one at that. But many of his/her edits were not problematic. This one was an apparently good faith upload from Portland Indymedia. I emailed Indymedia at the time, and was assured by two volunteers that all images posted to that site are copyleft; I could forward the emails to

WP:OTRS, and can ask for further clarification if necessary. But I don't think the original grounds for deletion were correct. The user was not banned, and the uploading was unrelated to the blocking. -Pete (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I reverted/deleted many of this user's contributions. Normally I would have assumes good faith, but given the problematic history and the constant POV-pushing edits, I figured it would be unproductive to examine each image/edit individually. If the image is used and attributed properly, I have no problems with it being restored. It's just hard to judge dozens of images and edits when so many of them are probably malicious.-Wafulz (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I appear to be criticizing any administrative action. That's not my intent, I remember clearly how frustrating BlueberryPie's string of edits were. Just looking to get this image restored, Arrow is a significant figure in the politics of the Pacific Northwest, and a free photo should not be allowed to go the way of the dodo... -Pete (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming nobody else objects, you can go ahead and restore it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues either. seicer | talk | contribs 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for discussing. Not sure what protocol is here -- I thought a DRV was supposed to stay up at least 5 days, and closed by someone other than the nominator? I'd love to just move on, but don't want to break the rules. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an article with a number of sources that help asset its notability and it should be a stand-alone article rather than merged into the Aplus.Net article as this individual has a broader business background than just Aplus.Net 69.76.132.152 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)

This entry is notable. The association has been around since 1884 and serves several thousand members across North America. All information provided was neutral/factual. Please consider restoring the entry. (Multiple submission is the result of my inexperience with WP.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1801270P (talk • contribs) 16:27, May 28, 2008

• Comment - Usually the quickest way to get protected pages back up is to create a draft version in your userspace. At, say,
  User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America or something similar. Then you can work on the content and bring it back here when it passes all the necessary content policies and guidelines. If you'd like, we can userfy if for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment -Page created,
  User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Thank you for the suggestion LB. —Preceding comment
  was added at 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It needs third party
  WP:SELF self published and don't assert notability. The facts described on the press releases can count for notability, but they will usually need verification from reliable sources, specially for big claims. You want third-party mentions of notable stuff, like being the greatest association, the oldest one, influencing legislation on painting, reviews of the association on notable magazine, as well as stuff that shows its importance inside its own field like being an association where most paint manufacturers are, etc (again, you need third party independient confirmation of most stuff). You want to fill the article with notable stuff, and drop those long lists of places that add nothing to the article. Instead, just say "PDCA has xx Councils all over the US" and place there an inline reference to the list --Enric Naval (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy if the draft gets improved and list at AfD as a stub, since it looks like notable, it probably just needs to be more sourced. I see, for example, that the Californian Contractors State license Board uses a *lot* of PDCA resources on the study guide for the Painting and Decorating exam [7]. I assume that the association is important on the painting field. I say a stub could be fine. I see that on 2000 they were already planning lobbying activities [8] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Appears to have a claim to notability, so the original speedy is invalid. The appropriate place would have been prod followed by AfD. MrPrada (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the feedback, comments and edits. What are my next steps? Post the article again and list in AfD for further review? --1801270P (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the page still needs third party
  reliable sources. I would continue to improve it in user space until you have added the needed sources - a rushed recreation would result in an AfD - see also below. Smile a While (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Close as userfied - the version at
  User:1801270P/Painting and Decorating Contractors of America is already good enough to avoid a speedy so events have now moved on beyond this DRV nomination. The nominator should move the user page to main space when he is confident enough about it. See above. Smile a While (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Kari Havsland Jørgensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is notable for several reason. First because she is one of the few (or only?) known Danes to have committed a serious crime in direct support to the actions of a terrorist group without being charged with this. Secondly, her person is a matter of widespread public debate in Denmark because she is still a practising medical doctor. Her crimes are not a matter of discussion in Denmark (nor denied by her), merely the lack of penal consequence. Law Lord (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse for now. I'm affraid that without
  WP:BLP admin-discretion deletion. This doesn't preclude the existance of another, well sourced and not defamatory article on her and you are welcome to create it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The article had a source/reference. Here are several more:
  1. Ring til terrorlægen!, Avisen.dk 18 March 2008, 131 words
  2. Læge: Skandale at Blekingegade-læge slap, Avisen.dk, 17 March 2008, 398 words
  3. Bande Fogh afviser Blekingegade-undersøgelse, Nyhedsavisen 1 February 2008, 2nd section, page 20, 235 words
  4. En undersøgelse af Blekingegadesagen kan være på vej, Nyhedsavisen 22 January 2008, 2nd section, page 16, 339 words
  5. Sig navnet!, Berlingske.dk, 22 January 2008, 926 words

  --Law Lord (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the content or relative importance of those are, they not being online and I not knowing the language. However I'm pretty sure that the fastest way to clear this up is to simply create the article again so that it doesn't meet the concerns that caused it to be deleted. It's not protected, so there's no reason you can't
    do it right now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Referencing was never one of my reasons for nominating the article for deletion because I do not see how adding more references to the article could prevent it from being a BLP-violation. Reliable sources only cover her in the context of this crime so writing a well-rounded biography is impossible. Actually, the ones I've read of those articles of yours only give trivial coverage about her (I admit to not having read them all). They primarily cover the crime and the debate about the crime, so in my humble opinion while the crime is notable, the person isn't. And as I read
    WP:BLP#Privacy of names, we should not even be publishing her name: while some news sources have published her name, others (such as Politiken, example: [9]) choose deliberately not to and the work which is the greatest authority on the topic (Peter Øvig Knudsen: Blekingegadebanden volumes 1 and 2) also chooses not to publish her name. Hemmingsen 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• endorse deletion as she has not been convicted of any crime. The article on the crime protects her identity. I suggest a courtesy deletion of the Afd and of this discussion. DGG (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article did not say that she had committed a crime. Merely that is is an established fact that she committed actions, which would normally result in criminal charges. This by her own admission also. Please point to which policy you base your opinions on. --Law Lord (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • that is the sort of approach to use evasive wording to avoid BLP that I do not think we can accept. DGG (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse', this is not AfD round 2, administrator made the correct call in closing per consensus. MrPrada (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure/speedy-deletion. Even without the WP:BLP issues, I am skeptical that this person would have met Wikipedia's generally accepted
  inclusion criteria for biographies as a stand-alone article. As is, the decision here appears to be completely consistent with the requirements of WP:BLP. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Cricketainment is a valid word and is newly coined word in 2008. Cricketainment is very much a part of reality and this word is already popular with a huge section of people in India and elsewhere. It should be noted that "cricketainment" is not merely a word but a new concept of entertainment that is revolutionizing the sports and entertainment sector in India. Also it should not be redirected to IPL since IPL is one of the clubs which is merely implementing the concept. Even ICL is implementing cricketainment, and in future more clubs or organizations may participate. So i strongly feel that such an article should exist as it defines a new concept and merits it existence in Wikipedia with more contributions from people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 06:56, May 28, 2008

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to explain how the deletion policy was not correctly followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments for changing the result of an AFD.
  talk) 09:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, the consensus in the AfD was unambiguous.
  Arkyan 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Though I argued for a merge/redirect it didn't command a consensus and the close was correct. There is certainly not enough sourced content for a standalone page. A sourced paragraph can still be added to the IPL page as a normal editorial action, with a new redirect, and that seems the way to go though it obviously will not satisfy the nominator. Smile a While (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The outcome was crystal clear. MrPrada (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn since article can be rightly categorized in sports entertainment section. it cannot be redirected to IPL, since cricketainment is a concept and IPL, ICL are the clubs merely implementing it.--
  talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure. I can find no process problems in the deletion discussion. Note: I would have no objections to a temporary undeletion for the purposes of transwikiing this definition over to Wiktionary. But the consensus is that it is a neologism was clear (and, in fact, is reinforced by the wording of the request for review here). Rossami (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure keep arguments were weak or unsupported by reliable sources, so the closure as delete was justified --Enric Naval (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn article looks pretty valid. cricketainment is a popular concept and gainaing popularity. This article will be a valuable addition to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.142.36 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q without u (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

whilst this article was in its infancy i can see no reason for deletion as it cited several repuatable sources Qwithoutu (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: Glasgow’s Q Without U will release their debut album in a couple of weeks. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, A7 applies as there was no indication of importance. Citations in the last version were largely from user-edited resources and did nothing to establish importance.
  Arkyan 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion unless the requester can provide some
  talk) 09:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. This is not the place to
  promote your own band. MER-C 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion Sources marginal; one EP and two singles hardly establishes notability; COI issues; process seems to have been followed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Clearly should not have been speedied; was sourced with third-party references; was not advertising jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. I tagged this article for speedy deletion, because IMHO, it read like a glorified AD for the Institute. It may have been sourced, and that's nice, but it was still SPAM. GreenJoe 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:GreenJoe added notability tags twice, while I was adding sourced material. Then he added a speedy-delete tag, which was clearly inappropriate. User:Gwen Gale then deleted it, presumably without taking much time to read either the article or the edit history. This is a research institute at the University of British Columbia whose founding (the result of the largest donation to the university to date) was the subject of national coverage, and whose activities involve academics sufficiently notable to have their own WP articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I TWICE asked you to prove notability, and you failed to do so. Adding sources on sources doesn't change the fact that the article was bias in favour of your
    advertisement. GreenJoe 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sources are what show notability. If you had a problem with POV, then you should have edited the article, or dropped a note on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment. Comparator articles would include
  BC Cancer Research Centre, Centre for Forest Research, or any of the other similar institutes in Category:Research institutes in Canada. In fact, this article was much better sourced than the vast majority of those. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See
    WP:WAX. GreenJoe 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Indeed. These are simply comparator articles for the benefit of those reading this review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but we still can't cite them and I don't think we need to. I did read through the article and saw no assertions which struck me as having encyclopedic notability. Rather, the text reads like a public relations/alumni mag hand out for any expensively funded org at a uni. It would have helped if the article had been written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, with topic notability clearly set forth. However, I see no reason why we can't give this article some more time to grow. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'll give it 2 days to see some improvements, or I'm listing it on AFD. GreenJoe 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

21:16, March 10, 2008 Seicer deleted "Doctor Steel" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)".

