Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3

The IDPPPA (S.3728) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi!

Would you consider reactivating the IDPPPA wiki page? It really is a more important bill than the wiki page made it out to be. 1. It is a hot topic of discussion/debate and articles are written and published about it everyday. The IDPPPA is a huge issue in the fashion industry and the field of intellectual property law and it is important to have a neutral open source of information about it. 2. It made substantial changes from previous drafts of the bill and there needs to be a source to discuss those changes. 3. It made it further in the process than any previous bill and therefore has importance. 4. It had support from long time opponents (unlike the previous versions). 5. The next bill introduced is likely to be substantially similar to the language of the IDPPPA so it is important to have a point of reference.

The previous text of this article was pretty bare and did not reflect its true relevance. I can update the page substnatially to reflect its importance and relevancy and add needed citations.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddlymanic (talk • contribs)

• Endorse close, consensus was clear. Maybe an article on "design copyright" could be written, that would include this bill and its predecessors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. We have a well established article on a previous proposal, Design Piracy Prohibition Act., that includes other legislation , including a good paragraph on this one. This should simply be redirected there., along with ones for the other proposed legislation, using a suitable title as for other bills We do not have a general article on design copyright in general, & could certainly use one, though the general aspects are briefly covered in the Design Piracy Prohibition Act article. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see the value of redirecting this. Redirects may be cheap, but "The IDPPPA (S.3728)" seems an exceedingly unlikely thing for someone to type into the search box. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Boerebach (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New third party Sources 1 - Interview with Radio Station 2UE ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0t4Cnh1bwo&feature=channel_video_title ) New Source 2 - Interview on 2GB ( http://www.2prfm.com/sources/water-logged-throat.mp3 ) New Source 3 - 2CH Bob Rogers Interview with Russ Kilbey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF-desNBMs&feature=channel_video_title ) Whitewater111 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wish to request assistance with an article relating to myself. It is a tricky situation, as I cannot have any involvement in editing or working it, as it would be a conflict of interest for me to do so. At the time the articles were deleted, I had little understanding of the wikipedia community, and thus had a meltdown from Asperger's. Now a few months have past, and that the heat has gone from the situation, I am politely asking if another admin could review the deletion of the discussion, as the delete/keep pole was even stevens, however most probably due to some misunderstanding, they might of been some tension involved. I don't know as there were definitely plenty of sources to support the article. So I leave it up to those who know more about wikipedia then I, and hope a neutral review could be considered. Thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the userfied article can be seen at
  User:Nuujinn/Mark Boerebach. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Not being an Australian, it wasn't immediately clear to me, but I checked: the 3 youtube links above are postings of programs that originally aired on major commercial radio stations DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not only are those stations (

Macquarie Media, and 2UE owned by Fairfax Media) part of major networks within Australia, they are also in competition with each other, thus are in no way related to Mark Boerebach, the subject of the article. KatCassidy (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Note: I added the wikilinks to this comment. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse no apparent change in notability since the AFD--this is a one-time contestant on a rather minor game show who for whatever reason seems desperate to have an article here about himself at any cost. Wikipedia is not a venue of self-promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I think there's significant coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG--coverage ranges from local newspapers to national news and radio programs and interviews. I am also concerned that the original AFD discussions may have been colored somewhat by the subject's participation in the discussions and lack of understanding of WP policies. I believe that the subject's intentions and desires are really not relevant to the question as to whether or not we should have this article, and it seems to me that with about a dozen reliable sources, we have enough material to do a good job of it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Basically per Nuujin. Although I understand Andrew Lenahan's concerns about self-promotion, I have to again agree with Nuujin that the subject's interests should be irrelevant when deciding on the notability. I also feel that the original AfD got more caught in up the self-promotional nature of the subject and his apparent involvement in the article and AfD and whether we, as an encyclopedia, should have an article on a "one-time contestant on a rather minor game show", than simply asking if this article meets the general notability guideline or not? For me, the sources clearly only reinforce the point that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources and what the subject has done to achieve that notability should be irrelevant as far as AfDs are concerned. Please note I was asked by User:Whitewater111 to comment on this DRV. This is the first DRV I've commented on and if this was the incorrect procedure (ie I should have ignored the note due to canvassing or something), then I apologise. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man Murray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Taking into account that DR is not AFD#2, and after letting the closing admin review this ([1]), I still believe outright deletion was the wrong solution here. I understand Lifebaka's point about no deep coverage, but during the AFD and since, more reliable sources identifying the site (OMM for short) have come about. If any anything, this should have closed "Redirect" to

]

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

• Endorse - Consensus of the competent opinion-givers (fevered SPAs get little attention IMO) was clear. All of us grizzled net veterans have our old, favorite niches of the internet that we wax fondly over, but the sad truth is that some nerd culture just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. Not getting your favorite thing into the Wikipedia is just like being kicked out of American Idol; just because someone doesn't think you aren't good enough, doesn't mean you actually aren't. You just ain't good enough here. Move on. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone would consider this non-notable and thus not worthy of an article. But I am arguing that in this situation, the info about site can be on Erik's page, and that it is a likely search term, and thus outright deletion is improper. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of us grizzled net veterans have our old, favorite niches of the internet that we wax fondly over, but the sad truth is that some nerd culture just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia." -- how about the ones that have been referenced many times by video game journalists?
    • Without commenting on the article itself, I think it would be helpful to interpret "not good enough here" to mean "does not meet our guidelines for what we call 'notability' for the purposes of this encyclopedia." Notability is a term with a technical meaning here, and not having an article is not a statement of low quality or little merit, or anything else that might be implied by the word "good. " According to the guideline, it doesn't even necessarily mean "low importance". DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do not post this comment with much hope, as it seems that the thoughts of those who have not been a persistent presence on the site are often categorized as "SPAs" or "meatpuppets;" however, I am of the opinion that the nominating admin has displayed sufficient evidence to suggest a conflict of interest in his capacity as a WP admin. Not only was the admin responsible for the removal of both the Portal of Evil and the Old Man Murry pages, he also removed links to the OMM page present on the pages of two people (Erik Wolpaw and Mark Laidlaw) who were heavily involved in both. This is certainly circumstantial evidence, but I find it odd that one admin took it upon himself to remove all of these related elements in a short span of time. A recent post of his on the Caltrops board (http://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=136915) and the linked tweet suggest that the admin has a personal agenda and is willing to act on that agenda in retaliation.

