Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November

The Mall at Steamtown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page was speedy deleted by Guy, who cited G11 and said that it qualified as spam. This particular shopping center is significant because of its ties to the Steamtown National Historic Site, as well as its status locally as the centerpiece of Scranton's revitalization efforts. In its initial state, it read like an advertisement, but I performed extensive rewrites to steer it back to NPOV and introduce a more encyclopedic tone. The article provided useful content on the mall's ties to the Steamtown NHS, and was more than simply a mall directory. From the discussions I've read, Guy deleted a number of spammish mall entries legitimately, but this one may have gotten caught in the wave. I have no doubt that the deletion was performed in good faith, but I disagree with it. Brad E. Williams 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete JzG has triggered an unintentioned mall article improvement program. Most such articles, including this on, could benefit from rewriting and improvement, but there is no reason to believe that it was irredeemable spam in compliance with CSD G11. If the article can't be improved it should be submitted for AfD. Alansohn 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Has a certain amount of advert in it, though not that bad, but lacks independant sourcing, of the three sources one is brief (a paragraph) whilst the other two are the Malls own website and the other is of the company who manages the mall. Have with any more sources? --pgk 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response As I did with another page, I can get more independent sourcing from the Scranton Times-Tribune and possibly from other local papers. I used the mall's homepage as the primary source for its history, as that was the most complete single location. I can do some digging and probably get some more info from the Times-Trib. Brad E. Williams 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a directory. When a user goes through a list of malls adding dozens in alphabetical order, that says directory to me. When they are operated by the same firm, that says spam. As I said on the admin noticeboard, a few valid subjects may have been swept up in the mess, and I apologise for that, but malls are not "inherently" notable, and without non-trivial secondary sources (the primary notability criterion), then directory entries is what they are, and spam is what they may well be. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response The lack of secondary sources is something that should be corrected, but there wasn't a single mention of that on the page (at least that I saw) before it was deleted. As I said, I have no doubt that the deletion was performed in good faith, but I feel it should not have happened without even an opportunity to correct any issues present. A tagging would've been more appropriate, or AfD at worst. This deletion appears to be collateral damage. Was this one of the pages added by that single user? Brad E. Williams 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I also had two articles on malls speedy deleted by the above admin, that I submitted to this DRV. I can understand the admin's reasoning but feel that many of the affected articles have genuine merit and relevance for Wikipedia and can be improved and brought up to standard. If "reliable secondary sources" of a non-trivial nature, which from the definition I have read do include newspaper articles, can be found and cited, would that be enough to make the article appropriate? (I would further argue that several articles discussing architecture, economic impact, etc., of any specific mall, written and presented in a comprehensive manner, do not fall under the "trivial" banner.) And this in light of the specific significance and relevance of this project to the Scranton area as noted by the editor? Reading the editor's comments makes me think that this may even be a stronger candidate for reinstatement than at least one of mine.--Msr69er 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I forgot to mention that the mall is sometimes mentioned on the popular NBC sitcom The Office. They've mentioned an existing store at least once - a coffee shop called "Jitterz." Brad E. Williams 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Looking at the googlecached version of the article[16], there doesn't seem to be any claim of encyclopedic notability (no, gratuitous demolition footage for a filler story on CNN doesn't count) and it's a not a good sign that most of the article appears to been copied and pasted from the official mall history page. There seem to be reasonable grounds for spam CSD. As for the NHS, I think that the current mention at Steamtown_National_Historic_Site#Nearby_attractions is more than sufficient. I suppose you could add a line to the trivia section in The Office article too. Bwithh 02:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I did no cutting and pasting from the history page. Summarize/paraphrase yes, cut/paste no. Brad E. Williams 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no real content so CSD applied. Note that changing a few words is not the same as summarising or paraphraing, and so it could have gone as a copy vio, anyway. If it could be recreated as a valid article, no problem with that, but what was there was not valid. Proto::type 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a directory. It's clear cut. Eusebeus 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for many of the reasons given above. It sounds like what might be encyclopedic is the Steamtown National Historic Site. If so, the mall can be mentioned in such an article, if relevant. Likewise, if the mall is a part of Scranton's revitalization efforts, then it can be mentioned as a part of the Scranton article, if relevant. Agent 86 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anna Marek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

Notable European porn actress. I disagree with the deletion decision and would like it to be reviewed. Hektor 13:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I notice one of the deletion logs says "Failed AfD." Where is the AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw nothing at all except 'db-bio'. Doesn't seem to even gone through AfD. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I was going off of "14:16, 10 October 2006 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs) protected Anna Marek (Chronic reposting of NN porn actress; failed AfD [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])" I say Overturn barring an obvious AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I could have sworn there was one. This was recreated multiple times under different names (including Anuschka Marek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Anushka Marek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)), mainly by one really obsessed fan, but I can't find an AFD under any name. Fan-1967 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I also found a link to a now-deleted discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/Anna Marek Fan-1967 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• I support the article to be reestablished. She certainly was notable at the time - however, her main fame was before the net, so getting references on her will be a bit more complicated. MadMaxDog 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment quite prepared to believe there is notability here (or as much as porn actresses in general), but this certainly needs better sourcing if it is to survive. The single source with a header banner saying "Anna Marek is gorgeous - OFFICIAL", might be considered somewhat partisan. --pgk 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is generally an issue with pre-Internet, non American porn actresses. The notability threshold is much higher for them, so we get only the most famous ones such as Claudine Beccarie (and even she was challenged once) or Marie Forså. Hektor 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The notability standard is the same, I assume you mean finding reliable sources to aid verifiability is more difficult? Written sources are every bit as valid as internet sources. --pgk 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes you're right on that. But also: if I take for instance WP:PORN BIO, criterion 1, all awards which are listed are adressing the American market, so you can say that most non-American actress who only perform in their geographical area don't have access, I could say, to this criterion. Same for criterion 2. So there are fewer criterion "available" to a non-American pre-Internet actress. I think personnally that Anna Marek fulfills Criteria 3 and 6 by being iconic of the pre-Internet Lolita genre through printed media and BBS. But proving that is difficult. Hektor 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments - note that the content of the Mediation Cabal page (mentioned above) was "Admin Keep deleting the Anna Marek page, they are gonna get sued if they keep censoring it.", so deletion was understandable (as was the permablocking of the user, Bulbus666)). The article has been, at various times, at Anna Marek, Anuschka Marek, and Anushka Marek. There's no AFD discussion (or even a VFD one). Probably worth creating and thrashing out through an AFD. Proto::type 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Write a new article, then AFD I don't find any evidence of the AFD under any of the names. To be a valid speedy deletion of previously deleted material, we need to hold an AFD. However, based on pgk's statement above, it seems that any past version would fail an AFD. So we shouldn't hold one until someone writes a version that they think can be kept under WP:PORN BIO based on the sources used in the new article. The best sources, as always meet the standards described at WP:INDY. The author should follow the process described at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Joslin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)No AfD