I had listed two national television appearances, including an appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and two released CD albums. Google results in 23,200 for "Doctor Steel" and 49,000 for "Dr. Steel".

I was in the middle of listing clubs and areas he plays in regularly, more details regarding the band, and other notable facts when the article was deleted. Coolgamer (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this has been speedied and reconstructed 8 times already-- it really should go to afd for a community opinion. After that, depending on the result, it could be salted. DGG (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the recreated versions has been to AfD. Coolgamer's version, at the time it was deleted, was substantially shorter. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Article went to AfD, and consensus was to delete. The 10 March version was correctly speedy deleted (although IMHO, criterion G4 was more also applicable than A7). Coolgamer: If you'd like to work on a possible article, consider doing so in userspace. Then once you have multiple sources in place, you can present it in DRV as an improved article. Until there's a new and improved version, I see no reason to overturn AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per C.Fred.
  talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: deletion has already been discussed and endorsed once before, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. --Stormie (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the deletion reason given there was "major fair use violation" -- which does not seem to have been proven--the fair use violation was the illustrations in the article not the text. The deletion review was apparently based on its unsuitability on other grounds. I have no opinion on this overall. DGG (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this in caps, because it's important and not directly obvious. THE ARTICLE THAT WENT TO AFD AND WAS VOTED ON WAS NOT MINE. My article had no fair use violation, and I do not have a backup of the text, but I was about to cite sources, including the television appearances, which automatically mean A7 is passed. This is a notable band, and yes, there have been problems with nonsense bios regarding it in the past. All of my article, however, was factual. At the very least I request a copy of my original work. Coolgamer (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to Coolgamer's user space, let them add the sources and work on it. Then after it's moved back to mainspace it can be sent to AfD if doubts about notability remain. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Most recent DRV on this was in November 2007. The version deleted on March 30 of this year was far more detailed and had a number of sources than Coolgamer's version; I forget exactly where the discussion took place, but I know there was some conversation about it, and it was deleted yet again (it might have been on User:JzG's talk page, actually). Fact is that Doctor Steel doesn't have the mainstream sources to make it notable as yet; the TV apperance has been discussed and rejected as an indicator of ntoability numerous times. Keep deleted. Coolgamer, if you still want a copy of your particular version, I'll restore to your userspace, let me know on my talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletions unless someone shows here the sources asserting enough notability, which is the root cause for this being deleted --Enric Naval (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jack Blood is a notable radio show host based in Austin, Texas. His show, Deadline Live is heard in 60 countries and has a large following on the internet. He has interviewed on his show Tim Russert (host of Meet the Press), Congressman Ron Paul, Michael Moriarty, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and many others. He is in his 7th year of broadcasting and 4th year of syndication. Here is his Program Page on GCNLive. Alex Jones and Jeff Rense is on the same network and there are Wiki pages for them. Here is a news article mentioning Jack Blood. Here is Jack Blood interviewing Tim RussertRebel lonedog (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Article failed to demonstrate the notability of the radio host with sufficient reliable sources. Accordingly, there was insufficient improvement over prior versions, and the speedy deletion (G4) was correct. (N.b.: of the links mentioned above, only one—the Austin Chronicle article—is from a reliable source, and that only makes a passing reference to Blood.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted under G4, now without being able to see that old version of Sept '06 it's impossible for me to say whether the recently deleted cached version was substantially the same or not. RMHED (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - likewise I cannot assess the G4 since I have no access to the earlier version. However, there is nothing particularly notable in the version in the cache and the news item is simply a passing mention. The way forward is to write a new, better sourced article in user space and then come back here with a request for agreement to recreate. Smile a While (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a place to present new (or repeat old) arguments as to why the decision should be changed.
  talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. While the original AfD was certainly closed correctly, this involves the G4 speedy. I think an administrator should verify their similarity before we decide. MrPrada (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the article versions. The new one adds 2 more public figures who were interviewed there. But the new one does not have the part about a controversial interview with
    Alex Jones--I dont think the article would possibly stand at AfD.DGG (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion as substantial recreation of deleted material. Should we find it here again, salt. MrPrada (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion as recreated content. While the versions were clearly created independently, the newly deleted versions did not address the concerns that led to the deletion decision. If new evidence can be found which would justify a reconsideration of the original AfD, please present it here (at which point the article could be temporarily undeleted and relisted to AfD). Rossami (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Cruz Mínguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I find it odd that the closer would close as delete with one keep vote and three comments. I am not an expert in the field of spanish film and TV and,yes, would have been good if there were more involvement but feel this is not the best way to improve articles. The main character in a (short) TV series? hmmm... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion but allow new version. Looking at the article as it existed, and the comments, I think the closing admin was justified to delete the article for failing to meet the
  verifiability guidelines. While I endorse the deletion of the article, I also have no objections with allowing a superior article, including multiple references (even if they are in Spanish), to be created. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse my own close of the AfD. Ideally, an AfD debate will provide some hints about possible future sources even when those already in the article are not quite enough. Opinions may differ as to what is 'enough.' If her role in El Abuelo received any published critical approval, that might be enough for me. My own Googling did not bear fruit.
  WP:BIO seems to call for important and widely-recognized work, not just a few appearances on screen. No objection to re-creation if better sources are found. I agree that Spanish language sources would be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Poor sourcing presents BLP issues and we should lean towards deletion in those cases.
  talk) 09:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse BLP needs reliable sources to assert enough notability of person, which does not appear to be the case here --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.22.227.53 (edit | [[Talk:User:24.22.227.53|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This used to be my "anonymous" user page. My IP address changed (I moved), I went away from wikipedia for a while, and after a while it was deleted. I spent hours getting it to the state I wanted, and would like it to be undeleted (if this is possible) for a few days time (ie. until June 1st) so I can download it for nostalgic reasons. -Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to have a working e-mail. Would it be acceptable to e-mail you the content instead? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks (including the diff history, if possible). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You could've simply asked the deleting admin... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have asked you, but I discovered how to figure out who the deleting admin was after I read about the deletion review process :) (via the "logs" link from the DR template above).

Should such a situation ever come up again, I'll do that. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia has a clearcut policy on linking to sites which violate copyright. It was made completely clear in the discussion prior to the keep decision that the people involved at LyricWiki know full well that they violate copyright, and have no plans to do anything to change that unless the rightful copyright holders of the songs whose copyright they violate specifically come to them and ask them to remove the infringing material. Wikipedia should not host an article which endorses such behavior. A decision to keep this article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies on copyright. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an interesting case. A notable website for which we should provide an encyclopedic treatment, but to which we shouldn't link. :) Can this be solved by placing "nowiki" tags around the URLs? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, endorse. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I guess, although referencing in the article should be improved. We have articles on a lot of sites that are objectionable... Stormfront (website) pops to mind. Not liking a website isn't a good reason to delete the article on it. Note that YouTube, as far as I know, and 99% of other websites, take the same approach... they don't remove any copyrighted material without a request from the rights holder. Then we have articles on sites like The Pirate Bay which mock people who come to them with copyright concerns. This DRV's premise seems quite a bit off. --Rividian (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keeping the article is not a policy violation, the only possible policy violation is the external link to the website and even that's debatable. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia has plenty of articles on things of dubious legality and morality but that's not the same as endorsing it and I don't see why LyricWiki should be any different. -Halo (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own closure. If the site is objectionable, then we shouldn't link to it, sure, but if it's notable, then we should have an article on it.
  talk) 09:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - the youTube article isn't going anywhere any time soon, despite its even more egregious violations of copyright and trademark. Happy‑melon 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse closure per RMHED and Rividian. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per others. Article is fine, link is iffy. --Kbdank71 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, just don't use a live link, use <nowiki></nowiki> tags around the link, with a hidden comment linking to the DRV so they don't get removed --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Nothing new brought up, nothing to indicate that the AfD was handled improperly. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

I believe the TfD for the page should be reviewed. I don't believe the input by other editors in the TfD was taken into account and I see no logical/"common sense" reason why all usages of the template should not be replaced by {{reflist}} then deleted. Rockfang (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as the TfD ended, redundant to {{
  inthegarden 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The ca. 2000 transclusions of {{
  AWB? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Pardon, but why is this here? I'm not saying that Rockfang is violating policy, but I don't see what is going wrong with what's been done, so I'm simply confused. Dozens of articles on my watchlist have already had Rockfang's idea implemented. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I have already started changing the {{
    FootnotesSmall}} template to {{reflist}}. This DRV for the TfD is here because I believe the closer ignored the input given by other editors. Also, administrators are supposed to determine consensus and examine policy pertinent to the situation. Consensus showed that the template was redundant. Policy states that redundant templates should be deleted.--Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Where, precisely, does it say that a redundant template cannot be redirected? Gimmetrow 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin: In this TfD, the rationales of the majority of the contributors (and since
  WP:R#NOTBROKEN also applies very clearly in this instance). Happy‑melon 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How would switching the templates on articles using AWB be inefficient? Using AWB to switch them over allows you to do spelling fixes, formatting/style changes (to be inline with the MOS), etc, at the same time. It is simple and quite easy to do. I still believe the Delete part of the consensus, and established policy was ignored. --Rockfang (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't understand what the problem with the action that were taken is. The consensus were that the template were redundant and should be replaced with {{
  FootnotesSmall}} to {{reflist}}. The only "benefit" to changing via AWB/bot/manually is a bumping up of edit counts. Redirects are cheap. KTC (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You are partially correct. Consensus as I interpret it, was Delete the redundant template. This seems to have been ingored. Policy also says to Delete. I do admit that sometimes what needs to be done is sometimes against policy, but I don't think this is that type of situation.--Rockfang (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Substituting the template is not only unnecessary, those doing it are doing it incorrectly. In many cases {{FootnotesSmall}} generated notes at 100% font size. These should have been replaced with <references/>, not {{reflist}}. Gimmetrow 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A correction. Some were done incorrectly. All future ones done by me will be switched to <references/> if the size setting was previously at 100%. BUT, this shows a valid reason why the {{
    FootnotesSmall}} to a small size regardless of original size correct?--Rockfang (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • No, the replacement process was done incorrectly because the dual use of the template was not accounted for. Were any of the TfD commentators aware of this dual use? Gimmetrow 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the first line of the TfD I put: "Delete. Seems redundant. We have both <references/> and {{reflist}} if people want different sizes. FYI, the template was previously nominated here. — Rockfang (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)". Whether or not they saw that first line, you'd have to ask them. There was also a link on the TfD to the Template's page. I would hope that people clicked on the link before commenting. That's not something I can control.--Rockfang (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to {{reflist}}, as I believe I stated in the TfD. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No redirect - This is not exactly the same as {{reflist}}. If simple redirecting was done, many articles would lose their formatting as reflist and FootnotesSmall use different font sizes. Therefore, AWB (or bot work) sounds to be as the only sensible solution. Or, make FootnotesSmall a transcription (not redirect!) of reflist is also a good idea. As for the aftermath, I have no comment. --Deryck C. 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I follow. How could a trivial difference in font size alter the formatting of an article? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my personal experience, I've found that some editors don't find the differences trivial.--Rockfang (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmn... seems an "oops" is in order. I didn't realise that the template was used so regularly to display standard-sized references; neither, it appears, did Rockfang. An analysis I did a few days ago (forgot to post here then) revealed that approximately a third of all the transclusions of {{
  FootnotesSmall}} used |resize=100%. At that time, the template had 1,800 transclusions; it's now down to 1,189, so it looks like you're having fun, Rockfang! Given that it's a non-trivial task to identify which instances should be replaced with <references/> and you seem happy to do the task, I'm now inclined to let you get on with it. If there comes a time when the the template is transclusionless, then yes, it should be deleted. Happy‑melon 10:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