I have no investment in the pages I mentioned, nor am I affiliated with any of them. My attention was drawn to this issue by an article at RockPaperShotgun.com, and I felt compelled to respond to an instance where personal bias is demonstrably affecting access to a public domain resource. Sir Gareth (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the personalities. Deletion review is not about the article nor about personalities. Did the closer, in reading the discussion, determine consensus correctly and follow proper process, or didn't they? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is no , the proper process was not followed. There was a redirect target, it's a useful search term, so deletion should not have been performed. Regardless of whatever personalities or meatpuppets (which I see this is attracting) or the like were involved. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be noted that while the tweet is mine, I did not post it to Caltrops, which I refuse to post on, and where they have impersonated several Wikipedia users, including Golbez, Lifebaka, and HalfShadow. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may respond to your rebuttal, I argue that my post is within the spirit of this review. Point 2 of WP:DELREV states "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly," and I would like to know if the closer knew of your activity at the Portal of Evil (as can be seen in this archived page: http://web.archive.org/web/20071124150748/www.portalofevil.com/single.php?poeurlid=4954). Furthermore, the coincidence and vague wording of the cited tweet with the deletion debate demonstrates a certain level of animosity. If the closer was not familiar with your personal involvement with the communities around PoE and OMM, then this is new information that should be factored into the closer's original decision to uphold your nomination. WP:COI notes that "Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." An admin with demonstrable connections to pages that the admin edits/removes should be taken into consideration, and in the AfD, the closer did not acknowledge awareness of this circumstance, nor did you offer it. Sir Gareth (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, I think this DRV can be evaluated without considering the COI between OMM and SchuminWeb. If anyone but SchuminWeb nominated to start, and AGF that the rest of the people in the AFD would have still responded in the same manner, closure in the same way would have been a problem. (If Lifebaka, otoh, was COI here, well, yes, but that's not apparently the case). Let's keep the personal issues about SchuminWeb out of this forum; if you have any griefs with what he did, there's other places for that at the user-review level (eg

WP:RFC/U). --MASEM (t) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion and award barnstar. I originally nominated this article, and in reading the close and the fallout from it, I can't help but notice how well the closing admin handled it all. Meatpuppets rounded up on a certain gaming forum were given exactly the weight in the discussion that was necessary, and once you filter out all the meatpuppetry and the commentary on personalities rather than content, you had an AFD with a clear consensus to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a conflict of interest vendetta at all... Fussbett (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Fussbett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Rock, Paper, Shotgun has quite a bit to say about you, Schumin, and it seems to point to a clear COI on your part. Silverseren^C 06:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no idea what I'm supposed to write if I disagree with deletion, but I do disagree. In the first place, the site is notable. In the second, there is a HUGE conflict of interest in that the so-called editor who nominated deletion of this entry (as well as related entries) was featured as an "exhibit" on Portal of Evil (which also had its Wikipedia entry deleted--gosh, what an astonishing coincidence!) and has been childishly bitter about it ever since. Rather than taking anything he has to say seriously ("meatpuppets"? really?), SchuminWeb ought to be banned from editing anything related to OMM, POE, their owners, contributors and their sister sites.