G1 (patent nonsense), G2 (test pages), G3 (pure vandalism), G4 (recreation of deleted content), and cross-namespace redirect

• • Comment- I'm not sure why the page was deleted, all the information was sourced and everything was fine. - P-Dub2
• It was deleted originally for copyvio, but it's back, so why is this here? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Sorry. My bad. - P-Dub2

Image:Basshunter dota.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Freakofnurture deleted this image citing no fair use rationale. I uploaded it a few months ago so I'm not sure of the description I put, but the image is fair use under {{Musicpromo-screenshot}}. Please undelete the image and I'll be sure to add the template. DarkProdigy 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. You have to provide something such as "I, DarkProdigy, believe this image is fair use on page X because of these reasons", for every time it is used. You can't just slap on a template. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Should the image be undeleted, I will do this for the article Basshunter, as a photograph is requested for this biography. DarkProdigy 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why don't you just upload it again? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: content at the time of the deletion was:

'''== Summary ==''' The screenshot was taken from the videos section of Basshunter's webpage, and is a screenshot of Basshunter's song "Vi sitter i Ventrilo och spelar DotA".== Licensing =={{musicpromo-screenshot}}{{no rationale|month=November|day=13|year=2006}}

if this helps. —freak(talk) 05:25, Nov. 27, 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. So then it just needs the statement Amarkov mentioned, correct?
• Comment There are problems with this image even if the fair use rationale were provided. (1) The tag used quite clearly states "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question", this is not the cast in the Basshunter article, you cannot use it just to show the person. (2) Even if (1) were not true, if would fail replaceable fair use so would be redeleted. --pgk 07:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Oh, sorry, I didn't notice this. DarkProdigy 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

This article was speedily deleted despite valid protest. The protest was not sufficiently examined before the page was speedily deleted, and as such, should be restored. The reason for speedy deletion was that the page was non-notable. However, there are numerous other websites with pages on Wikipedia that are much smaller than Seriously!. The site has been home to the official message boards for the entire Serious Sam franchise for approximately the last 6 years, and combined with its 14,000+ members and 750,000 posts, this is hardly non-notable. Additionally, it's the biggest website out there for the half-dozen Serious Sam games, and is the first non-"official" website in a Google search for "serious sam" (4th overall, above even Microsoft's Xbox.com listing for Serious Sam). These should be enough reasons to have the page restored and have content editors continue to add content. If there is still need for discussion about deletion, this can be done through a non-speedy process with actual discussion instead of instant deletion.

--SamFan64 21:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• List on AFD. Minor procedural nit, is that WP:CSD G4 does not apply to speedies, so the re-deletion was technically not per policy. A case could be made that the original article did assert importance, so the original A7 speedy is questionable as well. I don't believe it will survive AfD (and I'll argue for its deletion there myself), but it deserves its day in court. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I felt the article was an A7; putting G4 in my edit summary was something that I didn't put much thought into. There's no point in having the community argue over an article they can't see, so I will undelete it so that it can be listed on WP:AFD. _JD^talk 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I was unaware of specifics on deletion of articles and all of this until after it was deleted and I read some of the policies. I was planning on adding more and more details one step at a time. If the article is restored I could go ahead and add more details that make the page notable instead of going into mundane details on other topics first, and could also have others familiar with the site (people on the message boards) add notable details as well. --SamFan64 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo. Giving it a chance on AfD was a good call. Chris cheese whine 00:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Allow AfD to continue, source citations are an assertion of notability, which prevents speedy under A7. From there it should be left to the community to decide. Seraphimblade 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaming World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

I would like to have the deletion of this article reviewed because I believe that the reasons stated on the original AfD are untrue. It was speedily deleted due being about a non-notable website, which I find a bit strange. The submitter said that it isn't notable in its field (which is amateur RPG creation); the site was rather large, however, with over 30,000 members and high-ranking Google results (for example, by far the most popular software for the creation of RPG games is RPG maker; while results for this software are mostly limited to product information, Gaming World is the first actual community site listed for a phrase such as "rpg maker game", which yields 1,730,000 results). The submitter also said that the site cannot easily be found when searching on Google for its name, Gaming World, but this also seems to be untrue; it instead shows up as the first result. I think that this website is easily sufficiently notable in its field to warrant inclusion. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Alexa rank of 72,010 as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, website doesn't meet the notability guidelines for web content. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per web guidelines. Eusebeus 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to add that while perhaps the site may not be notable (all the while it is quite notable in the field of amateur RPG creation, as Google points out), it does concern me that the AfD was closed with an untruth among its reasons (namely, the fact that searching for the name of the site does not yield that site as result, which is simply false). Is anybody (the closing admin) going to clarify this? function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Again, you mistake "notability" for "some people know about it". WP:WEB actually talks about multiple non-trivial third-party reliable sources. How large a site is and how many members it has is irrelevant. ColourBurst 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Metrocenter Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