Although I have not seen the article before it was deleted as I have only started long after it was deleted, but does 562,000 ghits mean the brand is not notable for this site Jay Pegg (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure you really meant 2420 hits. Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We can overturn the expired PROD deletion for you, but unless you've got some sources you can add it'd just be deleted through
  WP:AFD. Or we can userfy it to User:Jay Pegg/Merlin or something similar so you can work on sourcing it before moving it back to mainspace. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want help with anything. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• commentYes, it can be undeleted and I think an adequate article could be written, but you really do need to have some additional material available to put into it, such as some 3rd party reviews of their products. DGG (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on above lot:Is there a way I can see the article, considering I have never seen the article before as I just started after it got PRODded off. I will take the userfy option first so I can work on it. Jay Pegg (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied per above request.

talk) 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This article was copied by the Irish Higher Education Authority for use in a report, without crediting Wikipedia or meeting the GFDL requirements. Administrator User:Refdoc then deleted the article without checking in which direction the copying took place.

In July 2006, I was invited to contrubute to the Ken Pounds article by a user on my talk page. User:Tomber had made a start on the article, and I then substantially expanded the article using a number of sources, to which I provided links at the end of the article.

In September 2006, the article was archived by the Internet Archive Wayback Machine [10]. From this, it is clear that the Irish HEA have copied the entire article, with the exception of the date of birth, which is omitted. [11]

It is not possible for me to have copied the article from the Irish report as the latter was only published on

I have asked the administrator to re-instate the article, but he has refused to do so, and has also attacked my integrity as an editor. Please could the article be re-instated with its edit history? JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. You present your case well. I also find it very difficult to believe that you could have taken the text before it was published. At the very least an old version without the copyright issues should be restored, I'd suggest before the full DRV is concluded, which would have been the appropriate action on the part of the deleting admin. We should let the
  office worry about the GFDL violation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. I looked at the deleted version that existed on the date of publication of the Irish report, and the text was at Wikipedia before the Irish report was published. While it may be fair to say that 9 times out of 10 copying is from the other publication to Wikipedia, this looks to be a case where it went the other way. Certainly the referenced report followed the publication of the Wikipedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit history and dates support the nominator's assertion that the article has been compiled from preceding sources in 2006 before the Irish report was published. CSD G12 actually suggests to consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia. As there doesn't seem to be convincing evidence to the contrary, I'd overturn. --
  Tikiwont (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and consider somewhere the unjustified explicit accusations of bad faith from the deleting admin. DGG (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The initial deletion of the article is somewhat understandable, mistakes are made. What isn't acceptable is that when you pointed out the error with evidence provided, the admin choose not to believe you and it seems didn't even bother to check the evidence you gave. RMHED (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As the original deleting administrator I had a second look at the above. I agree that the evidence is as JRawle suggests. The basis for my original assumption of copyvio was the publication in a governmental media and when asked to review again, I remained convinced to a) governmental media + b) the previous deletions of multiple images submitted by the same editor. I accept the evidence and accept also the explanation given by the editor wrt the several images deleted. I wholeheartedly apologise for my assumption of bad faith. Refdoc (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reinstating the article and for the apology. I accept that you originally deleted the article in good faith due to the (rather surprising) fact that a government publication copied from Wikipedia. Therefore I don't wish any further action to be taken against you. JRawle (Talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia has eliminated hundreds upon hundreds of unsigned artists whose qualifications equal or surpass Marina V for true notablility. For example, recently Justin Lanning was removed from Wikipedia, yet he had CD's selling throughout retail bricks&mortar chains, a billboard on Sunset Boulevard, far more youtube videos and hits per video, higher sales ranking on Amazon by far, airplay on mainstream radio stations, whereas Marina V only has internet radio airplay. How can you claim Marina V notability exceeds somebody like Justin Lanning? I am not making a case that Justin Lanning be reinstated because I agree with his removal from Wikipedia, he was more notable than Marina V, though not sufficiently notable. I am simply saying that you must be consistent in Wikipedia decisions and Marina V fails notability in virtually every aspect. Let me restate one last time: super low Amazon sales, ultra low youtube hits, no FM radio play, only internet radio play, no national media coverage (mostly her "hometown" Chicago local media, and that's NOT notable, since most unsigned artists obtain niche coverage in their respective hometown papers at the very least or in various peripheral mags or internet sites, e.g., Bliss???, MishMash???, Innocent Word????), no concert halls, mostly coffeehouses, seeking record label = advertisement, etc. She is no different (and no worse) than the typical relatively anonymous unsigned artist, most of whom will be throwing in the towel by age 30, but Wikipedia has removed so many unsigned artists who are at her level or better, so it begs the question whether or not she has a special relationship with a Wiki editor who is somehow keeping her listed even while so many others are removed? I argue for Wiki CONSISTENCY and your decision to reinstate undermines that consistency entirely. Most worrisome, it opens up a potential hornets nest since many previously deleted unsigned artists will use a keep decision here as precedent for re-opening their own deletion cases. Your decision would theoretically require reinstatement of HUNDREDS of unsigned music artists who were deleted over the past few years and it makes NO sense at all, since to reiterate one last time, listing of unsigned artists with primarily only an internet presence VIOLATES all Wiki notability requirements. From her bio, she appears to be a sweet girl but don't think "sweet" should become the determining factor for Wiki listing, do you?

-MusicBizLady

This DRV refers to

talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse my closure -- Marina Verenikina is notable for Wikipedia's purposes as the references provided in Marina_Verenikina#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of her notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which states in relevant part that

  If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

  Furthermore, there was a unanimous consensus for the retention of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina. John254 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clear keep consensus at the AfD. Disagreeing with the closure is not a valid reason for us to overturn it. The two keep argruements completely rebutted the deletion rationale and improved the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. To refute the comments made by the requester of the review, BNET is (inter)national media coverage, so she has received coverage beyond the local media. Second, we already have an essay (
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) discussing how each article is considered on its own merits—so while there may be a case for precedent in some cases, it doesn't always follow that if an article for an unsigned artist is deleted, that all articles for unsigned artists should be deleted. If User:MusicBizLady
  would like to start DRV for each of those articles, or at least the one's she's concerned about, she is more than welcome to get them considered for restoration on an article-by-article basis.

The only issue I possibly see in the AfD—which the requester did not mention—is that there were only two !votes at the AfD: one weak keep and one speedy keep. While it could be argued that the AfD should be relisted to get wider consensus, the comments at DRV so far here suggest that consensus will be wider and it will be to keep. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, sources found to establish notability making keep the only appropriate closure. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and Withdrawal of Previous Objections

After reflecting upon the issue overnight, I am now inclined to opt for endorsement of Marina V listing, so I will now remove the label I affixed to Marina V's listing, and end this nonsense.
Although the Marina V keep definitely undermines previous Wikipedia standards relating to unsigned music artists, nevertheless, it is far past time to terminate the condescending and irrational bias against unsigned music artists long held by a collective of self-anointed "music experts" at Wikipedia, none of whom have a clue about the true nature of the music biz since most of them have never worked a single hour within The Industry. In the past, truthfully, I always felt most Wiki editors had no right to pass judgment on an industry in which they are so woefully ignorant.
It is very nice to see that I personally have inspired a revolution here at Wikipedia, one that hopefully will end the irrational bias against unsigned music artists in favor of label music artists-- and as far as I am concerned, most label artists are actually very undeserving of their "notability."
In the past, I often read negative comments from extremely haughty, ill-informed, Wiki editors about unsigned music artists, to the effect that many of their multiple sources were PAY FOR HIRE niche media. In reality, anybody who has been in the music industry knows that most media sources are PAY FOR HIRE, in fact, the worst culprits of PAY FOR HIRE sources are the record labels themselves. lol That is why I used to laugh at the idiotic and woefully obtuse Wiki editor comments that often accompanied unsigned music artist removals when it only proved those particular Wiki editors knew absolutely nothing about the realities of the music biz.
In any case, judging from comments placed here by various Wiki editors, it appears the keep decision will be endorsed, and to be honest, from a purely personal and business perspective (without any consideration for the insufferable and pompous concept of "protecting the integrity of Wikipedia," which I have found to be little more than sheer arrogance by various self-important Wiki editors who have less than impressive qualifications themselves), I welcome the decision, it's about time the severe restrictions against unsigned music artists were overturned by Wikipedia. I say one loud, "BRAVO!!"
Unsigned music artists have long suffered absurd restrictions by excessively demanding smirky Wiki editors who have long held inappropriate biases in favor of label artists. I am actually very happy to see this result, since I can forward the verdict to at least 20-30 unsigned artists of my personal acquaintance who were removed in the past year alone and who will be more than thrilled to use the Marina V "keep" decision as a precedent in overturning their own past listing removals from Wikipedia. You are about to open the floodgates in the unsigned music artist area, but hey, you certainly have my blessing, because over 50% of my current clientele are unsigned, it can only benefit my bank account in the end. :)) Sorry for the inconvenience, and I withdraw ALL objections, and again, I will remove the request to revoke the listing immediately.