98.225.90.57 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at the very least so it can be further discussed. To recap, Old Man Murray is referenced by the following publications: Wired, Kotaku, PC Gamer, ZDNet, Joystiq, Rock Paper Shotgun, and the book Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar. Newly found references since the deletion verdict include Salon (link, link) and UK newspaper Metro (link). However, because none of these links REVIEW oldmanmurray.com and only speak reverentially of it, they are then described as non-notable. Which is insane. Fussbett (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Fussbett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong overturn/undelete - Old Man Murray is part of the history of video gaming, and video game journalism in particular. Notability will only likely be found in video game journalism outlets, since video game journalism covers a niche that isn't terribly relevant outside itself. It is a mistake to move the notability threshold so high that those more notable outlets are deprived their necessary context and history.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Concur with Masem below. Put simply: this is not a vote, and immaturity/desperation will be entirely counter-productive, regardless of which side you're coming from. It's fine if you make an account to come into this discussion, but please have something wise to say.
    Xavexgoem (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I have a feeling this review may get visits from meatpuppets trying to save the article. Those that are coming here from outside article (like the Rock Paper Shotgun one), please understand the purpose of
  deletion review as there's certain things we do consider here and other things that are ignored. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question for closer was there a reason that either merge or redirect weren't done in place of deletion? Looking at Lifebaka's talk page, I don't think I ever saw a direct answer to that. Does the closer object to a redirect? Hobit (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly. Likewise, if we decide here that a merger is useful, I have no objection. I did not close that way only because I did not see any discussion on it in the AfD itself. My apologies for not answering this earlier. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn Wow, the closing admin's statement is a clear example of something that should be given as a vote and not a close. The sources given by Iglotl in the discussion, such as this, are more than enough to establish notability for the article. I also believe that, at the very least, it should have been closed as a no consensus.
  Rock, Paper, Shotgun article that was made in response to this deletion, which also counts as another reliable source on the subject, incidentally. Silverseren^C 05:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The circumstances surrounding the deletion process present a conflict of interest on the part of the, let's say, deeply involved party. The fact that there was a previous attack on said party by a related website a long time ago, the fact that said party modified most if not all mentions of the article and associated writers, the fact that the party has admin privileges and yet still refuses to tone down their language (meatpuppet, a pejorative term (and acknowledged as such by Wikipedia itself), should not be repeatedly used by someone who has administrator priveleges), and the fact that there was a strong chance that these so-called "meatpuppets" were honest people with valid and well-thought-out points, should at least factor into this entire issue. At the very least, there should be a discussion about reinstating the article and allowing it, say, a week or a month's time to improve (with relevant sources), instead of, say, allowing seven hours for a process to occur before starting another AfD process. Most of all, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot should be held in high regard by all contributors. I've done my part, and Masem has done his in promoting an equal and cordial discussion. ArDavP (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I went looking for sources. Someone said above that it had been referenced in Wired. So I went and found this, and this too, and then a third reference. None of those are detailed coverage of the site itself, which is important: They presume any gamer reading Wired is sufficiently familiar with Old Man Murray that no introduction (save a link) is needed. All the hoopla on motivations aside, Wired (magazine) is the canonical RS in the Internet culture arena. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per jclemens. I'm also agnostic on the question of whether or not User:SchuminWeb's alleged past w/ OMM/PoE colors the deletion nomination or whether it matters significantly. I'm leaning toward Masem's interpretation that the discussion itself didn't really hinge on User:SchuminWeb's actions and the various votes and final decision were made in good faith. However I don't think objections based on the perceived bias of the nominator are totally out of the question. Full disclosure I discovered this AfD here. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional overturn. I understand why the AfD ended as it did, and don't fault the closing admin for it. The discussion had spiralled out of control, partly through the well-meaning, but inexperienced (with regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), contributions of newly-registered editors, many of whose comments were of the "it's obviously notable" variety, without offering enough sources as evidence. I'm not sure that deletion review was the best way to go with this—as written, the article did not demonstrate the website's notability. Since the AfD, better sources have come to light, and it might have been better to rewrite the article offline or in userspace, using those sources, before recreating in article space. I understand that Masem may not have wanted to be seen to have wheel-warred about it, but it would have been a perfectly proper recreation if the "new" article differed substantially from the old. So, overturn, but only if these new sources can be incorporated within short order. Steve ^T • C 07:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I feel like a lot of people were earnestly expecting references and sources for this article that simply don't exist for this class of subject. I know you guys will cry some policy in response to me but there are an endless number of other articles that are in a similar class to OMM and don't have the references you're demanding for it. It's insane to be told it's my responsibility to produce a specific set of guide lines for sites like OMM to get it undeleted, when it should be YOU producing the set of guide lines to delete all the similar entries you don't want in your encyclopedia. Also establishing this set of guide lines would obviously be nice for subjects YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT. Someone was insinuating Kotaku just "a blog" on the discussion page for OMM deletion, that's a joke. Worm4Real (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- because if this result is overturned then it will send the very clear message to all the off-site canvassers that off-site canvassing works, and then every time we try to follow our own procedures on something like this we'll be inundated by a flood of SPAs and trolls. Every damn time. And they'll probably always get their way too. That would damage the encyclopedia much more than the existence or non-existence of a single article of doubtful notability. We should insist on our right to handle Wikipedia's content our way and not roll over just because some trolls have turned up to muddy the waters. Reyk _YO! 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside events have nothing to do with Wikipedia and by voting Endorse, with that sort of reasoning, you are thus responding to the outside. Your reasoning should be based on policy and the value of the article itself. We don't want Wikipedia to seem like a snooty elitist site that only values regular members either. Silverseren^C 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is ridiculous, cynical, and presumptuous: Plenty of long-time editors have voiced their concern on this DRV, and the closing admin will be aware of the SPAs. Furthermore, this is about the article's notability, of which plenty of sources have been provided up above. It is not about teaching a lesson; that is what would call into question our integrity.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It's only been about two weeks since a good-faith editor, User:Christopher Monsanto, was driven from Wikipedia by relentless hounding and personal attacks. Many of these were the result of canvassing at Reddit. So no, pointing out that the danger exists is not "ridiculous, cynical, and presumptuous". I have recently strongly opposed filing AfDs just to teach someone a lesson and agree entirely that doing that kind of thing damages our integrity. However, that is not what I am advocating here. I am not suggesting making a bad call on content just to send a message, merely that we not roll over in response to an external campaign. If you take out the SPAs and personal attack votes of the AfD discussion, you're left with a debate that in my opinion a reasonable admin can (and did) interpret as a consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, no, thank you. Editors who are brought to an AfD from an outside are not automatically invalid -- especially if they make policy-based arguments.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha. You know what's funny? Wikipedia has so many editors that nobody can know them all, which means that if I see someone making a legit policy based argument I'm not likely to wonder if they're new or old editors, or want their input discounted. The SPAs I'm talking about stand out because they have few edits and make vacuous arguments. I should have made that clearer. Reyk _YO! 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist with a semi-protected AFD. Much as I like the idea of "punishing" the off-site solicitors, it isn't appropriate, and I could not discern a consensus to delete from the established editors at the discussion. The closer omitted to give appropriate weight to keep comments and sources. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a semi-protected AFD is that many of the single-purpose accounts, due to their vigorous participation in the previous AFD and in DRV, plus other
    WP:POINTy activity, are now autoconfirmed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • Excuse me, what? Are you really saying that you like the idea of punishing people who have the temerity to use the encyclopedia you've helped create as a resource and thus have viewpoints about what should and shouldn't be in it? Yes, the debate attracted a lot of editors who have not previously participated in AfDs, and who may have primarily engaged with Wikipedia as readers or anonymous editors. That in no way decreases, little yet invalidates, their weight in the argument. I see few comments here or on the original AfD that suggest a lack of familiarity with basic policy. Readers are community members too.
    talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn precisely per Jclemens. The semi-protected AfD sounds like an excellent idea. Please also consider semi-protecting this DRV if any more SPAs show up.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The meatpuppetry on this issue was and continues to be a big obstacle to getting a consensus on whether there exists enough sources on OMM to establish notability. A note to people who are coming here from elsewhere: your opinion will not be ignored because it's coming from an SPA, but it will be ignored if it consists of irrelevant statements of agreement without evidence or attacks on the nominating editor, the closing admin, or Wikipedia general. —
  Tk•Cb, 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"It will be ignored because it's coming from a MEATPUPPET." As someone who never expects to be taken seriously (and never is, perfect record!) I am honestly concerned with why you guys think anyone will take you seriously while you spout these silly terms. Telling us "that some nerd culture just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia." while you guys use language that would considered dorky by even the most eldritch of nerd, truly amazing. We've even got people wanting to punish outsiders WP:BAKAHAMMER. Worm4Real (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPA/meatpuppet are basically interchangeable. Also, please take not that I'm actually arguing for the OMM article to remain. Your blanket "anti-establishment" attitude is really unhelpful. —