For the past few months I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up. Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by admin JzG citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with his conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of the USA's major cities and 2) using such criteria would arguably (and unfairly) disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls. Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Articles on them should not be deleted. This was a legitimate and infornmational article which maybe needed some references and historical notes to improve it. I am asking for the article to be reposted. If not, I will create a new article to replace it, and will make every effort to ensure that it reasonably follows the proper guidelines, and submit an escalated complaint if it is also deleted. The deletion was unjustified in my opinion.--Msr69er 20:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the below suggestions/decisions to overturn the deletion and I will await the repost before undertaking a complete repost of the article on my own. I am a private citizen and am not employed or otherwise associated in any way with the management company in question (they do indeed seem to have a near monopoly on major shopping center management in Arizona); if employees of such company did indeed originally post the articles (I have not checked complete history of any of them) they did so long in advance of my becoming a Wikipedian.--Msr69er 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is one of a large number of directory entries I deleted, most of which were the work in whole or in part of a single user, who is evidently associated with a property company which operates many of the subject malls. I posted on WP:ANI at the time. WP:ITSAMALL does not trump WP:NOT or WP:N, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn this specific one but not necessarily any others, this article has a history going back two years and was written in an encyclopedic fashion. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn (keep) - better written than most of its kind and not a speedy candidate as I see it. Jonathunder 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Still a directory entry, though. The primary notability criterion which distinguishes encyclopaedia articles from directory entries is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I did not see these in the article. None have yet been cited here. I have no problem with articles on provably notable subjects, as long as the definition of notable is somewhat more objective than "all foo are inherently notable" :-) Guy (Help!) 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well wriiten individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I ask, what would make the shopping center category appropriate at all, if it is not at this time? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it, Tell me where to post my opening statement (if there is another forum besides this to have such debates on basic appropriatness of articles and/or whole topics).--Msr69er 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• JzG, you (and the official, yet disputed, guidelines on notability) say "the primary notability criterion...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". I disagree with your above-mentioned implication that shopping malls are not notable on their own inherent and individual merit. Have you ever visited Arizona? The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in the local news media, and are considered a vital (some would probably argue critical) part of the regional economy. Everybody goes to the suburban malls in this area (really throughout the USA, even in areas like metropolitan NYC and SF that still have strong downtown retailing districts). That alone seems to fit the definition of notable as it relates to the economy of Phoenix and the American West. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please read User:Uncle G/On notability for the reasoning behind this. Wikipedia is not a directory (of malls or anything else), or indeed an indiscriminate collection of information. Proof of existence is not sufficient, and arguments along the lines of "all foo are inherently notable" are statements of doctrine, not arguments from policy. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• It sounds like Wikipedia is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. If you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted. You have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, WP:NOT violations are not speedies. The issue here is whether it was spam. Secondly, the article contained text along the lines of "The mall was built in 1973, making it one of the older malls in the Valley. When it opened as the first two-level, five-anchor mall in the U.S. it was considered one of the largest shopping centers in the United States.", a list of its tenants in 1973, the mention that "Metrocenter was featured in the film Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, as the San Dimas Mall", and its history over the last three years. In my books this is neither spam nor an A7. JYolkowski // talk 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD if notability is being questioned. bbx 10:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I agree completely with JzG's reasoning. Eusebeus 11:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. A colorable case has been made that this is not a speedy, so I don't see the harm in evaluating the article on its merits. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, no relist. When looking at the article through Special:Undelete, the article was not an advertisement, by any means, so the CSD deletion did not apply. Also, as it has been brought up above, the mall is a part of regional history (and I know that, I live in the area), and was featured as part of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, so it does have at least a stronger sense of notability than many other structures we have kept. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• AfD it. It seems there's some contention as to whether the article qualifies as spam or not, so we should let the debate proceed. I quite agree with Guy regarding WP:NOT, but that's not a speedy criterion. I'm also not terribly impressed with "repost it or else I will" threats, but an AfD resulting in deletion would allow for speedying recreations, so that's that taken care of, too. Shimeru 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete JzG seems to be an administrator on a rampage. He has deleted multiple such articles, in many cases abusing the WP:CSD process to delete articles without bothering to attempt to have the articles improved or trying to achieve consensus on the subject via the AfD process. As stated as WP:CSD, the speedy delete approach is to be reserved for "cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved...", a policy that simply does not fit this, or the overwhelming majority of the other articles he has deleted in this manner. His talk page is littered with requests from users to explain his deletions and arrogant responses patronizingly ignoring the requests. As JzG seems to have extremely strong views on the subject that are way out of the consensus reached on this matter, and has consistently demonstrated that he will impose these views, regardless of consensus, it is hard to justify his continuing adminship. As a start this article should be undeleted, and face AfD, only if and AfD is appropriate. The bigger issue is dealing with an admin out of control who has made himself judge, jury and executioner. Alansohn 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Send to AFD. This was not a valid speedy; WP:ITSAMALL is not (sadly) a policy. Proto::type 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per above, notability is questioned and should go to AFD if necessary. Silensor 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A Bad Dream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

(Single by Keane) I firstly started this article a months ago before exactly knowing the Music guidelines on this Wikipedia. As it was not a single release it was soon redirectered by RasputinAXP, thing I finally accepted. A week ago, I recreated the article though it wasn't an official release yet but a rumour. The Mekon created an AfD process in order to delete the article. Though I firstly strongly opposed finally I accepted his AfD. However, on November 22 the Keane official page gave official details for the single release so now there is an official source and a reason to keep the article here: [17]. I'd only wish a quick consensus to remove protection for the page and create the article as now, as I've told, there is an official source. Fluence 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - premise for deleting the article during the AfD was that it was crystal-balling, which might have been the case back then. However, seeing that an official reliable source has confirmed release date of the single [18], I think there is now a valid raison d'être for this article to be undeleted. Kimchi.sg 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Kimchi. As an aside, Fluence largely knows more about Keane stuff than anyone I've encountered, and I'd suggest giving him a little more credit on the Keane stuff in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, however (badlydrawnjeff), please don't give the user free run to recreate articles as he has been. The article WAS speculation, it WAS poor quality (and recreations still are, IMHO), and the user needs to learn how Wikipedia works and what belongs here. He also needs to understand that it isn't a game, and isn't about "winning". Nphase 10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was clearly in favor of deletion. Only "source" currently cited is primary-when someone besides the artist's own site has seen fit to comment on this, it can be considered notable and reliably sourced. Seraphimblade 10:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, in fact, Keanemusic.com was the second source to publish this, a couple of hours after the first one in spite is the artist's official website. Please Seraphimblade check the Music guidelines on the Wikipedia where every official single released is notable, of course if it has been officially announced.--Fluence 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, existency has been confirmed. (Sorry to have made another request, I did not see this one, as is wasn't indicated on the talk page.) Jo9100 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Professions (World of Warcraft) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