-MusicBizLady
On one other side note, also withdrew request to delete another unsigned Russian songbird, named ELLY K, who actually has a much larger following than Marina V, and who also performs and is reviewed all over the world, and who outsells her and generally gets much higher ratings overall as an unsigned artist. You should fully reinstate Elly K immediately, and I will return with a longer list of unsigned artists who you MUST reinstate ASAP in order to maintain CONSISTENCY, now that notability requirements have been significantly relaxed here at Wikipeeia. BRAVO again for finally dispensing with the elitist and inappropriate restrictions against unsigned music artists foisted upon them for the past few years by largely ignorant Wiki editors who do NOT have a clue about The Biz, and I like to take the credit for being the one who finally broke down these longstanding yet nonsensical walls.

-MusicBizLady

One final request to Wiki editors: I would suggest you create a listing entitled, "Marina V and Unsigned Music Artists," that would show up when "Unsigned Music Artists" is searched on google, in order that this entire discussion be used as a precedent for establishing the new relaxed guidelines for notability requirements at Wikipedia. Then I can simply direct all previously removed unsigned artists to the listing, and they can begin the process of obtaining either original listing or reinstatement. No longer will their internet reviews, internet exposure, college paper interviews, peripheral media features, etc., be held to ridicule by self-important, yet ignorant Wiki editors; under the criteria discussed here (which I have copied for future reference), many previously deleted unsigned music artists have every right and entitlement to be re-listed. That is certainly good news, and I only hope the many Wiki editors who once aimed condescending arrows at deleted unsigned artists will have their noses rubbed in it as they so very much deserve. :)))

-MusicBizLady

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

Was apparently speedy deleted without meeting any of the valid criteria for that process. The band are sufficiently notable to have 3 and a half pages devoted to them in a published book on the history of British punk rock. Appears to have been deleted due only to concerns over COI edits. Michig (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the reasons given suggest that deletion was a response to something at
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There was a discussion of the COI edits here and the article was deleted a couple of hours after the last contribution to the discussion (which certainly didn't decide on deletion as a course of action). There is no mention of any commnication from any of the band members other than edits to the article (quite the opposite), and I have to wonder whether the article was deleted simply because it was 'causing problems'. I added a good source to the article and there's plenty more out there (e.g. from the BBC). The only area of dispute in the article's content appeared to be whether the current incarnation of the band are really Demob or not - certainly would not justify the deletion of the whole article, which ironically was largely based on information from interviews with the former member who it appears has been making COI edits. If anyone could determine whether there is a connection to OTRS that would be helpful - if not, I can't see any valid reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (upthread to preserve continuity) I have found the OTRS ticket - for those that have OTRS access the ticket number is 2008033110014755. The deletion appears to have happened externally to the OTRS contact although I would be surprised if Guy hadn't seen the ticket. I don't see any information there that would preclude us from having an article on this subject.
      Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I rewrote a quick stub. If an administrator could restore the history of the any unproblematic versions it would assist the article expansion process.
      talk) 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I thought the idea was to reach consensus here before restoring or recreating the article? It is too early at present to consider such a consensus to have been reached.--Michig (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore immediately A blatantly incorrect speedy by the deleting administrator on the stated grounds of "Marginally notable, locus of an edit war since day 1, subject of external legal action over rights to the name, dispute brought here. Wikipedia is not the place for this dispute.)" DGG (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion per above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AFD. Does not appear to have been deleted in line with the deletion policy and process.
  talk) 10:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy deletion of old version and send it to AfD, the current draft asserts some credible notability, move it to the talk page before restoring the old version, and send the whole bundle to AfD to see if someone can confirm it and find sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be more productive to restore it and allow some time for it to be improved before taking it to AfD, tagging it as requiring more sources if appropriate. The article already had one good source. There are 3 articles from the BBC's website that can be used and the band are also covered in John Robb's book on punk. There seems little chance that AfD would result in deletion.--Michig (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; deletion out of line with policy. I don't see any need to jump at AfDing if it really has as many solid sources as Michig says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON 206.174.72.112 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Alright, I guess this is the proper way to protest what I see as possible over eager Wikipedia users with perhaps not enough to do suggesting that a particular article be deleted. The article in question is about Rob Knox who died yesterday at age 20. It is not at all pertinent that the article is a newer one. This is exactly what I mean by would be deleters running amuck. I am in favor of leaving that article alone. Knox did enough noteworthy things to deserve this mention. 206.174.72.112 (talk)[reply]

• Speedy close. AfD has not concluded yet and no deletion has occured. DRV can't do anything for you. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

article is relevant and meets criteria as mentioned on the wikiMusic page and discussed on GB's page. GB deleted the articleMusicMovesMe (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ==[reply]

The discussions have revealed that the person may be borderline notable, but the article as deleted didn't really assert particular notability. I'd be happy with restoration and userfication pending improvement. _GB^T/C 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the article so that I can re-edit it. MusicMovesMe (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been restored and placed at
  talk) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Nominated by a

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

The original TFD alone does not appear to show a community consensus, as the only participant was the nominator. Upon asking for a reversal, the closing admin declined. This template was designed to be subst:'d, so will not show many incoming links, but based on the inbound links to it's image, there are estimated to be >1000 instances of this template being utilized. (I am not opposed to this being deleted if the community shows consensus for it, but if so would prefer to userfy the template as I find it useful. (Did not go straight to userfication as I did not want to violate the recreated material prohibitions of TFD.) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am the TFD nominator. My main issue with this template is that it is non-standard in format and doesn't give details such as how to request an unblock or how long the block is for. I would not oppose userfication if individual admins wish to use, it but as far as a standard template I feel it is inappropriate. Also, it was one for the standard 7 days and all notifications were followed, so I don't see how there was a procedural fault. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm not certain why the creator did not address these issues at TfD, but since no one dropped by to express a desire to keep the template, I'd surmise the closing administrator closed discussion correctly. MrPrada (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that the nomination was originally uncontested, but argue that there was not sufficient consensus to bar this from recreation (which was done temporarily at first, but then redeleted as recreation). As to why I didn't raise this at TFD, I wasn't aware that this was at tfd, though being a prior editor of the template I wasn't notified (not that I'd be required to be), and as this is designed to be subst'd there was no automatic mass-notice or it's existing uses; it wasn't until I went to use it and saw it missing that I knew it was gone (yes I had it watchlisted--but have >1000 pages there so it's easy to miss one) — xaosflux ^Talk 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main argument for this either be reversed or re-listed is "new evidence" (my keep !vote) that had it been in earlier would have likely ended this in at least a no consensus closure. The confirmation I'm looking for here is less determinign if there was a deletion judgement error during the original TFD, but in enforcing the deletion against future recreation. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In no way am I opposed to permitting recreation, but when it comes to whether Nabla made the correct call, I believe he did and would have done the same in his position. How could we ask to him act unilaterally to keep? We'd likely see a DRV from the opposite perspective. I am reviewing the process used, not the material deleted. When I first saw this at DRV I figured it was closed before the seven day minimum, but it was not. I agree its not a perfect process, but as its currently stipulated, I still feel he made correct call. MrPrada (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit re-creation. My use of this template lies just in its non-standard idiosyncrasy. I use subst'd versions, modified somewhat to address various circumstances (anon IPs, etc.) if necessary. I agree it should (if kept) be further expanded to explain how to request an unblock and how long the block it describes is for, and will expand the versions I use accordingly. I don't see a problem the original TfD, which functioned as (even if it wasn't) a prod deletion. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Second permitting recreation. It was different ... I used it mainly for short first-time blocks. If it had the information MBisanz said it should have, and was modified to stretch across the screen regardless of width, I'd certainly use it more. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore an example of what happens for lack of required notification. In the absence of a firm policy for removing non-standard templates of this sort, the discussions should not have been closed without some input. DGG (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I wonder if it is just general TFD policy not to relist debates? If it were an AFD (where I work more), I would've expected something like this to be relisted instead of closed. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement by closing admin. The closing could not be more clear. The process on TfD is clearly stated, on the top of the page, «Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised». The discussion was over 10 days long, no objection was raised, the template was properly tagged by the nominator, his reasoning (that it is a substantial duplicate of another template) was accurate, and I agreed with it. Given that the deletion was a completely obvious one. Yet, as I stated in the above mentioned talk, I have no problem with recreating it as a redirect. I see no use in having multiple templates for the same use, but not being used to blocking vandals I may be missing something and as such am neutral on that issue. A couple of side notes: First. I regret that when User:Xaosflux undeleted the template (and warned me, which is fine) also added two TfD notices to it's talk page, one stating that the closing was a "contested delete", which was not true. Second, the TfD notification process may need some adjustment as in cases like this it may slip unnoticed when substing the template - Nabla (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main reason for this DRV is to seek relief from the restriction against recreation that was enforced (legitimatley via the letter of the policy) for this page. Of course to maintain GFDL of an active page this would best be accomplished via an undelete. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn when the entire XfD is one user, and a second user challenges this, then you do not have a consensus to delete, regardless if the challenge came up during the XfD time frame or not. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, or recreate as a redirect to {{
  talk) 10:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question? if there are substituted versions of the template that appear of current pages aren't we obligated to keep the history of the template showing its development under the terms of the GFDL license? Guest9999 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of it in deleted contribs would satisfy the GFDL requirements for pages it is subst'd to. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would not, as we are to never assume that we can undelete a page. Deleted contribs could be purged at any time and without warning. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, the developers I've spoken with have said that deleted contribs will never be removed from the database, its not a GFDL significant template, there are no rules at TFD prohibiting the deletion of subst'd templates, and if we want to be really particular, I'll list the 4 largest contributors to it in a deletion summary and on the TFD page as there were only four significant contributors. MBisanz ^talk 06:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are diminishing returns for debating the GFDL requirements of meta-templates here, (or most any template for that matter) requiring a much larger audience before making a decision primarily on that basis. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually concerned about a GFDL argument here, but I was simply pointing out that we never assume that we can always just undelete pages. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If somebody's taking the trouble to bring this to DRV, it's time to stop claiming nobody objected to deletion. May as well relist or recreate, no harm in more discussion here. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reopen AfD I was actually in the process of clarifying my deletion nomination of this list when the admin closed it as speedy keep a few minutes after it was created. I'd like this to be reopened as I do not possibly see anyone looking for this list on an incredibly minor and trivial topic even per WP:LIST. I think it's at least worthy of discussion. Ave Caesar (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen AfD per nom. The AfD discussion was only left open for 13 minutes. I think that
  assuming good faith should have led the closing administrator to leave it open for a longer period of time. There are several problems with the list that the nominator may wish to note, which may not be insurmountable problems, but are at least worthy of consideration. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reopen AfD. Request made in good faith and I can't think of any reason not to allow it. As stated above, AfD was only open 13 minutes. I would suggest that the nom do the clarification stuff when originally nom'ing the article at AfD, in order to avoid these problems in the future, but that's a separate thing. I'm
  going ahead and reopening it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've also added a note asking that it not be speedyily closed again for at least one day, so Ave should have some time to clarify. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The DRV has to conclude with a consensus to reopen before you can do so. I don't expect that this DRV will be closed until there's more opinions than the two above, and I would hope it'd wait long enough for Blueboy96 to have a chance to reply and explain his rationale. If this deletion review does get closed by an administrator as reopen, the comments added post-close can be restored. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. You missed the AfD header on the article, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For a list to be deleted, it has to be indiscriminate and unmaintainable. This list is neither ... it has a specific criteria for inclusion in the list and in my view, can be reasonably maintained--hence, my decision to close as a "speedy keep." I say this as someone who's !voted to delete several godawful lists in my time.
  96 03:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply
  ]
• Reopen AfD. The close was entirely inappropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen AfD. Speedy keep close was clearly against policy; Blueboy's argument may be a valid keep argument but doesn't bring the AfD within a mile of speediable territory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen AfD closure was entirely inappropriate as a user giving their opinion rather than evaluating
  consensus. Guest9999 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and relist. No reason at
  talk) 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ambivalent I'm grateful that Ave Caesar accepted my invitation to expand the delete rationale, and I have no problem with reopening so the discussion can run its course. Hooray for process. (I've already replied to Caesar's expanded rationale, while the AfD was temporarily reopened, and I'm happy to make this here my last comment on the matter.)
  Townlake (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reopen AfD closing an AfD discussion as speedy keep within 13 minutes of the nomination should only be done with obvious bad-faith nominations. Hut 8.5 09:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tbagfamily.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted because "an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago" when in fact the image itself had a fair use rationale, and had been uploaded the same day it was deleted.