Tk•Cb, 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The majority of the comments I've seen from the people bearing the scarlet letter of "this user has made little or no edits outside this topic" have been helpful, linking relevant sources, and making valid points. In all the time I've been on wikipedia, elitism among the people who make the site a hobby at the expense of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" have consistently been its biggest downfall. 99% of the people who have ever edited this website are "single purpose" users, idly changing something on an article they were looking up anyway. It seems like a pretty weak dismissal of valid input on an issue, as most of those arguing to keep the article has made. Personally, I've never read Old Man Murray before, but Fussbett's list above seems like pretty strong evidence to my... ahem, 'meatpuppet' eyes. But what would I know, I'm just a user who doesn't even have an account or static IP. Better discount everything I have to say.108.16.116.218 (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If only I, the stupid meatpuppet, could see you're on my side! Look It's pretty obvious to see how things on wikipedia, but personally even if someone agrees with me about something, that doesn't make them some pure being of light who is free from critique. If anything you using a term that had been thrown around to discount the people who originally defended the article, to discount them further while agreeing with them is my actual issue. Worm4Real (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per nom and Steve. The sources given by Ignogl in the 2nd AfD (Wired, Kotaku, etc.) may have failed
  Tk•Cb, 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn due to reasons given by JClemens and Steve, many sources were given in the AfD page that are listed as RS such as RPS, Kotaku, Wired etc. If anything the AfD should have been closed due to no consensus. Winckle (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Varied sources, including an RS listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and Wired. It really doesn't get much more clear cut than that. Sсοττ5834^talk 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: being considered a RS does not confer or require notability, only that the source is considered by editors to be an expert and demonstrated editorial control. In this case, Erik Wolpaw is an expert, so OMM is fine as a source, but that doesn't necessarily mean the site he wrote on has any notability alone due to that. (I do recognize, however, several of the shown sources are about Wolpaw and his connection to OMM). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn In accordance with points stated above; also the discussion during the original AfD was inconclusive at best. I would also like to express my discomfort at seeing a clear COI with regard to SchuminWeb and OMM, as detailed on Rock, Paper, Shotgun (see links above). --Mister Six (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong overturn I feel that given the copious research done on this subject and linked above, OMM does meet notability requirements. Also, there is a clear COI here from the nominator SchuminWeb, who should face some kind of disciplinary action for using the deletion process to further personal vendettas. thewittyname (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Coming out of retirement to comment. No consensus was achieved before the discussion closed. Substantiative sources were provided during deletion discussion, but were overruled on subjective grounds. Notability concerns didn't rise beyond the level of single-sentence comments, except for the individual who brought the deletion request. Sockatume (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn — after reviewing the AFD, I don't see a consensus to delete, and several comments above by Jclemens and others seem to indicate enough reliable sources that an article is probably justified. I understand Lifebaka's frustrations at the SPA flood, and I'm sure he was acting in good faith, but I think closing as a de facto supervote in this instance was a mistake. Oh, BTW, looks like we've been slashdotted Full disclosure - this Slashdot post is how I learned about the AFD and DRV. *** Crotalus *** 15:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Semi-protect new AfD to keep out the SPAs and allow a proper consensus to be formed (don't beleieve there was one one way or the other in the original AfD). This is exactly this kind of situation that DR was made for Raitchison (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per sources listed by others. --Powerlord (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was clearly no consensus met in the AfD, even among the established users. Furthermore, no one made even the slightest attempt to refute most of the sources cited by the unestablished users in the AfD; completely disregarding a good point from an editor just because they're unestablished is a poor way of behaving in an AfD. Because the deletion decision states that the sources provided were insubstantial, despite there being no commentary or discussion to that effect was made in the AfD, it appears that the closing admin may have acted too strongly on his/her own feelings rather than deciding based on the actual discussion itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There were many notable sources offered in the AfD that were never refuted. I would go so far as to say that the consensus was to keep. Just because a site is old doesn't mean it should be deleted, or we risk wikipedia ignoring anything thing from the past of the internet. Monty845 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist. The fact that there was a lack of clear consensus amongst registered users means that this article should have never been deleted the way it is. The decision seems forced and unnecessary. Overturning the decision made looks like the only sensible option. Daimanta (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist Why was this done? Old Man Murray was well known, reliable sources were cited in the deletion discussion, and there's an obvious conflict of interest in SchuminWeb acting in any capacity on it. Please examine SchuminWeb's future access to Wikipedia - this kind of thing is beginning to give Wikipedia a bad reputation, in my opinion. 80.0.148.81 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I can see a number of genuine and good attempts to establish notability in the AfD, citing good sources. I appreciate the concern over SPAs, but where the cites came from doesn't matter, the end result was notability established and these should go into the article. I also am troubled by the motivation of the nominator. This COI would be a red flag if creating or editing an article, and should doubly be so in nominating one for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closing admin was dismissive of keep comments. The logic of the closing statement does not convince me that there was a consensus to delete. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Allowing people to delete long-standing articles based upon notability is dangerous. As the younger generation comes over to edit the wiki, what they find relevant will not be the same as the previous generation. It’s like having a history class, but only making the students study things that they already know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of
  talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I'm troubled by the way the second AfD proceeded - dismissing legitimate input as "meatpuppetry" really pushes the envelope, and there are clearly conflicts of interest as well; I suspect it would have gone differently if the conflicted admins had stayed out of the dispute entirely. I'm wondering if the admins involved should be put up for review. Stan (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As a contributor to Wikipedia since 2004, I hope my arguments will not be summarily dismissed as being from a meatpuppet (is such cliquish language supported among admins)? Old Man Murray is certainly more notable than other pages created by Mr. Schumin, having been referenced by The Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, The Edmonton Journal, Xbox Nation, the Sunday Herald Sun, The UK Guardian – 18 January 2001 and Computer Gaming World. At the very least, I would have thought that any possible conflict of interest would mean that an admin would stand completely aside and allow other admins to take over the process. Paul Moloney (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The sources provided in the AfD were marginally sufficient to demonstrate notability. Since this topic area is known to be under-represented in traditional reliable sources, the closer should have given more weight to those sources than might normally be the case. This should have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus". As an additional note, it seems to me that we may have forgotten the purpose of the notability policy if we find ourselves deleting verifiable content which many people clearly care about. Thparkth (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While meatpuppetry and attacks on the nominator are problematic, they do not negate the legitimate policy-based keep rationales that were also present in the discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. SchuminWeb clearly has an axe to grind with OMM's creators [3], and is trying his best to delete every reference of them from Wikipedia. I say restore the OMM article (which, BTW, is a pivotal page in gaming history with influence over many gaming companies, starting with Valve) and kick SchuminWeb as an editor, since he is not thinking about Wikipedia's best interests. Signed: a meat-whatever, and if that makes me opinion less valid, shame on you.--87.216.166.42 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Going with outright delete after 14 keep and 5 delete opinions - sorry but that's just calling for trouble. And with the previous AfD having been relisted twice and then deleted with just 2 opinions. Surely if the process had been protracted that long already, and now attracted some attention, it's not a case for a straightforward deletion. --Joy