From what I can gather in the delete discussion absolutely no consensus could have been made. Most of the delete votes where challenged, and the people who voted delete gave no explanation as to why it should be deleted, only clamming things that had no substantial merit. As far as I can see, the article doesn't break WP:NOT as claimed, seeing as it does not tell you how to play a game, only what each thing is. Closing admin also seems biased in his decision. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as closer. Havok, assume good faith, please. The views of the majority of contributors were that it failed WP:NOT. Your own vote did not countermand this; it simply made vague insinuations about the nominator having bad faith, and that the article wasn't a game guide. The other keep votes (which were, note, in a significant minority) were "the information does not automatically qualify as game guide material" (no reason given to keep); "too big to go in the main article" (not a decent reason to keep); another one making vague mentions of a conspiracy (" ... seems to me that there is a group of Wikipedians that want almost zero game content on Wikipedia .. ") and saying that it's useful so it should stay (not particularly valid); and, um, that's it. There were a lot more deletion arguments, and they were (mostly) sound. Proto::type 14:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Overturn Deletion Deletion arguments such as "It's fancruft" and "It fails WP:NOT"? Those aren't arguments, those are statements. It was Proof by assertion. Also, saying "This is not a game guide" IS a reason to keep. The article was nominated for breaking WP:NOT. If it doesn't break WP:NOT, then there is no reason to delete it! Additionally, nobody but the keepers actually attempted to defend their claims. It seemed to me like most of the deleters basically said "No you're wrong" to any challenges and then promptly forgot about the article. As fun as it is to assume good faith, it's getting REALLY hard lately. -Ryanbomber 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ryan, but if you're characterising the 'delete' arguments as being "It fails WP:NOT", at least this referred to policy. The 'keep' arguments (Which we can similarly reduce to "This is not a game guide!") didn't even manage to find evidence that the article didn't fail WP:NOT. Burden of proof was on the 'keep'ers to prove the article didn't fail WP:NOT, and instead, they settled for flat out insisting it did not, with no evidence to back this. There was evidence provided to back the article failing WP:NOT provided - quotes, and suchlike. As fun as it is to resort to ad hominem insinuations, they're not the best way to ensure an article is kept on AFD. Proto::type 15:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You're citing proofs or lack thereof in an argument that is completely subjective. Also, you're ignoring the fact that several examples HAVE been given of what the difference between game guides and examples of games are (I recall giving an example of Mario and jumping to be exact.) Also, your burden of proof is on the wrong side. The accusation was made without any real proof other then "it fails it because I said so." We gave examples as to how it's not a game guide, and they completely ignored us, stating "no, it's a game guide." -Ryanbomber 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles at AfD are assumed to fail all requisite tests in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. NPOV is the exception - as one can only demonstrate the existence, not the absence, of bias. Chris cheese whine 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Providing instructions on how to be the best miner, or crafter, or alchemist would be a game guide. Describing mining, crafting, or alchemy in the game is not a game guide, any more than describing how to move a rook in chess is a game guide. And several of the delete arguments like "100% fanboy cruft" and "excessive coverage of a topic on which we already have a supersufficiency ofarticles" are hardly valid. Frankly, I can't find any deletion arguments I consider genuine, but eliminating the totally invalid ones (such as the fanboy cruft ones), puts the keep and deletes at the same level. Not a significant minority. AfD's are not a vote anyway, but it seems to me that you are giving far too much weight to insubtantial arguments. The fact is, professions are a completely valid part of World of Warcraft, a key and integral component to almost every character. Mister.Manticore 16:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reading, I can't even assume good faith here. I am quite concerned that the closing admin possesses and anti-Warcraft bias and was unable to evalulate the discussion fairly. See User:Proto/gc for " *Warcraft. Just, all of it. Characters, places, items, everything". Anybody who writes that should not be acting as an admin in any discussion related to World of Warcraft. It's one thing to express an opinion, it's another thing to have such a blatantly negative feeling and then use the tools of authority granted by the computer to spread it. Mister.Manticore 07:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree with the idea that the people making the decision may not have the right approach to take it. And having looked over Proto's page I find some very strange things. The most obvious problem is the following reasoning, so I'll focus on this, but there are other problems there. "Divide the world into precisely two groups: those who own and play Game X, and those who don't: Those who own Game X: already have the game manual which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Those who do not own Game X: have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none. The only possible group left would be those who lost their manuals and those who pirated their copies of Game X: the former group is very tiny and the latter group - whatever their size - can find assistance in their piracy elsewhere." Lets try illustrating this with the following example which would apply if we wanted the get rid of the sciencecruft which currently infests wikipedia, I'm going to choose Zonohedron#Zonohedra_from_Minkowski_sums: "Divide the world into precisely two groups: those who need to know about Zonohedra from Minkowski sums, and those who don't: Those who need to know will be able to read papers from other mathematicians giving a much better explanation than wikipedia can (or if it is simple enough to explain on wikipedia it will be in text books and on maths websites). Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Those who do not need to know about it have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none. The only possible group left would be those who cannot afford textbooks and don't have access to a library (and all universities have libraries and will possibly recommend websites on the subject) - this group is tiny." Perhaps this isn't a very obsure topic, but there are much, much more obsure topics on maths and the sciences on wikipedia. I think they are a good thing, evidently Proto doesn't. (This isn't an attack on Proto, just on this concept.) If this sort of argument is why Proto believes the page should be deleted then perhaps he should step back and think. "Articles must be useful" isn't even a wikipedia policy. Raoul 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The argument is a http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html fallacy as well, I think. There could be people who are looking into the game for fun, to waste time, or because they may want to join it. I do it all the time for the most random of topics, and I usually explore all of the sub-articles on said topic. -Ryanbomber 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Keep proponents didn't even try to explain how this aspect of the game is notable outside the game itself. Even aside from that, the article is unverifiable - information gained by playing a MMORPG is not reasonably repeatable by the average reader in the same way that we can reasonably expect readers to buy a book and open it at page 94, so that doesn't count as verifiability even within the limits of using primary sources to write an article. Comparisons made with articles on games such as chess and football are invalid, because people have written hundreds of articles and books (i.e. secondary sources) dedicated to their rules, gameplay and strategy. WoW has no such corpus of research which we can use to write an encyclopaedia article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't notable outside the game. It's not claiming to be. It's describing the game in greater detail due to the overflow from the main article. As for verifiability, that can (could have been?) arranged if someone had brought it up at the right time. A bit too late now, unless this gets reversed. We could have cited worldofwarcraft.com, thottbot.com, and (ironically) strategy guides. As for "lack of research," your analogy is just as invalid considering Chess is around two thousand years old and World of Warcraft is around two, not to mention the fact that World of Warcraft is much more linear then Chess. Everybody starts at level 1 and climbs all the way to level 60 in World of Warcraft. The only things all chess games have in common is the starting point and Checkmate (and even then, there's Stalemates...) There's not much to write in terms of topics that require hundreds of pages and several books from different authors to explain. Oh, and even though you say people haven't written many books/articles/what have you on Warcraft, there ARE a few out there, so this discussion is moot anyway. -Ryanbomber 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can find these sources and use them I doubt there will be an issue with recreation. JoshuaZ 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But it needs to be notable outside the game for its own article. There is a lot more to finishing a chess game than checkmate or stalemate. Chris cheesewhine 19:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know of any policies that says anything like that. Second of all, the checkmate/stalemate thing is exactly my point - Chess has a ton of info on it because there's so much to study because it is such an open-ended game. Warcraft is not. This does not make