There are roughly 60 other images all deleted on the same day. I won't list them all for obvious reasons, but they were all Prison Break episode articles, so if you go to Category:Prison_Break_episodes the images are available in the histories of each article. You can also see them in the removing admin's logs.

Anyway, these are two links that I reccommend you read.

• Talk:List_of_Prison_Break_episodes#Images_will_be_deleted
• Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise_just_wiped_out_all_the_Prison_Break_episode_photos

To put a long story short, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, an admin, mass-deleted every single image for the Prison Break episode articles because they didn't "support analytical commentary". Most of the articles just had one image, and that one image depicted a significant part of the episode. The admin didn't bother to notify any of the uploaders, but rather just posted a single message on the talk page for List of Prison Break episodes: "Since this is a bulk case, I'll spare myself the trouble of individually tagging and making notifications in every single case; I assume that people interested in the series are watching this page." I don't know if anyone saw their message, but no one replied until after they were all deleted.

If this is the new consensus for episode guides, that would be one thing, but I noticed there are several television shows which still have their episode guide photos intact. Either way, I don't think the photos should have been deleted without a consensus or proper notification, especially since a number of them had the proper fair use rationales and didn't violate fair use. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It isn't a specific element about episode guides, it's the general policy about fair use images: they cannot be decorative. They must be used to illustrate something that would be difficult for the user to understand with just the text. These appear to have been decorative. Kww (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you reccommend I nominate the image at

Pilot_(The_Sopranos) for deletion as an image of Tony standing there doesn't "illustrate something that would be difficult for the user to understand with just the text"?--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Without hesitation. Kww (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I normally favor an image or two in an article about an episode, but that particular Sopranos example might not be so good. At the very least, the image should be unique to the episode in some way (as in, when you see the image you could reasonably distinguish which episode it came from). -- Ned Scott 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - no excuse for this fair-use violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even see the images to begin with?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Without seeing the images it's hard for me to say, but if someone is challenging something like this then I normally favor taking it to
  IfD. Is there a copy of this image off-wiki? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Deleting admin's comment: About my motives in not doing individual notifications, see my discussion with Ned Scott on the Talk:List_of_Prison_Break_episodes page; I have nothing to add to that now. About the matter itself: this is, in my eyes, an open-and-shut case, bringing it to IfD would be SNOWish. There's no way any of these were legitimate fair use. Ned, if you say you "normally favor an image or two" but "at the very least, the image should be unique" etc.: I couldn't disagree more; that criterion is far below any reasonable threshold justifiable under our NFC policies. Actual (but routinely ignored) policy has always been there must be critical/analytical commentary. Being from a key scene is not enough; having a caption saying from which scene it is is even further from being enough. Analytical commentary means, you might use an image to illustrate something critics have said about the filming technique (characteristic styles of lighting, camera angles etc.), or about development in the visual appearance of a character etcetera etcetera; these analytical issues need to be explicit in the text, explicitly connected to the presentation of the image, and sourced. Encouraging people that they can routinely have one image per episode is dead wrong. First let them write something that actually contains analytical commentary, only then, if and when that commentary turns out to require image support, should you even begin thinking about images. (Logical side effect of this is that any article that fails PLOT will also automatically fail image fair use, as was the case here.) I also do not follow the argument that you couldn't judge without seeing the actual image. You see the text. Does the text contain commentary that requires image support? You tell me. (But I can of course undelete the image for an hour or two if people really want to have a parting glance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, to actually be kept I think an image should be far more than I described. My point was that if it wasn't even unique to the episode then.. like.. there's not really a chance of it being kept. That picture is just of Tony standing around. It's a reaaaaally bad picture.. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah okay, sorry I misunderstood you. (On the other hand, the point I made in response probably was worth repeating anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So could someone show me an episode guide that fits this criteria? Because I've noticed even featured articles like Homer's Enemy and Homer's Phobia would fail Fut.Perf's strict criteria.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Most TV screenshots are poorly used. The vast majority of them, in my view. I find the image in Welcome_to_the_Hellmouth is a positive example (where it is used down in the text, not the instance of the same image in the infobox). It doesn't just show a scene, it illustrates something characteristic about the scene, and the important thing is, the caption says what that interesting something is. This is one of the rare moments where I (who never watch American TV series) come away from an article feeling I've actually learned something about its subject. Death Has a Shadow#Original pilot also strikes me as okay, as it illustrates something analysed in the text, about changes in appearance of characters. But these positive examples are few and far between. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The Sopranos pilot picture is a prime example of an inappropriate non-free image, but both images in the former FAC Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (Image:Angelic Doctor.jpg & Image:Voyage of the Damned - Titanic.jpg) are excellent examples of when fair use should be used. I have not seen the Prison Break images in question, but I bet that some were merely decorative, while others actually contributed critical commentary; thus, some probably should not have been deleted. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your last sentence seems to be incomplete; I can't really understand what argument you are trying to make. What's the purpose of your comparison with those other images? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, sorry, that incomplete sentence doesn't make sense. I have edited it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid deletion, there are far too many non-free pictures used for decoration in violation of
  talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Although I would have encouraged a notification of the uploader of each image, tedious as it may be.

  talk) 10:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment using a script such as
  User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js it wouldn't have taken much longer to notify and list at ifd. The Tbagfamily image shows T-bag standing next to the Hollanders in a dilapidated house. It doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding of the article, so relisting won't achieve much. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Louisville medical associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

valid objective article DonDon101 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not an objective article, it's a
  Coatrack article to publicise the lawsuit against them and point people towards the "Beware of Louisville Medical Associates" website. --Stormie (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strongly endorse deletion of this attack page on a non-notable business. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Stormie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I deleted this in the first place for being an attack page about a non-notable corporation, and I don't see any reason to change my mind. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion If G10 doesn't apply, in my view it was definitely a G11--and a search on Yahoo or Google turned up nothing to change that impression.
  96 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse deletion Clear G10, and I was about to remove it as such when Accounting got there first. DGG (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per my comments here, not a unaimous delete and marred by the participation of a ban-evading sock account. In this case, because article seems to have been redirected, why not as a compromise keep the redirect, but restore the edit history so that if additional sources are found it will be easier to improve the article accordingly?