[shallot] (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Reviewing both of the AfD noms, and this DRV, shows multiple axes spending time at the grindstone. That said, the second AfD did NOT reach clear consensus to delete, and the
  WP:COI of the nominator was clear to any who cared to do the research. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Ignoring
  WP:COI issues for the moment, the significant mentions from Salon (link, link), Metro (link), Wired (this, this too, a third), and others cited above indicate a level of notability consistent with WP:Notability--Ahecht (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn First AfD re-listed twice, basically no votes. Second AfD has no consensus.
  WP:COI issues are credible, sources that have turned up are numerous. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Regardless of the merits of "notability" of OMM, it's clearly unacceptable that the article was deleted instead of being made a redirect. There are enough sources and enough notability of Wolpaw to make that the obvious choice if the article itself shouldn't stand. I have no dog in this race, having never heard of OMM, but I did read about the issue on slashdot (I always follow Wikipedia topics on /.) and did some research of my own to form my conclusion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per previous commenters and on principle. This could have been either an easy case of fixing the sourcing, or doing a redirect. Still, more importantly: Why are we mired in this gigantic bureacratic mess that got media attention (RPS and Slashdot), when the article could have just been subject to continuous improvement in all peace and quiet? What did this deletion accomplish, other than bringing a lot of angry people out of the woodwork to fix the article? Couldn't we have done this with less tears and bloodshed? Consider this one of my periodical "this is why AFD is broken" rants. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- sources showing clear notability were given during the AfD, and should have been considered by the closer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I'm not stating anything about COI here one way or the other. The DRV is about the close, not the nomination or actions during the discussion. My opinion is solely on the sourcing demonstrated during the AfD discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, despite repeated requests, no reliable sources were provided. Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This is a classic example of a broken deletion process. The conflict of interest is secondary to the fact that nobody cared about the conflict of interest. And plenty of references to show notability have been given. But even then, the notability rules themselves are broken and the prohibition on "meatpuppets" means that whenever a bad AFD comes through and people know better there's no way for them to tell anyone. Apparently on Wikipedia nobody listens to you, regardless of the validity of what you're saying, unless you can demonstrate a constant presence, which translates mostly to being willing to get involved in a lot of other pointless mud-wrestling ahead of time just so that you aren't ignored as a "SPA" or "meatpuppet".

It's too bad that it took Slashdot to call people's attention to it. This sort of thing goes on all the time. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak overturn I'm not at all convinced that the sourcing is enough (mention in Wired is not the same thing as non-trivial coverage) but a decent argument can be made that it is enough, and the closing logic seems insufficient. In any event, even if this isn't overturned, it should probably be undeleted to be merged with the main article about Wolpaw. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn I agree their seems to be a fair storm of controversy regarding the article, but a non biased reading of the Afd finds no consensus for outright delete. I know administrators can disregard discussions, when the discussions violate aspects of WP policy, but that's not the case for this Afd. The consensus was clearly for keeping the article. A short search of google and google books would have found plenty of primary and secondary sources to confirm the articles notability. Instead
  WP:COI. All the more clear since User:SchuminWeb describes himself as an inclusionist. SchuminWeb constant harrassing of editors while the discussion took place, was unethical, and displayed a lack of grace and competence that an administrator should possess. I think he should be put for review scope_creep (talk
  ) 19.08, 3 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Recall doesn't enter into it, no evidence he used his admin rights improperly as part of the AfD as far as I can see. Someone would have to argue long and hard regarding how being an admin sets a different standard for