Warcraft an inferior game, this just makes the topics to actually study smaller. This doesn't invalidate Warcraft's meaning, it just states why there is no real "research" on it. You might as well start looking for someone's Thesis on "The Flintstones." -Ryanbomber 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? This isn't verifiable? The information is available for anybody to view. One of the persons commenting on it even made that clear in the very beginning. Sure, to confirm it, you would need a World of Warcraft account, but to confirm most of the information about say, Pluto you'd need a telescope. But if you just want to find it elsewhere, try Google. It's easily verifiable. Sources were not, and never were the problem. Bringing it up as an objection does not make sense. Explaining how it's notable outside the game itself isn't really necessary. World of Warcraft is unquestionably notable. That you play a character in World of Warcraft is a given, thus explaining a major component in your characters is the way to do it. Furthermore, the comparisons to chess do not stop at checkmate or statemate. I'm rather more concerned about chess openings. How does the Latvian Gambit matter to anyone who doesn't play chess? The Two Knights Defense? There's a whole 174 entry category ! I can understand describingthe concept of openings in chess. It's the same thing as this article really. But does every one of those openings really qualify? I don't think so. Fortunately, there's only the one World of Warcraft article about. Mister.Manticore 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, there are a variety of issues with your comment above but the most substantial is that the Pluto article references reliable sources so one doesn't "need a telescope."JoshuaZ 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clear consensus was indeed to delete. This is not a rehash of AfD, and the closer's read of consensus was clearly correct. Seraphimblade 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were "correct" then this review would not exist, would it? -Ryanbomber 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can come here and put something up for review, if merely listing it here indicated incorrectness in the closure then we wouldn't bother having any discussion. --pgk 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Neither side is "correct" just because they exist. Heck, neither side is really "correct" anyway. This isn't a yes/no discussion. -Ryanbomber 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No that's just playing with words, Seraphimblade is expressing his opinion that the closer made the right call and to him is wasn't a close call. --pgk 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain which user's comments you believe that consensus was based on? Was it the people saying it was fancruft? Mister.Manticore 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My personal evaluation is delete wins 5-0½, hence the debate was properly closed. Endorse deletion. No reason there can't just be a short list in the main WoW article. Chris cheese whine 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain that conclusion? Where do you get your numbers from? Why are you dismissing the keep votes arguments entirely? And the reason why a short list in the main article isn't sufficient is that it's woefully incomplete at merely a paragraph, and any longer would create article bloat. Mister.Manticore 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What votes would those be? AfD isn't a straight vote, and if you read that page you'll see my evaluation doesn't do a straight vote count, but rather is a points system. If you're desperate, I can do a blow-by-blow. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who came up with numbers. I thought of them as votes. If you don't want to call them votes, fine, call them whatever you want, but yes, the full analysis would be helpful, not just random numbers you're making up. Calling them votes at least has meaning, but if you're just saying "these are some points" then you should explain your system. Otherwise, how can anyone else understand it? Mister.Manticore 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling them votes is misleading. They are recommendations, to be supported by reasons. Administrators are to disregard blind votes ("Keep ~~~~"), and weigh up the reasons. The means for calculation is shown on the page describing the evaluation, but I have taken the time to summarise the arguments as presented here. It is my personal points system, and I use it to evaluate AfDs others have closed. It is not an official guideline, but a tool based on established procedure, taking into account the fact that one strong argument can defeat a non-point with 50 me-toos. It is not perfect by any means. Chris cheese whine 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no problem if you want to consider my wording changed to "Why are you dismissing the keep opinions entirely" . Heck, since it seems to bother you so badly, I'll go back and edit it myself. If you must, consider it a poor choice of words. However, I do object to your failure to explain your evaluation. It's really just as bad as the concern you're expressing about votes. In fact, I'd say your overwarranted focus on one chosen word is making it worse I didn't put any thought into the word vote, and believe it or not, I know what you're talking about. I am familiar with the idea that AfD is not a vote. However, you came up with points. You didn't explain them. You still haven't. Why not? Mister.Manticore 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You may notice these little blue things called "links". Try clicking on them. I have a page outlining my method, and have posted my calculation. Chris cheese whine 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your link was obscure. I totally missed it. My apologies. Perhaps if you'd just posted that, instead of concentrating on a single word it would have been easier to see. In any case, I do not find your reasoning on that page persuasive to deletoin, in fact, I find your analysis convincing that you aren't giving the other side a fair shake. For example, you've included arguments like "100% fanboy Cruft" (Which is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "original research, indiscriminate collection of information, excessive coverage of a topic on which we already have a supersufficiency ofarticle" as positive factors. You do know that the claims about original research are false, right? Not to mention indiscriminate collection of information. It's not indiscriminate to cover an integral aspect of a game. As for supersufficiency, there's hardly a huge number of World of Warcraft articles, even if did violate policy to have more than one article on a subject. So, why is that a reasonable argument? And the way you count points against people for one argument, but don't for people with similar positions on the other side? Seems unfair to me. Sorry, but your analysis is just too flawed. Get back to me when you correct it for that kind of bias too. Mister.Manticore 03:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I count points for a show of support for a strong argument. Most of the keep comments were irrelevant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, things such as "this isn't a game guide" (without stating why), "we have articles on X" (irrelevant), and "WoW is a notable game" (does not justify minute detail). They are non-issues, and were not relevant to the debate. Your own argument had some grounding in process, therefore it scored. It didn't appear to have any other support (most people preferring to pursue the non-issues above), hence it didn't get marked up on a lg(n) basis as the two delete arguments did. Nothing unfair about that - the two delete arguments scored more than the keep arguments because they carried more relevance and thus more weight. As for the truth or falsity of the claims of original research, DRv simply does not care - that is AfD's job. DRv exists as a court of appeal, and where articles have been to AfD it merely endorses or overturns the decision reached there based on whether process was followed, and relists articles where new information has come to light. Chris cheese whine 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid I can't concur with any measuring standard that doesn't bother to consider the truthfulness of an argument, nor one that doesn't weigh against fancruft statements. That bias alone convinces me that you aren't being fair and honest. Mister.Manticore 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article in no way covered the subject in minute detail. It was an overview of the concept within the game, and avoided an excess of details, such as detaining where to gather things, growth in experience rates, and the like. Mister.Manticore 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I realize I'm being hypocritical when I say this, but please try to be civil. I know I'm not the most civil person but I'm trying hard to be, so I'd appreciate it if you remained civil too. Anyway, you said "User:Ryanbomber - argument turns on use of the word "playing" rather than "joining". No score." Am I reading this right when I think you're completely invalidating my argument when I said it should remain for people interested in joining the game? If we deleted everything in the Wiki if people had vague interests in it, then we'd lose basically every sort of pop culture article, including TV shows, books, games (video and non,) etc. Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. -Ryanbomber 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're reading this wrong. For a start, WP:INN. Your argument was nothing more than saying it didn't count as a game guide, because the wording in the relevant policy was "playing". Hence, yes, I am invalidating it for that reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and foremost. WP does not cater for people "interested in joining World of Warcraft". WP does not provide "interesting" or "useful" information. It provides unbiased, well-known, verifiable information. In my estimation (that bit is important), the point that the information might be useful to those interested in joining the game does not have a grounding in our policies, therefore it carries little weight, regardless of how many people bring it up. Chris cheese whine 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Semantics are hard. Alright, replace all times I said "playing" with "playing or learning about the game." Also, WP DOES cater for people "interested in joining World of Warcraft." It caters to ANYONE interested in learning about World of Warcraft. It caters to people interested in learning ANYTHING. It's an Encyclopedia. It provides information. But I guess "useful" isn't important. So the problem is bias (How is an explanation of game mechanics biased? Is it even possible?) the fact that the game is [[19]], and the [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] Where is the problem? -Ryanbomber 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure- Keep Deleted Editors need to recall that DR is properly a place for contesting process, not a second shot at an AfD debate that has already been duly considered. Nothing in the initial AfD was out of process and the closing admin was perfectly right to conclude that consensus was in favour of deletion. Eusebeus 11:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A biased admin who ignores the arguments of the position he or she doesn't like is within process? Mister.Manticore 13:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but that's not what we have here. What we had here was an admin who quite rightly discounted most of the irrelevant detail, and found what was left was two good arguments to delete which had explicit support, and one weak argument for keeping it which didn't. If the keep arguments were somewhat more substantial, you'd have a case. Chris cheese whine 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently, "but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer" is a valid grounds for Deletion Review. That is what I believe. I believe Ryanbomber and Havok concur. If this is the wrong way to deal with that concern, would you suggest a better way? Mister.Manticore 14:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to file for a review on those grounds-but you must accept that consensus may go against you. Admins are given some degree of latitude in interpreting an AfD debate, generally their decisions are not overturned unless they are obviously and clearly wrong, biased, or otherwise out of line, or if new evidence that was not known at the time of closing comes to light. I don't see any of those happening here, so I voted to endorse. Seraphimblade 20:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And did you look at the closing admin's own statements on such things? I'm afraid I can't give any latitude to somebody with that attitude. Mister.Manticore 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could you answer my earlier question as to why you think the closer's decision was clearly correct? There was no explanation in it, so all we can say is that he decided to delete. Not why. Did you consider that? Mister.Manticore 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's a very valid request. Here goes then. Firstly, if we go by the pure counting method (which I never advocate), we've got 9 delete recommendations to 5 keeps-an awfully solid majority in favor of deletion. Both the delete and keep recommendations covered and went back and forth over whether or not it was or was not a game guide and/or unsalvageably OR. Finally, one of the keep arguments was quite weak ("this is too big to fit somewhere else" does not imply "this should be in Wikipedia at all"), and many arguments centered around comparing WoW to basketball, chess, and others similar, which is wholly inaccurate-these are old (in one case centuries old) games with literally tens or hundreds of thousands of secondary sources available. If WoW's still getting played a hundred years from now, that comparison might become appropriate. Chess' individual strategies are highly notable because they have been written about. The same for basketball-one can easily reference what a technical foul is or what's the penalty for a double dribble. This is simply not the case with WoW-yet. If it becomes notable enough that people start writing magazines, and books, and newspaper articles, and the like, outside of strategy guides and similar, the article could be written with those sources-but "I played the game and found that..." is original research, information must be verifiable through reliable secondary sources. One of the "keep" arguments states that "the game itself" could be used as a source-this is clearly incorrect and the closer did well to discount it. In sum, many people recommended deletion for many very good reasons, and, while I think the closer could have interpreted it as a keep, it appears the evident consensus was to delete and that discretion was not improperly exercised. Once again, DRV is not a rehash of AfD, it is to analyze two questions-"Was the closer obviously and clearly in error or out of line when (s)he interpreted the debate?" and "Has new evidence not known when the debate was closed come to light, and is there a substantial chance that this evidence would have swayed the outcome?" As far as I can see, the answer to both questions is a "no"-the closer exercised a reasonable and proper amount of discretion, and no new evidence has been presented. And this is true even if we presume that each and every keep argument was a good one-those arguments simply weren't the consensus. Seraphimblade 07:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go to amazon.com there are 80 book results for World of Warcraft. Some of these results will be repeated results and many will not mention professions, so that severly reduces the number of relevant books, but there are still going to be 15-20+ books which mention this information. Many magazines have made articles on WoW generally or specific aspects of it which will include professions information. This is plenty of secondary sources - if we include game guides. If we don't include game guides then you are correct as there are very few or none non-gameguide secondary sources. However I don't see why these can't be included. Also WP:OR says an article can use only primary sources if "(1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". Facts about professions are easily verfyable using primary sources such as the blizzard website and are not claims. WP:OR is there for a reason: "to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas", this article doesn't do that. Now WP:V does say "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", but the topic does have 3rd party sources, so I don't see a problem unless you can show that game guides don't count as sources. Dragging up Latvian Gambit again all the sources are guides as to how to use it and advice regarding it - game guides. Now these game guides were probably written by experts, but there are people who are experts on WoW, so I don't see the distinction. Raoul 09:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you brought up the counting method, then please at least show the decency to factor out ones that say things like "100% pure fanbody cruft" . By my count, there are three that say that, or make no argument at all other than "per someone else". Which means nothing in terms of their own rational thinking. So it'd be down to 6-5, not a majority, and possibly 6-5-1 if you consider the merge vote. Of the delete arguments, at least 3 provided nothing in the way of support for their claims, just bare, unsupported assertions that were disputed at the time. However, treating AfD's as a vote is a bad idea, so let's not, and pretend you never brought it up. Anyway you don't seem to recognize that information about professions in World of Warcraft IS being kept in Wikipedia. It's right there in the main article. The question is, is more detail approrpiate than can be fit in the main article? I think so. Article size is still a problem, and that paragraph just isn't expansive enough. Complaining about sources is also mistaken. There are sources about the professions, even the help files of the game itself. I don't know about you, but to me, that IS a good source, and it isn't original research. It's like reading the credits to a movie and seeing who is in it. Do you think that's a problem? I don't. But if you want secondary sources, there are plenty on World of Warcraft. As I already said, Google. This isn't new evidence btw, this is evidence that was clearly ignored by the closing admin, who made no effort whatsoever to represent the discussion, and based on his or her stated prefences, wants to delete Warcraft related articles. And your comments about chess and basketball don't really seem to recognize something. We aren't talking about a single article on chess openings but a category with around 150 entries. How do all of them meet any of the thresholds for inclusion? Have any of them been written about outside of specialist literature? I don't think so. It's not like this article was advising one take up fishing, or blacksmith, or telling folks what to do. Just describing it, in the same way one might describe a chess piece's movement. Does that really constitute a game guide? I can't see how, but if it does, then we've got a lot to get rid of material. I think that's a bad idea. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you admit an admin could have interpreted the consensus as a keep though, and I ask that you consider whether the admin in question, who has stated that they want to delete Warcraft content, was the proper one to make the decision, without any explanation, whether they were truly capable of giving a fair and honest consideration to the keep arguments at all. I don't think you can honestly say that happened. Mister.Manticore 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion I'm going to try and answer claims that people who voted keep didn't provide arguments to back them up. This could be quite long. I may repeat arguments (and even an example or two) already given (I suppose repeating things not already given would be difficult), but I want to give a list of all the arguments in one place. I may not deal with all arguments perfectly, so if there are any specific points you disagree on then feel free to point them out. It is a bit pieced together so the order may seem a bit strange.