I'll support history undeletion, but I'll also endorse the close (so, in substance, it'd be more like a redirect close) - I think the closure was correct because I think there is just enough consensus. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. With the banned contributions taken into account, there could have been no consensus to delete. MrPrada (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — For the record, this was the latest AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Although there is (just) enough consensus to delete, there's a reasonable concern that the effect of the sockpuppetry may have tipped the balance. Relisting will help to resolve any doubt about this. Jakew (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no qualms in this being relisted, if that's what consensus warrants. I chose not to re-list myself because even without the banned user's comments, it was the other arguments for deletion that were better grounded in policy. Had Le Grand Roi proposed to me in our earlier dialogue what he has proposed above, we could have just skipped this part and restored the history, leaving it as a redirect (and I'm all for doing that :) ). Guess we'll see what this turns up though :). Seraphim♥Whipp 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, per the above, if you are willing to undelete the contribution history and redirect, that's cool by me. On a totally random aside, considering the second part of your username, have you seen this? Anyway, they are really good and I recommend them. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Since there are varying opinions, it would be inappropriate for me to take unilateral action now. I hail from this side of the pond so I haven't encountered that chocolate bar before but it does sound mighty delicious :). Seraphim♥Whipp 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does it matter then if I'm willing the withdraw the DRV or do we not withdraw these? Anyway, if you're ever on our side, then I encourage you to give this thing a shot! Best, --
        Tally-ho! 22:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Endorse deletion. Several contributors noted that the article contained no references to reliable sources, failing the core policy
  WP:V at the very least. The two "keep" contributions, of which one was labeled as "weak" and the other was weakly argued, did not address this issue. The opinion of the banned user was not determinative for the closure. There's no reason to overturn the result, and therefore no reason to undelete the history.  Sandstein  20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Others noted that sources exist and just needed to be added. The article therefore met our core policy of being consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The delete contributions were weakly argued and did not provide real reasons for deleting. Plus, four of five editors arguing to delete there hardly reflect the real consensus as if we assume good faith then everyone who worked on that article also must have thought it met our policies and should be kept as did the various editors who argued to keep just over a month ago in the first AfD. Not to mention the 3000+ people who visited that page last month alone. There's no reason to delete this article that benefits our project. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If they had wanted to make their opinions known, they had the opportunity to do so and we cannot presume to know what choice they would make. I've nommed articles for deletion that I've started. Popularity does not equal notability. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not if they happened to not be online for the mere five days of the AfD in which only about a half dozen editors commented anyway. I have come across a number of AfDs for articles that I would have argued one way or the other, but closed before I could chime in (for better or worse, of course). For all we know, they may have been editing other articles only to suddenly find this article gone or more recently redirected. And again, there are a number of times where I've searched for an article that is suddenly gone and it turns out it was deleted in an AfD with a half a dozen or less participants meaning that I and who knows who else may have been able to add a new element to the discussion. Best, --
        Tally-ho! 22:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• relist At minimum the history should be undeleted. The tainting of the AfD and the presence of sources which were not discussed in the AfD lead to a relist being the logical conclusion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I'm not at all sure the article should be kept, but it should have another discussion. Looks like all the discussions that User:Graevemoore engaged in will need to be reconsidered. His sockmaster Eyrian was banned and desysopped for admittedly using multiple socks, so it's not suprising that it's continued. DGG (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Consensus gets judged against policy not headcount. The sock's votye added no value to the debate and the issue was a lack of real world sourcing that wasn't addressed by the keeping side.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Consensus is clear, even without the sock's stricken comment, whether you go by headcount or strength of arguments. Even the "sources" (a google search) provided by LGRdC are rebutted in the afd itself, to which I'll add, there are nine works of fiction, and one passing mention. Endorse. —Cryptic 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that consensus was unclear to delete and any reasons for deletion were rebutted. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Er, what? I don't see any rebuttal of the delete opiners at all. The only attempt to do so was your google search link, which could at best only convince people who couldn't be bothered to click on it. —Cryptic 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the participation of but a handful of editors and given that some argued to keep and an earlier AfD had a fairly convincing keep conclusion, how would it not be a good thing to relist and attempt to gain a better consensus? Sincerely, --
        Tally-ho! 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Asparagus sprouts. —Cryptic 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to a history undeletion and redirect in this case as others have suggested. Best, --
            Tally-ho! 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Endorse closure as proper for AfD2, but supportive of history undeletion. Userfy for Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles if he really believes the article has potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. No harm in doing so. If it's meant to be deleted then it will be deleted. Wizardman 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with city names in the title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per my reasoning here, the discussion was marred by the participation of a ban evading sock account. Moreover, it was not a unaimous delete and even if there are more deletes there, it is not a vote. And the deletes were essentially just repeititious "indiscriminate, trivia, unencyclopedic" non-policy based arguments. As indicated, the article was in fact discriminate, even if anyone claims it's trivia, there are specialized encyclopedias on trivia, and unencyclopedic is an incredibly subjective term per

• Endorse as deleting admin. The AfD's clear consensus does not change at all if one discounts the banned editor's contribution; there were on the order of 16 delete versus 3 keep opinions. Even though AfD is not a vote, if that many people think this content is too trivial and
  indiscriminate for us, it probably is. This is a querulous request.  Sandstein  17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nevertheless, repetitive numbers should be trumped by the policy based arguments and again, given the banned account's participation I see no harm in relisting and perhaps gaining a better consensus. Best, --
    Tally-ho! 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion. Consensus to delete per
  WP:NOT is obviously apparent, and since this was so prior to the involvement of the sockpuppetry, it is equally obvious that this cannot in any way be attributed to the sock. Jakew (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Even though there no real policy based reasons for deletion? Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion the fact that one of the many users who thought the article should be deleted was evading a ban is nowhere near enough to overturn the decision. Lists have to do more than being discriminate and having clear inclusion criteria, per
  WP:NOT and WP:LIST (which states that lists should have value as information sources in their own right, or be useful for navigation or article development - none of these apply here). Hut 8.5 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The combination of a user evading a ban endorsing deletion and the numerous other arguments for deletin just being repetitive and subjective claims is enough to overturn the decision. The article had clear inclusion criteria and therefore meets what Wikipedia is. The article provides a valuable navigation tool for developing articles on songs with city names in their titles. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 19:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion. A consensus to delete was reached. The banned user's contributions were unlikely to have had any bearing on the result. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we agree that AfD is not a vote and is a discussion, then what we had in that Afd even without the banned editor was indeed merely a vote. The bulk of it was just a list of "delete as it's trivia" votes rather than interactions with each other or new original opinions offered. Now if we take the AfD as a vote, then okay, more editors wanted it deleted even without the banned editor. But if we approach it as a discussion, then the final comment was from the nominator who suggested, "we could turn this into a category. What do you think?" But it was closed without myself or anyone else actually replying to the nominator's suggestion. What kind of discussion ends in a question? Thus, the actual direction of the discussion was moving in a different direction than the previous initial repetitive deletes suggests and we did not get to see any response to the nominator's suggestion at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. If we operate on consensus then there's no urgent or immediate need to kill an active discussion just because five days are up. I for one would have been okay with creating a category and then redirecting this page to the category as the article was clearly created in good faith, was not a hoax, could be obviously verified, was not libelous, etc. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Closing a deletion debate wouldn't have prevented a discussion from occurring. That could have still taken place between any interested parties. You can still implement your suggestion. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems logical that the discussion would have been better to just continue there rather than start anew elsewhere and if I did just follow the nominator's suggestion and create a category and then as I indicated above create a redirect, the problem is that once a page is deleted, some delete the redirects or whatever too as "recreated material" even when it's not necessarily the case. It'd be one thing if the nominator made the suggestion and asked the question and others just kept adding delete after delete, but we can't really say how the discussion may or many not have gone if given a few more days or what have you. Best, --
        Tally-ho! 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Endorse deletion, consensus was clear that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information (and
  WP:NOT is official policy), and the "ban evading sock account" in question was the last person to comment, and thus clearly had no influence on the earlier commenters. --Stormie (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, but the last person to comment sometimes has an inordinate effect on the conclusion--and in fact that was Eyrian's favorite technique, as mentioned at the checkuser case. But in this particular case I can't really see that it did affect the close. DGG (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is the discriminate article consistent with what Wikipedia is, an official policy, the last comment at the bottom of the discussion was from the nominator who wrote, "we could turn this into a category. What do you think?" A discussion should not end on a question and regardless of whatever people posted before that question, the discussion should have continued to see what direction the AfD would have headed in. Thus, the banned user's comments should be struck out or removed and the AfD should be relisted to actually reach consensus. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion, terrible list and clear consensus, irrespective of some irregularities.
  talk) 10:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Because it ended on an unanswered question, consensus was not clear. Sincerely, --
    Tally-ho! 16:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I completely disagree. I do not think that the resolution of the question would have materially changed the result.
      talk) 09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]

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

The image was deleted for

• a glamour photograph by a notable photographer that appeared in Playboy would seem exactly the sort of image that is most unlikely to be defensible as fair use content DGG (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that because there's a prejudice or something? Or is there some other issue I'm failing to notice? A photograph, even if from Playboy, shouldn't be any different from a screenshot, say of a Golden Palm winning film, in status (unless we pull in morality or something) as long there is sufficient evidence that the image is notable enough to warrant an inclusion, and a non-inclusion would probably reduce comprehension. I have also got hold of a reproduction of another image from the pictorial, and it is from the the Brazilian instance. Incidentally it has a bit of non-English copy that asserts the mother-daughter connection and, in a boxed inset image, shows the mother as well. It also is inherently safe for work. Would that be more appropriate? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant differences between a film screenshot and a glamour photo would seem to be the amount of the work used (entire photo vs. one frame from a film) and potential to interfere with commercial use (nobody's making money selling film screenshots). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. No evidence has been provided that the copyright owner would allow this image to be used as free content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason fair use is being discussed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm not sure I understand the fair use rationale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "the copyright owner would allow this image to be used as free content" is a part of the fair use rationale? May be my experience is misguiding me, since I have never seen that bit anywhere before. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion. I understand now that you are trying to have this image included as fair use content, and not free content. Thus, the copyright owner's lack of permission is irrelevant. But in the last IfD discussion, it appeared that the consensus was that the image did not qualify as fair use content, and I would need more information about why it might qualify as fair use content in order to endorse its inclusion in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - I was a bit on the fence about it, seeing there might be a weak, very weak argument for fair use insofar as the article does a tiny little bit of commentary about the style of the photographs (something about "vintage Southern context" etc.), and the image could in fact serve to illustrate that. But then again, it's quite doubtful whether that piece of information is really relevant for the context of the article anyway; it indeed seems like an afterthought tacked onto the article just so as to fulfil some fair use rule. It's an article about the person, not an article of photographic art criticism. The fact that she appeared in Playboy is certainly an important element in her life; how she appeared in Playboy (other than: with few clothes on) really isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand that commentary necessarily excludes information on circulation and notability factors of a piece of work, and may include commentary on the content alone? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, per Future Perfect, particularly his final sentence.
  talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "His final sentence?" I can probably understand most of the argument here. But, "his final sentence" as a criteria for deciding fair use? Isn't that a basic example of

  simple lawyering? I apologize in advance if I'm wrong on that of course. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I am trying to say that the sentence "The fact that she appeared in Playboy is certainly an important element in her life; how she appeared in Playboy (other than: with few clothes on) really isn't" is the sentence which I think sums up the argument against restoration best. I am sorry if you misinterpreted or were offended by that.