WP:COI behavior. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse An admin calling people "meatpuppets" and deleting whatever in lulzy nerdrage that provokes mass nerdrage on Slashdot? Epic win. 10/10, well played sir. I don't know what kind of humor value OMM had, but clearly deleting every reference to it has far more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.5.130 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First a disclaimer that I would have preferred that the article remained, as I consider that it meets the notability standard for an influential website. In fact, I see the very controversy sparked here as sufficient proof of value to the community, both within Wikipedia and at large, to say nothing of the bad public impression is leaves about the Wikipedia administrative process. If Wikipedia is not meant to serve that community, than who is it meant to serve? However, the main reason I'm commenting here is because my feeling is that this discussion is rapidly expanding beyond the bounds of civility on both sides of the discussion. Simply put, the louder people yell, the less I want to listen. --Alan Au (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and the barnstar comment is uncalled for and makes this whole process seem petty. --Alan Au (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. From reading the AFD discussion, there was no clear consensus established, and sources listed as reliable on
  WP:V which is actually policy.) I haven't reviewed the sources, but at the very least, the article should be redirected to Erik Wolpaw per Dante Alighieri. --Goobergunch|? 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn – Per SarekOfVulcan and JoshuaZ. Just because it was a Internet-related article doesn't mean that should receive less consideration or leeway than other articles. The AfD should've closed as merge / redirect to
  hounding and harassment. In short, users feel greater freedom to speak out off-site. Discussing issues with a broader audience also allows opportunities for "outsiders" to contribute new and interesting ideas and insight to the discussion. What we really should fear isn't off-site discussions but rather off-site collusion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn If wikipedia wishes to retain any legitimacy, it will censure admins for using perjorative terms in discussions. Referring to users as "Meatpuppets" does not dismiss the points they've raised or the completely valid articles they've cited to establish notability.--Mikeavelli (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is related to the term "Sockpuppet", where one guy opens multiple accounts to act as if he were multiple people, thus giving greater weight to his opinions. Meatpuppets, where the same person gets multiple people to edit on his/her behalf, are prohibited. The issue here is that I don't think we had meatpuppets - there was no "Go here and say this" to these edits. Rather, multiple people who never edited before decided to come and participate in the conversation - and offered reasonable opinions, for the most part. We're required to
    Assume good faith, and it seems that we did not do so here. Which is embarassing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Overturn , for two independent reasons. First, I consider the debate contaminated by the charges of COI and bias. When that happens, it's too difficult to really clear them from the mind. The best thing is to close as non-consensus and relist in a week or two in the hope of a fairer hearing. Second, to the extent other issues were discussed, there was no consensus for deletion among those who did discuss the key issue, which was the sourcing. The closer used his own opinion about the sourcing, but his opinion about sourcing carries no special weight. If he had an opinion, he should have contributed it to the discussion. There are times when a closer can and should over-ride apparent consensus, such as when the apparent consensus is people not addressing the key issue or issues. But when there is consensus on the key issue, his not accepting it is a super-vote. If closers went by his own opinion, the result would depend on the vagary of who it was who happened to close, whereas a close should be the same no matter who it is who closes. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Notability was more than sourced, article should never have been deleted. SchuminWeb knew perfectly well about OMM and its notability, the article was deleted just the same. As a meatpuppet, I have to say that this eff-up has opened my eyes about Wikipedia, and I doubt I'll ever contribute again while a petty editor like SchuminWeb is allowed to delete important content in personal vendettas. Also, the fact that sites like Blue's News are not in the Wikipedia (or have been deleted) show how little the editors maintaining the pages know about the last 15 years of history of gaming. My appreciation of Wikipedia took a big blow today. --88.16.195.238 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse.

  While I do not have sufficient information to provide useful input on the subject of this deletion directly, I'm seeing little information suggesting that the prior decision was invalid or improper as is alleged. On the other hand, my attention was brought here because of some rather hysterical and ill-conceived personal attacks distributed in large public calls for a mob to overturn the decision. It might be the case that as some point in the future useful information will be brought to light which creates a reasonable cause to re-evaluate the decision, but I am somewhat doubtful that this is possible in a climate of heavy manipulation and name calling.

  Particularly, the cited notability evidence supports the notion that some of the lasting results of the site, like start-to-crate, are sufficiency documented to document coverage (if not in their own independent articles) but this doesn't mean that the source of these things is itself well enough documented to justify anything other than

  coat rack

  level coverage.

  Should I be able to escape the judgements of the arbcom by calling all of them nasty names? In this case the allegations not only look incorrect, but they are irrelevant as quite a few people have supported the deletion who have never been attacked by this party. In effect, I'm looking at some of the same points that DGG raise above, but calling for the opposite conclusion. My reason for this is that I believe that if we default to overturning deletions when the process is subjected to meatpuppetry and name calling we would give an arbitrary veto to almost anyone who wants to manipulate the content of Wikipedia (and can buy or manipulate their way into controlling a modest sized mob).