The first reason given for deletion was that the article was a game guide. To quote WP:NOT "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." Facts about professions are not instructions, advice, suggestions or "how-to"s. A game guide is something which guides you about a game, not something which gives you information about it. The definition of "game guide" and "indiscriminate collection of information" are not technicalities, they are the entire policy.

The next reason was that the information is available elsewhere. It is wikipedia policy that all the information posted is available elsewhere - that's what makes it verifyable and stops it being original research. Now wikipedia is not an indiscrimatinate source of information as stated in WP:NOT, but professions information is not indiscrimate as shown by WP:FICT: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters"." Since WP:FICT applies to all fictions and professions is a concept within the game they should be put together as a list with short descriptions into a separate article (the main WoW article being already too long). So wikipedia policy says that this page should exist.

The article was verifyable and was not OR. The Blizzard website gives all the information as do several books which have been published about WoW. This means we have a primary source and several published secondary sources (as well as thousands of online secondary sources).

So the article is verifyable, isn't OR, is allowed by WP:NOT and is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so there are no real arguments for deletion. WP:FICT says that this article should exist, so there is a real argument to keep. There are still some minor arguments to cover however.

The main article is too long. Therefore all profession information should go in a separate article (if it is included at all, though I'm sure you don't want me mentioning WP:FICT again). This isn't a particularly strong argument, but it is still a minor reason for keep.

"It's fancruft". No it's not - it is verifyable information about a notable (compared to most wikipedia articles anyway) topic.

"Keep proponents didn't even try to explain how this aspect of the game is notable outside the game itself." Most things aren't notable outside of the area they are notable in. The crystal structure of calcium chloride is not relevant to the vast majority of people (that's not even an obscure topic - it's a common chemical), but the information is still on wikipedia. Other examples such as the Latvian Gambit are more relevant: it is completely useless information and is of interest to fewer people than professions in WoW, but it is and should be on wikipedia. Of course chemicals and chess aren't really relevant to this discussion, but policy is - the same policy which makes that information available on wikipedia should make this information available.

"What we had here was an admin who quite rightly discounted most of the irrelevant detail, and found what was left was two good arguments to delete which had explicit support, and one weak argument for keeping it which didn't." The two strong arguments were it is OR (despite it being easy to find primary and secondary sources) and that is is a game guide (because we say so - no evidence necessary). The weak argument was "it is not a game guide because" followed by specific references to the definition of a game guide.

"As for the truth or falsity of the claims of original research, DRv simply does not care - that is AfD's job." So we did the wrong thing before and must therefore do the wrong thing again? Surely it is DRv's job to make sure that the AfD was fair?

I can't remember any other points made so I'll stop now, but I think that shows all the arguments for delete are not supported by wikipedia policy while there is at least one reason for keep.

Just one more thing: I don't realy understand Chris' scoring system. Why does the comment "100% pure fanboy cruft" register a score? It does not give any arguments rooted in policy or any backup for the statement. Also why do "me too"s count at all? There would have been quite a few "me too"s if people hadn't refrained from repeating arguments already given, so it means that arguments are not scored based on quality but on how many people posted the same thing. Repeating an argument should not make it more valid, a lie is a lie however many times it is repeated even if it "becomes the truth" in that most people believe it.

"Your own argument had some grounding in process, therefore it scored. It didn't appear to have any other support (most people preferring to pursue the non-issues above), hence it didn't get marked up on a lg(n) basis as the two delete arguments did." Let me understand this correctly. An argument was posted. It was correct (in my view and that of most other people who think the article is a good idea) therefore nobody bothered to repeat it as it wasn't necessary and it gets less points because of this? Raoul 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you, and thank you for your time. Mister.Manticore 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You have argued this better then I could ever have in my entire life. Thank you. -Ryanbomber 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Raoul, sums up everything very nicely. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closer, and no keep arguments in the AFD based on overriding policy. GRBerry 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I see an excellent argument not about overriding policy but why the policy isn't applicable in the first place. -Ryanbomber 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Overriding policy" is a policy that overrides a consensus for the opposite result. A keep argument based on overriding policy would be a one that arguing from policy says that keeping is required despite a consensus to delete. The canonical example of an overriding delete argument is a copyright violation - if the article contains text violating copyright in all versions it would need to be deleted no matter how strong the consensus to keep. Arguments that WP:NOT doesn't apply are not overriding policy arguments, they are instead arguments that a particular policy is not relevant, not an argument that the policy applies and requires a specific outcome. GRBerry 14:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction." This is a quote straight from WP:FICT saying that the article should exist (unless you consider WoW to be real or don't think professions in the game are a concept, etc.). There is no space in the main article for a list of professions with short descriptions. Raoul 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FICT is a guideline, not policy, so no argument based on it can be an argument from overriding policy. GRBerry 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the P in "WP" stood for policy, but you are right - it is a guideline. What about Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters then? That appears to be a policy to me (even though it doesn't have the box saying "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia"). Raoul 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The P in WP is from Wikipedia, as WP: is a shortcut to the Wikipedia: name space. That page explicitly says it was a discussion page searching for consensus, and that the resulting consensus was memorialized in WP:FICT; it has therefore a lesser status that WP:FICT, which reflects the current status of it. See point 5 of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters#Conclusion. GRBerry 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem you seem to have with this still is with WP:FICT. I think I should remind you that guidelines are policies with exceptions. They've been agreed on by the majority. They're completely kosher. I don't think anyone's proved that this is an exception, so by guideline it should be undeleted. Also, I did not get a chance to respond to your first reply, about "Overriding Policy." Isn't this exactly what we're arguing (not to put words in anyone's mouth?) Policy/Guidelines were followed incorrectly and the article should be reinstated because of it. We're overriding policy by actually listening to it instead of distorting it. -Ryanbomber 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A guideline, because it allows exceptions, does not override consensus. Consensus is how we measure whether an exception should be made. Consensus for article deletion is measured at AFD, and I see no abuse of discretion by the closer in their evaluation of the consensus. GRBerry 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Touche. The problem with that argument is the fact that WP:FICT was not sourced at all in the AFD, except one person complaining about the lack of a real-world perspective, which seems to have been shot down. Most of the argument was based on WP:NOT, people claiming it was a game guide, and ambiguous calls of "fancruft." Why it shifted all over the place, I have no idea. -Ryanbomber 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Didn't read the overly long semantics tapdancing on this page after the first 5 paragraphs. Looking over the AfD, I fail to see an improper close. I see a article that is clearly important to people who play WoW, but that doesn't mean that they are the best qualified to determine how to interpret policy. Regardless, the closing admin went on actual arguments and thus deletion. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lunacy of not reading arguments and voting anyway aside, how are WoW players NOT best qualified to determine policies? Does playing WoW make someone inferior in some way? Not at all. Playing WoW and interperting policy have nothing to do with eachother. Keep the ad hominems out of this. -Ryanbomber 12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple. In any debate where a number of people are direct participants in the subject of an article, I tend to distrust their ability to neutrally observe. It's just for this reason that I don't edit the things I'm heavily involved in, like articles on China, Neverwinter Nights, or much of the LGBT movement. I read the entire mess above all the way down to the post by Angus McLellan, and all I got out of it was a sense that people 'felt' it was closed improperly since it wasn't done the way they wanted. The fact remains that there were two deletes, with reasoning, and one keep, with reasoning, and a bunch of pile-ons on both sides without. For clarification, I'm not attacking the WoW players instead of their argument. I'm suggesting that WoW players who want to keep this article are unlikely to look at it in the neutral light (not caring either way) that is likely to see ANY AfD decision resulting in delete as valid. That's all. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you that anybody wanting to keep an article that didn't follow policy is a fool. The problem is that this article DOES (did?) follow policy. We've said that several times and explained how the policy is worded and why it was misread. This isn't a matter of proof, this is a matter of semantics, which is something that you hinted at loathing. Does that mean you should stay out of this review? -Ryanbomber 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound uncivil here, but Elaragirl, you are the reason I have come to find Wikipedia flawed. Voting and commenting without reading the whole discussion, and basing votes on others without trying to come with your own reasoning. Specially when it comes to AfDs, not talking about you here, but people tend to just follow the flow. If there are 2 delete votes and 0 keep, people are more likely to just vote delete, regardless of subject matter, or even knowing what the article is about, or even reading the article. I find all this a real shame, and my thoughts about the matter really come into fruition in this flawed AfD in my eyes. It's a shame, it really is.. Again, I apologize for any uncivilized remarks, I'm just tired of the whole debacle. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I could say the very same think, Havok. More often than not, and the point of my post, is that there is some article that clearly violates a policy and should be deleted. Someone nominates it. Some pithy soul throws "Ilikeit!" up as a rationale for keep, and there's a mass of delete and keep votes presaged on one or two policy arguments. The whole thing is then shut down as 'no consensus', the article is not improved, and the whole thing starts again. As for your assertion, as I responded to Ryanbomber, I read a majority (five paragraphical sections, down to the post by Angus McLellan) and came away with nothing that convinced me to keep such an article. I don't care if I'm the reason you find Wikipedia flawed. Interjecting that into this debate simply reinforces my opinion that most people voting keep here could care less about the Wikipedia's goals or policy and only care that the articles they find useful , interesting or worthy stay. To answer your incivility, I read the Wikipedia without joining as an editor since 2003, and people like you have created the attitudes of people like 'me'. Good day. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is the reason I started this review, the fact that the article - at the time of closing - did not break any policies at all. Closer has even stated himself that he hates, what he likes to call "gamecruft", and that he finds articles like this trivial and silly. The article didn't even break WP:NOT when it was nominated because me and several other people cleaned out all the game guide information that broke NOT. Hence the closing of the AfD looked to me as a act of bias, which again, is the reason I asked for a review. But I find our attempt feeble, and as such I do not want to spend any more time with this. I have started an article to try and set a consensus for what would break WP:NOT or not at Wikipedia:Game guide. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion with no prejudice against recreation if it becomes sourced. The most serious issue seems to be sourcing and that may be able to be dealt with. If someone wants me to I'd be happy to userfy a copy for them so they can work on sourcing it. I'd also like to register my concern at the closing. Admins who have strong opinions about not having certain classes of articles should refrain from closing those AfDs unless the AfDs are clear. JoshuaZ 15:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ChefMoz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