  talk) 09:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Retracting nom. Grammar notwithstanding, the wrongest thing I wrote was probably "this appears to be a mighty defendable case". It doesn't anymore. Thanks people for participating (I have so often seen IFDs and DRVs lying around for eons!). I retract my DRV nomination happily. The community has spoken, and I can always (well, almost always) agree to that (though often not without a fight). Can someone close it now, please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Hmmm... To do such a merger, I (read as "the GFDL") would be happier with a history restoration and redirection to
  Human-animal marriage. After that, since the history will be easy enough to get at, you can merge at your leisure. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes I agree, the proper course of action would be to restore, make it a redirect to
  Human-animal marriage, and merge the details and sources into that article. --Stormie (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ok. Andjam (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think that this would be the best course of action --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why is the Tribal Wars topic not able to be edited? There's nothing wrong with it; and many other games are on this website. All I intend to do is to write a reference here for existing players to read and understand. It would help both players and educate non-players. I don't plan to advertise the game or say how bad it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamdrenite (talk • contribs) 00:30, May 24, 2008

• Note: Fix't DRV entry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note. Also notified most recent deleting admin. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the AfD and the article as they were a year ago, there was a considerable debate whether discussions of the game on game websites combined with the popularity of the game was sufficient. It might be time to have another discussion. Consensus can change, and the way to find out is at AfD., not repeated attempts at re-creation followed by repeated speedies. If it had been kept, there would have been at least 2 or three chances to re-discuss it to see if consensus had changed to delete, and the process should be reciprocal. I don;t know what I myself think on this in terms of a possible article, and Del Rev is not the place to discuss the underlying issue. /
  • Comment Alright. I'm kinda new, so I don't know what the AfD is, but I'll take your advice and search around. Thanks! -flamdrenite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.210.184 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "AFD" is short for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, a process to get input on whether an article should be deleted or not.-Wafulz (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can the deletion history be clarified, and the proposed version for undeletion be indicated? As I read that last AfD, I would argue for a relist, there definitely was not consensus. But if we're talking about something else (a speedy etc), I would need to know the rationale. If we're just discussing permitting recreation... no problem there. MrPrada (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Previous deletions were valid and based on a lack of
  non-trivial reliable independent sources. If you'd like to start up a reference, there are plenty of gaming wikis out there that will happily take your information.-Wafulz (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure The closing admin evaluated correctly that established editors didn't see the WP:N being fulfilled at all, and didn't see any sources establishing notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment""" Alright then. I'll not argue with that. I'll just work on other projects then. -flamdrenite —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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

Deletion cited

• Undelete. As far as I can see nobody has made any claim that this was a valid speedy deletion under
  WP:CSD. Nobody besides the nominator supported deletion at the MFD. Really not a close call here. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'd also suggest that MZMcBride to limit himself to wheel warring on one issue per day for the time being. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: A long time ago,
  The weather in London. However, as it is not being used as an example red link any further, it is simply an orphaned talk page. Furthering the strangeness of the deletion debate, no notice was ever placed on the actual page in question during the debate, which in my mind voids the outcome entirely. Anyone who watchlisted the page was disenfranchised from participating in the deletion discussion.

  It should be noted that if it were allowed to stay, it would be the only orphaned non-subpage talk page on the English Wikipedia. And it would be being preserved to document the previous status of its subject-space page, a status that has now changed. This, of course, would simply confuse the casual reader.

  I would have explained all of this to Rossami had he approached me and asked about this talk page; instead, he unilaterally decided to undelete the page, something that he seems to have a habit of. : - / I see no need to overturn this decision and take the article to MfD simply for process' sake. That's simply silliness. My apologies if any piece of this doesn't make sense – I wrote it while heading for the door. If it requires further clarification, please let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • I regard the statement that "I would have explained all of this to Rossami had he approached me and asked about this talk page" as a touch hypocritical, as MZMcBride deleted this article two more times after Rossami undeleted it without posting to Rossami's talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In addition to the most recent MfD discussion, the utility of this page has been discussed in the deletion log and on the text of the Talk page itself. (For example, [here and here. Sorry, don't know how to make that visible to non-admins.) It has also been tangentially discussed in the several deletion discussions about the deliberate redlink
  The weather in London. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Undelete. MZMcBride has deleted it five times and it was undeleted everytime but the last, by two different admins. That alone makes it not a speedy candidate; this needs to go to MfD. I find the behavior here by MZMcBride reprehensible; I expect more of an admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context is key. My interactions with CesarB (the repeated deletions) were entirely unintentional. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete And de-admin wheel warriors... --Rividian (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave current one up.' And I guess speedy close, since it's already been recreated? I'd !vote overturn if it hadn't already been recreated, so we should just leave it. There's no reason to delete the page, since ANY speedy is inappropriate.
  copyright infringements." So, unless the talk page was a copyvio, MZMcBride didn't have a valid reason to delete it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

UNDELETE_REASON Ajory72 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read
  Otterathome (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Note: if you want to skip the history of this article, please see the "Establishing Notability" section below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Version of New ZuluPad Page: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad

I make the argument here that ZuluPad is at least notable as any of the other

I will establish ZuluPad's notability in a bit, but first, some history: I added ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki (originally "Desktop Wiki", but the two pages were merged, and hereafter I will refer to both as "Personal Wiki") page in early 2006, and I created a ZuluPad page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZuluPad . The initial ZuluPad page was deleted because the application was deemed to be non-notable. Granted, it had been released just weeks before, so it was probably non-notable at the time. I exercised my right to challenge the deletion on Wikipedia here, but lost. I respected the community decision at that time to delete the ZuluPad page, and leave it listed on the Personal Wiki page. I did not try to recreate the page.

However, ZuluPad has been listed continuously on the Personal Wiki page since February 2006 until being deleted--along with a number of other Personal Wiki applications--by User:Thumperward on May 17, 2008 with this note: "(rm inappropriate external links; please add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles. move all screenies to the top for now)". By this point, ZuluPad did have its own page, created by a ZuluPad user (with whom I have no association) around September 2006. This ZuluPad user mentioned his desire to have a Wikipedia page on the ZuluPad forum here.

Anyway, since ZuluPad did have its own page at this point, I followed Thumperward's suggestion to "add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles". ZuluPad had its own article at this point, so I added it back. It seems worthwhile to note that this direction to only list applications with their own Wikipedia pages comes solely from Thumperward, and is not the result of any community consensus or existing Wikipedia policy. It also conflicts with the community decision to delete the ZuluPad page and "Merge into Desktop Wiki (which could have some external links) until it gains some notability of its own." -rodii. Somewhat interestingly, this decision to remove Personal Wiki applications en masse also removed VoodooPad, which according to the Personal Wiki Discussion page, is the inventor of the genre. It should also most certainly be listed here.

I attempted to re-add ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki page, but another user, VanTucky decided to delete the existing ZuluPad page, and remove references to ZuluPad from the Personal Wiki page each time I added them, claiming it shouldn't be listed because it didn't have its own Wikipedia page. I find the circular logic used here astounding. The person who deleted the page shouldn't be able to make the argument that Wikipedia should be purged of references to ZuluPad solely because it doesn't have its own page, and a decision to delete a page shouldn't preclude that page from being recreated at a later date, which is what VanTucky is arguing. I ask here for a reversal of the original deletion decision, so VanTucky will stop deleting all references to ZuluPad from Wikipedia.

Establishing Notability

Why is ZuluPad at least as notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed on the "Personal Wiki" page? A Google search for "ZuluPad" will net you 23,400 results, some of which are the following:

Digg.com
ZuluPad appeared on the front page of Web heavyweight Digg.com, garnering 1,481 diggs:
http://digg.com/software/Personal_Wiki_Application_As_Easy_As_Notepad_It_is_FREE

Lifehacker.com
ZuluPad was "Download of the Day" on Lifehacker.com, garnering comments that found it simpler to use than Wikidpad, which is listed on the Personal Wiki page.
http://lifehacker.com/software/wiki/download-of-the-day--zulupad-190656.php

Northjersey.com
Saturday, October 13, 2007, "Better Living" - Peter Grad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 
ZuluPad was reviewed by Peter Grad, a computer columnist for The Record, a daily newspaper serving New Jersey. Unfortunately, with this being a print publication, a link to this article is no longer available, but Wikipedia policy is that references don't need to be immediately verifiable, as long as references can be varified by a trip to a library or a letter to the newspaper, which should be the case here.[reply]

FreewareWiki.com - ZuluPad Review and Author Interview
"The program is very small, fast, and easy to use."
http://freewarewiki.com/ZuluPad

Donationcoder.com Mini-Review
"Nice workflow once you get used to the program"
http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=8599.msg63081

Gizmo's Tech Support Alert - Best Free Outliner
"Its strong card is the ease with which you can create a set of linked and cross linked documents."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/dr/best-free-outliner.htm

BestFreeApps.com - Review
"In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s near perfect for my needs."
http://www.bestfreeapps.com/productivity/zulupad/

DownloadSquad.com
"ZuluPad delivers what you might expect - a very small and quick notepad with wiki functionality."
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2006/08/02/zulupad-personal-wiki-notepad/

TechSupportAlert.com - Freebie of the Month
"ZuluPad is the most usable implementation I've yet seen for Windows."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/issues/issue146.htm

IHateSheep.co.uk
"I’ve been using Zulupad for a couple of weeks now, and it’s quickly become indispensable."
http://www.ihatesheep.co.uk/articles/tag/zulupad

Sourceforge.net
http://sourceforge.net/projects/zulupad

Freshmeat.net
http://freshmeat.net/projects/zulupad/

Anyway, I hope I've made my case. At the very least, I strongly believe that ZuluPad should appear on the

Wikipedia User Comments Begin Here --Omeomi (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)

I have top-selling books out in the UK and US, and I write for national newspapers and magazines. I use ZuluPad and have from its early days. It's a useful piece of software. Different and very handy for any writer or researcher.

One thing is for sure, it needs to be listed on Wikipedia so others can easily find it. Much of the software you find on the web leaves a lot to be desired, even when it is costly. ZuluPad really is different and it's got to be part of any author or writer's software "armory"!