  Simultaneously, even in the most chartable interpretation of the provided evidence doesn't suggest that any great harm would result from leaving this deleted. Moreover, many of the more reasonable overturns above (most obviously JoshuaZ, Michaeldsuarez) appear to be leaning towards a merge/redirect which can and should happen independently of the deletion decision and which is functionally equivalent to the outcome the SPAs which are currently mobbing these discussions oppose even if they aren't technically equivalent in terms of WP's procedures. (More clearly: No one outside of WP distinguishes a Keep/Merge+Redirect with a Delete) If we overturn then merge (which looks to be the most likely long term outcome at the moment) the result is still the same for Old Man Murry but we will have reinforced the view that vitriol and mobs are a proper tool for influencing Wikipedia. Better to just leave things as they are, while adding the relevant sourcable, factual information to the appropriate articles.--Gmaxwell (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So you are saying despite the consensus which you acknowledge, the article should remain deleted to punish what you view as the bad behavior of certain people commenting? Monty845 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. It not clear to me that absent the bad behaviour we'd be having this review discussion (certainly many deletions are closed in the opposite direction of a straight by the numbers interpretation without being subject to review)— and I think, from the discussion here and here, that the end (meaning over five years or so) result is probably going to be a series of merges— so that the only long lasting effect of an overturn here will be, in effect, to validate the bad behaviour. Does this make any sense to you? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I understand what your saying, and while I disagree with your view on what the ultimate outcome should be as to restore/redirect/delete, I think the bigger point is that the outcome should not be influenced by any bad behavior one way or the other. To change the outcome to be more deletionist as a result of the controversy is just as bad as to restore the article one the basis of the controversy. Monty845 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I hold the view that it's not possible to be not influenced. Our conversation is, in effect, proof of that. Look at the recent activity on my account: I only showed up here because I received several messages canvassing about the evil of Wikipedia and decided to take the time to review the discussion. To whatever extent it can be ignored, it should be. I don't view this as changing to be more deletion-prone, but rather failing to quickly overturn an already completed change. Had I been aware of the prior discussion before it was closed I would have made no comment one way or the other (though I might have chimed in pointing out the canvassing and encouraged people to ignore the bad behaviour). --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your reading of the sources is lacking. Most of the references that are linked to are reverential and read as if they presume the readers knowledge of the subject. This is admittedly a tic of internet journalism, but if you apply good faith to the distribution and breadth of the sources within the spectrum of mentions and coverage, I think it is hard to deny that the site is Notable enough to deserve an article. To be short, I think it is fair to assume that people will want to read a good article about OMM given how many acknowledged, notable sources openly claim it has been influential within their field. Gutsby (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not Wikipedia's purpose create such an article. Our policy on original research policy greatly inhibits that kind of work, for we lack the internal infrastructure to differentiate good scholarship from crackpot k00kery and self-promotion, except to the extent that we can point extensively to reliable sources elsewhere. The lack of good journalism of these 'internet' subjects might be, just as it is for every other subject, a sign that these aren't actually notable. Or, as you suggest, Internet journalism might be bad at providing this sort of thing, but us failing to abide by our own policy makes that worse by reducing the incentives to create the sources our process must have in order to do a good job with the mishmash of lax policy and pseudonymous non-expert editing that we have. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While I understand your point, many of the cites reference articles from publications with responsible editorial policies. When I mention the tic of internet journalism it is not an indictment of the writers, but rather an acknowledgement of the fact that the distribution of journalism on the internet is always current and often reference the past within an undocumented common understanding of the milieu from which it arose. However, as the sources are plentiful, distinct, often notable and almost always consistent I think that it warrants coverage. In other words, I disagree that the references to OMM are trivial despite their shorthand. Gutsby (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Overturn. No relisting. The article topic is clearly notable, given the numerous sources listed above, and I'll throw in one more from Mirror images: Popular Culture and Education edited by Diana Silberman-Keller et al. in 2008: "Within gaming... bloggers such as 'Lum the Mad' and 'Old Man Murray' are among the most respected commentators and journalists." Thanar (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  For US Googlers, that link is http://books.google.com/books?id=vc7iAjw9qSAC&pg=PA115&dq="Old+Man+Murray" -- the .ca search will block you as over the limit, or something to that effect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you really hold the view a passing comment like that provides enough sourcable material to justify an article? Should we have articles on every person who's name was recorded in community bible because they were mentioned somewhere? Why wouldn't the needs of Wikipedia readers be better served by documenting the lasting effects of OMM in the context of the relevant articles? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If I had quoted something like "Old Man Murray has a great review of this game..." then I would agree with your characterization of it as a passing comment. The quote I referenced, however, shows that the author is singling out Old Man Murray as one of the most respected commentators in gaming, and I think that speaks to notability. The quote certainly shouldn't be the centerpiece for a recreated article, but could be cited in passing. A case can be made for merging OMM content into another article (i.e. Lum the Mad is a section of xxx). But my current position is to retain this as an independent article. Thanar (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess what I was hoping for was something that believed OMM was significant enough to actually justify an investigation and elaboration, rather than just invoking it to prove the point that blogs had become competitive with traditional media. To some extent OMM's return to obscurity invalidates the argument presented in your source— at least in so far that the mentioned 'new media' things are now basically forgotten while the old media things with which they were compared are still vibrant and highly relevant. There is no shortage of events throughout history which were believe to be very significant for a short flash but which don't stand up to the test of time or do so only as a passing mention on their few lasting contributions. If Wikipedia came into existence 100 years from now would it have an article on this? To this hypothetical, I think my current answer is that if OMM is remembered as a distinctive thing more significant than any random dead website in the internet archive 100 years from now it will only be because of its promotion on Wikipedia, which is not what we should be trying to accomplish here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NTEMP Entropy Stew (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  What I am arguing is, in fact, that notability is not temporary. I'm arguing that notability is timeless and that no matter what time in history Wikipedia were to come into existence it should make the same decisions. Sometimes the bias of recentism makes us unable to judge the notability of something fairly— and instead we should try to see things from a non-recent context… because Wikipedia's purpose is to document well established history, not manufacture it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - As soon as gaming journalists start actually writing about gaming history instead of relying on Wikipedia to do it for them, maybe there will be some real sources to base this article on. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. I hadn't at all considered that when Wikipedia violates the rule of

  no original research

  that it makes it less likely that other more suitable venues will perform the research. This is an excellent point. It's not even just lazyness on the part of journalists— if WP is too sloppy in following it's own research policies other people with the more rigorous appropriate for secondary sources may simply be unable to gain enough of an audience to justify their existence.

  Wikipedia is an awesome 'addition' to the body of source material already available— it makes things more available and better interconnected— but it's a piss-poor 'replacement' for these sources, and we ought to be careful not to overstep what we're qualified to do in squish the sources we depend on in the process.--Gmaxwell (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not original research to take reliable sources that have disparate parts of a history and to simply connect the dots, as long as no novel synthesis or conclusions were injected into that - this is what all WP articles are doing in the first place. From my reading of the deleted page, there is no sign of OR that we would disallow. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There were sufficient sources presented at the AFD to suggest that the subject was notable. More sources have emerged since the deletion, though some are specifically about the deletion itself (focusing on the "How the hell did such a notable site get deleted?!?" angle). Further, there were valid alternatives to deletion - a redirect, for example, since this is clearly a reasonable search term. I do not believe we should keep any article that can get enough first-time editors to comment in its favor, but to say that overturning this article would open the floodgates for spas and meatpuppets to keep and delete as they wish is absolute horseshit. Many (though admittedly not all) of the first-time editors at the AFD appear to have made well-reasoned arguments in favor of Keeping the article, including several who presented a variety of sources indicating notability. Few of those sources were challenged in the AFD, and then most of the challenged sources were challenged only by the nominator himself. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for subjecting you to "absolute horseshit". I thought my view was a reasonable counter to the people alleging that this was COI motivated, and a good justification to ignore those arguments. I didn't intend to suggest that the world would suddenly end if this is overturned. I agree that would be silly, but it's still possible to believe that something is a movement in a less good direction without it being the end of the world, no?--Gmaxwell (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I probably could have been more polite, there - apologies. I agree that the COI complaints are a non-starter - even bad faith nominations can succeed on the merits, if the article actually should be deleted. And floods of ILIKEIT and ITEXISTS and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and other buzzword-compliant Keeps from random SPAs and Meatpuppets (yeah I said it) should be disregarded. My concern is that quite a few of the SPAs and first-time editors here actually had reasonable points to make, and did so in reasonable manner. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I absolutely agree that the good points should not be disregarded. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clearly snowing here, and I see no point in dragging this out. I have taken the liberty of striking my close at the AfD. I can't say whether or not I personally stand by my decision--while good points are raised above by those who favor overturning, I'm not sure whether or not I'm just pandering to the crowd--but in the end it really doesn't matter. Would someone mind closing this as overturn and moving User:OverlordQ/Old Man Murray back to Old Man Murray? Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be a history merge to avoid losing the contributions of the original article. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • [4] – I can't view deleted revisions, so I can't be entirely sure, but the page histories appears to have already been merged. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, it's ready for a straight move-into-place. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh goody. I can't wait to see what happens next when the drooling masses on the internet note one of their "pet" articles is getting deleted. HalfShadow 22:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^Slowpoke.jpg. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • • If the droves of masses bring along new sources and ways to improve the article, how is this a bad thing? --MASEM (t) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because I guarantee you the vast majority of them now probably think if they harass us enough, we'll do what they want. HalfShadow 22:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • This "us vs them" attitude is harmful to Wikipedia and embarrassing to you. Why don't you use your time to make better articles about subjects in which you are knowledgeable, like hydrocephaly or toner cartridges? 98.125.234.43 (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's been very eye-opening for long-time but occasional Wikipedia reader/editors like myself to see the cliquishness and anti-intellectualism that seems to dominate thinking among admins here these days. Paul Moloney (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:AGF. Do you have clear evidence for this assertion? --Goobergunch|? 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
              ]
    • Is there some kind of star awarded for continued derision of wikipedia's readers? Entropy Stew (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not wikipedia. We are. That includes you. You don't see me crying about it. Gutsby (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure you're at the right site? You may be looking for Wankipedia, the free encyclopedia that only guys who are in the club can edit. 97.120.237.30 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• With the closing admin rescinding the delete order, this thread should be locked to avoid tangential discussions and trolling (on all sides). Sir Gareth (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a thread and it can't be locked—this isn't a messageboard. But you're right to say the debate can be snow closed per Lifebaka.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a "meatpuppet" and might as such not be allowed to have an opinion but I'd like to know what processes Wikipedia has for dealing with rogue admins. It seems pretty clear that Ben Schumin has abused his administrative powers to harm others because of a personal grudge and judging from comments on other sites this affects Wikipedia's financial situation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.109.242 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are basically no effective sanctions against admins, unless they do something so truly egregious that Arbcom takes notice (which this definitely wasn't). There's also no training for them, no supervision of them, no monitoring, and no mentorship. This can't be solved within Wikipedia's present structures.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Schumin only listed the article for deletion (i.e., initiated a discussion for its deletion). Anyone can do that. The conflict of interest he has is still intriguing, though, and calls into question his judgment. At any rate, he's lost a lot of capital in this area. The review process for admins may be broken, but damn if there isn't still karma.
  Xavexgoem (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think your comments regarding conflict of interest are unfair. It's not at all reasonable to conclude that being attacked by some internet jackass somehow automatically makes it a conflict of interest touch anything they care about. I haven't talked to Schumin about this, but I've interacted with him here and there, and he struck me as the kind of person who is immune to this kind of stupidity and not the sort of person who would really bother with grudges. Moreover, your comments will easily be taken out of context by people proposing this idiotic theory that _any_ lasting deletion outcome on Wikipedia can ever be the result of a single rogue agent, a view which is so commonly promoted in order to whip up these mobs but which is entirely insane since at the very minimum any sustained deletion requires the inaction of many hundreds of people.

In any case, the way the process on Wikipedia works we often benefit from conflicts of interest— because its often only interested parties who will bother drawing attention to matters which, on neutral analysis, need to be fixed. Interested parties provide input all the time and the process already provides structure that mitigates much of the risk. So even if there were a COI, it would hardly be interesting or unusual. Complaints about this issue will only cause people to instead rely on meatpuppets and proxies to promote their views, which is a harmful outcome because it degrades the process which mitigates COI biases.

S Marshall's claims regarding adminship are basically ludicrous. No monitoring or supervision? What the heck do you think you're doing right now? (As misguided as the presented concerns may be, you're free to present them and we're all free to discuss them). The training is the extensive on the job peer review required to gain adminship in the first place. It's certainly not perfect, but exaggerating and misstating the weaknesses does nothing to improve the situation. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I meant by karma. It's clear he had a COI. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, and I agree that COIs are essential to the project. But -- and this only my opinion -- this looks like a vendetta. If something takes something of mine out of context, I'm happy to correct them.

Xavexgoem (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Schumin nominated an article for deletion. Schumin didn't use his admin tools. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion. Claiming any form of "abuse" of admin tools occurred is simply absurd. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He did more than that. He deleted OMM, Wolpaw & Faliszek references from other articles, see his Feb 20th edits of the Marc Laidlaw article, for example. He clearly had a COI when proposing the article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.120.253 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2011