Anyway, the program gets the thumbs up from me...the world's most famous voodoo doctor ;-)

Jimmy Lee Shreeve (aka Doktor Snake)

http://www.doktorsnake.com | http://www.jimmyleeshreeve.com

><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.227.157 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 May 2008

• bernard from RunningWithBulls.com

Hi there. I am a telecoms engineer working for a well known telecoms vendor. I am inundated with information, tips, tricks, little bits of information that I have to remember to a) make my life easier, b) keep people happy, c) do my job effectively.

Since 99% of this information is proprietary, and therefore cannot be shared online, or posted to the Internet public (it says so in my contract), I had to look for somewhere to store these sources of information.

I spent 3 weeks looking for:

• an application, an installable, easily movable wiki application for my computer.

• an application that allowed me to link to other pieces of information, in the public Internet.

• an application that would allow me to share the information via a web browser with my collegues, inside our company firewall.

Since I found ZuluPad I have used it probably 3-4 hours of my working day, and another 1-2 hours at home every day.

Every time I need to remember how to do a certain task, I look at the ZuluPad wiki index page and navigate to the link I want.

I have used it for taking notes, in the middle of a training course, while every one else write on a sheet of paper.

I get notes created in seconds, instead of minutes.

And since it is an easy markup language, I can export it out to HTML, and put the files in my webserver folder on my laptop for other collegues to use.

The definition of a wiki, from this very site states:

A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language.

This is exactly what ZuluPad is.

Stop the nonsense and put the ZuluPad page back.

If you think this is some sockpuppet speaking, please e-mail me: bATrunningwithbullsDOTcom and I will happily telephone you and explain the other ways I use ZuluPad Wiki at home.

Its a pity more software isn't as easy and as cheap.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningwithbulls (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2008

• Koonaone. I found it disturbing to send the longstanding ZuluPad page link to an associate and have her report back to me that it's defunct. On investigating the matter I find myself here on this page and beyond being disturbed, I'm now perturbed, and confused as well. I'm not about to spend much of my valuable time learning the semiotics of wikipedias word usage but it appears that notability is a salient and recurring focus. Something that's notable is worthy of notice. something that's worthy of notice is ipso facto notable. I assure you all that zuluPad is worthy of notice.

In my work I am faced with the daunting job of describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined, that is intellectualy incomprehensible without a set of strong hierarchical classification tools, and that works in such a totaly successfully integrated fashion that it is clearly Required that we understand it ASAP. In contrast is my clear conviction that all things in ecosystems actually are interconnected to one extent or another, and that the very tools of analysis we use to view the systemic scale of nature, work against a true human apprehension of the nature of Nature. ZuluPad has proven to be a trusted tool in this never ending chore.

ZuluPad is one of the only true Brains in my data stream that works in this regard in that ALL inputs to the project wherever they are from, and whatever scale of significance they may have, are easily and creatively entered, and just as creatively assembled again in new ways. My own brain is allowed to do its processing work in its moment without the constraints of hierarchy and with full confidence that the data is not being lost in obscurity. Exploring the true complexity of the linkages between objects isn't marred by any necessity to maintain fiats of order external to my own vision of the day, yet the program faithfully returns my input and allows the vision of a future day to add, ammend, or even delete yesterdays vision. Just like a brain. I consider that to be worthy of notice in the modern arena of pondorous, constrained and generally business oriented applications.

It is true that the perceptual slant of a programmer, shows through in their software creations sometimes I believe, and there is an accent or dialectic in ZuluPad that is subtle and perhaps could be missed in a cursory examination, perhaps this is what's happening in this unfortunate case.

I have spent more effort here than intended, all I can hope is that the ZuluPad page be put back where it belongs. Thanks kindly Koonaone (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply

]

• As a user of both Wikipedia and someone who wished to know more about ZuluPad after reading about it on Lifehacker, I would deem ZuluPad to be notable. Everyunitone (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• this is just admin, muscle flex wankery, the dude needs to get off his hitler tip and use his brain. It's notable, include it, end of story. 143.117.78.169 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Too much to read here, lots of opinion and thought. Please delete most of it so only the reliable sources and your points are presented, I don't want a history lesson about the article itself.--
  Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You can see clearly at the end a listing of sources that substantiate the claim that ZuluPad is notable. If you want to skip the history, just take a look at that list. --Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as outside the scope of this process. If you can manage to get a few lines into the wall of text above, you'll see that the editors are asking for content to be readded to an existing article (e.g., a content dispute), which is not what Deletion review is for (it's for review of deletions). If ZuluPad is indeed worth including in the article
  Personal Wiki, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page, hopefully in a much shorter form. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• An administrator is refusing to allow it to be re-added to
  Personal Wiki unless it has it's own page (ZuluPad). That is why I am asking here to allow ZuluPad to be re-created. DGG has it right below.--Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Permit re-creation He recognises that inclusion of computer programs on a list depends on articles, so he wants to be able to reconstitute the article--and include it on the list as well. The inclusion goes with the article, so the basic dispute is in fact over the article. The last sentence of the request makes it clear enough. I see the evidence presented as quite sufficient to permit re-creation. The AfD was 2 years ago. DGG (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no
  Tucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification, DGG.--Omeomi (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation per
  Vantucky, since content disputes are not what DRV does. I have no opinion on the content dispute. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Do not allow There is no source material on ZuluPad that meets our definition of
  Tucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Personal Wiki been forced to provide sources in this manner? --Omeomi (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • • Lifehacker does not meet our
      Tucky 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • You've provided no evidence that Lifehacker does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. And as for the print article, here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is exactly what I am suggesting: the article is not demonstrably findable. You've provided no title, date it appeared, or any other specifics beyond author and paper name that are normally expected to be provided for news sources if they are to be treated as sources. Besides, one decent newspaper article does not necesarily meet our requirements for
          Tucky 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I no longer have the article myself, but it was published in November or December of 2007, and was written by columnist Peter Grad in his "Personal Technology" column. I assume there are many libraries in New Jersey that archive this newspaper, and the newspaper could certainly be contacted for back issues. It may not be the best way to cite a source, but it narrows it down enough that it is certainly "demonstrably findable". --Omeomi (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sources like this suck; they're hard to find, and aren't terribly high on the reliable source level. If you aren't actually using it as a source, it's not actually being used a source, which makes it questionable to link, and if you are going to refer to it, I don't think it unreasonable to demand an actual reference, not search through November and December 2007 articles for an article you think is there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know it's there, I remember reading it. The only thing I don't know is the exact date. However, I will do my best to find out exactly when it ran. Besides, how can both online sources and print sources suck? You have to accept _something_ --Omeomi (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem is not online or print; it's reliability. Newspapers suck because they're hard to find, and the articles are frequently written on a short deadline with no real second-checking of sources. Online is frequently bad because it's either not independent or it's one guy chattering on a blog or an email list, with absolutely no fact-checking beyond it feels right. But there are some excellent online references.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, then what's wrong with the Lifehacker source? Lifehacker has an Alexa traffic rating of 1,826, so it is certainly not a small site, and the "Download of the Day" article was posted by Gina Trapani, who is the Founding Editor at Lifehacker, according to the Wikipedia Lifehacker page. I think I've posted a wide enough array of sources here to show the ZuluPad is at least notable. I'm not saying it's the most notable thing since the invention of the wheel, but it is notable. --Omeomi (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's what you're not getting about source material: how much traffic a web page gets (i.e. Alexa) or the source's notability have nothing to do with how reliable it is. Reliability is about established editorial structure and fact checking. Lifehacker has neither to a degree necessary to make it fit as a serious source.
                      Tucky 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • Lifehacker has an editorial staff. What gives you the expertise to evaluate the quality of their editorial structure or fact-checking ability? Do you have a reliable source that discredits the Lifehacker editorial staff? And if all we're debating at this point is the notability of ZuluPad, it seems to me that the notability of the publication in question is certainly an important factor. --Omeomi (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (outdent) Guys, just lay off. Talk a walk, get some sleep, and come back later, okay? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation; I'd like to see the exact source for that print publication, but several of those links, like to lifehacker, and TechSupportAlert.com are moderately reliable sources. They aren't stunningly reliable, but they're sufficient. (I'd also like to say that I'd hold notability requirements for stuff like this fairly low. We need to know it's not vanity, but it's not controversial or potentially libelous.) The AfD was two years ago, and it seems there's been several new sources in that time, so I think it not too arduous to reAfD it if necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It seems to me everyone is missing the point. The speedy by VanTucky was proper because the reposted content did not contain any of the sources now asserted above; the repost did not address the reasons for deletion at AfD and thus was a valid
  subpage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Most of us can't see the reposted content, and I'm not sure that VanTucky wouldn't just speedy the new article anyway. DRV is the way you get this discussion of the range of one user versus one admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your speculation about what VanTucky would or would not do if some other set of facts was in front of us is off topic. VanTucky's use of CSD G4 was entirely proper. If the article is recreated in a form that no longer meets G4 and is thereafter speedied by any admin then a DRV on that improper speedy would result in an overturn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe VanTucky's argument is that ZuluPad is not notable enough for any article to be created about it, regardless of how well written that article may be. That is why I have spent the majority of my effort on establishing notability here. However, if a draft article will help the process, I will begin writing one. --Omeomi (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reposted content is available in Google Cache here --Omeomi (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (see new vote below)Endorse deletion until draft is provided It seems obvious that the old version was correctly deleted. I urge the interested user to make a draft on his userspace using the sources he lists, for example by creating a page at User:Koonaone/ZuluPad, and then present the finished draft at DRV to see if it's worth overturning the original decision. Presenting an uber-long argument with a few sources is not going to help. Seriously, I care about the article itself, I don't care if your work consists of "describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I would point out that this Deletion Review was posted by me, User:Omeomi, not User:Koonaone. That last sentence you mention about "describing prognosticatively" was not posted by me, it was posted by User:Koonaone, a user supporting the recreation of the ZuluPad page. My write-up ends above the line "From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)". Some of the comments in the upper part of this page don't fit the standard Wikipedia comment formatting. I'd go through and reformat them, but I'm not sure if it is allowed here. I will begin to work on a draft page at User:Omeomi/ZuluPad, although the debate here has mostly been about whether ZuluPad is notable enough for any article, not about whether the article is sourced correctly. Hopefully nobody deletes my draft while I'm working on it... --Omeomi (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided a draft version of a new ZuluPad page here, for everyone's review: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. Comments are welcome of course. --Omeomi (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]