No discussion of deletion; Insubstantial basis for deletion 22:36, 21 June 2006 User:InShaneee. I think this article was deleted without proper cause. This was an article that I created in June 2006 (although for some unknown reason it does not appear in [| my contribution log]) in order to provide content for a pre-existing link in [| another wikipedia article] to point to. The article should legitimately have been labeled a stub (I don't recall if I labeled it as such), but I do not see a basis for its speedy deletion. Apparently it was deleted the same day it was created; I was not notified of its deletion (I think the fact that it took me 5 months to notice ought to be convincing evidence that I was not engaging in nefarious self-promotion). I added this article as a stub because I did not have sufficient information to flesh out a complete article -- this is because I hoped that another Wikipedia user would stop by to flesh it out. My recollection is that the content I added included both an external link to the ChefMoz website and an internal link to the wikipedia Open Directory Project article. Articles about ChefMoz (a website, at [23]) have been deleted twice, apparently without discussion, as logged at [| this location]. The content of the first article probably was the same as appears on http://chefmoz.quickseek.com/ . I think that the deletion was unjustified, for several reasons: (1) If the topic of "ChefMoz" is noteworthy enough to have a link from another wikipedia entry, the topic probably merits its own wikipedia entry. (The link to it has been in place for a very long time, suggesting that it was not controversial.) (2) Regarding notability, ChefMoz content is freely available for use by other sites and is used on many other sites, including the sites listed at http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Tools_for_Editors/ChefMoz_Editors/Sites_Using_ChefMoz_Data/ . Traffic data for ChefMoz at http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=chefmoz.org substantiate the website's significance (Traffic Rank for chefmoz.org: 30,763; other sites that link to this site: 1,443; Online Since: 28-Mar-2000). (3) Documentation that I had not looked up when I created the stub, but that could be used as a source for the article includes http://dmoz.org/newsletter/2001Mar/chefmoz.html . That webpage says (among other things) "the directory got a nice mention in Industry Standard's Food, Wine, and Web newsletter with the heading of ChefMoz: The Web's Zagat", but (unfortunately) I cannot follow the link to http://www.thestandard.com/newsletters/newsletterBottomframe/0,3679,115-2335,00.html . There are many other articles about ChefMoz on dmoz.org, and many completely independent search-engine hits exist, but most are fairly insubstantial; for example, http://forums.seochat.com/open-directory-project-13/http-www-chefmoz-org-16584.html, http://www.webmaster-forum.net/showthread.php?t=2503, http://iandavis.com/blog/2002/12/chefMoz , and http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfweb-dev/2001-May/010217.html . -- orlady 02:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as a valid A1 and A7. No claim of notability and precious little of anything else. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with JzG. It appears orlady wrote a stub on the subject after a previous version was deleted a few months before. The stub in question only tells us what it is, not why it should be included. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• The first deletion was a PROD; its recreation makes it a contested PROD. The second deletion does not cite a reason (although I suppose one could make a case for some CSDs). (Radiant) 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note, also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/web directories. Thanks/wangi 12:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ooops, that's MusicMoz there! Still related, and that AFD is for four "non notable" websites also deleted under speedy on the 22nd and then recreated on request... Thanks/wangi 13:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• It is stated that "The first deletion was a PROD; its recreation makes it a contested PROD." Where was the first deletion proposed or discussed? (I cannot find a record.) --orlady 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• See WP:PROD - in uncontested deletions there is no debate, if nobody challenges it after five days the article gets deleted. It can be contested, in which case it gets kept but should probably go to AfD. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

The rationale for deletion of this article, as provided by the deleting admin: "The article was deleted as the multiple votes to keep were from people who had not contributed to Wikipedia before (which is always very suspicious)" This is an ad hominem rationale.

Many of these votes to keep came from respected authorities in the field, including a published author and people with industry experience ranging from 10 to 20 years. The authorities supplied relevant credentials and reasoned arguments.

None of the people voting to delete offered any relevant experience or expertise. Few offered reasoned discussion beyond saying "non-notable" and/or pointing to Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

The article underwent several revisions in an attempt to address perceived problems. Requests for the accusers to assist in improving the article went unheeded.

I must disclose that I am the founder of the company. However I also wish to make it clear that I did not write the original article, and only the only reason I contributed to the article was to attempt to improve it after it was proposed for deletion.

The original article and an attempted improvement are both posted at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE. Dgray xplane 15:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is legitimate to give less weight to the opinions of those editors with few or no contributions outside of the debate at hand, because it is likely (due to their evident inexperience) that they will have a thorough working knowledge of policy and practice. You state that it is your company. May I interest you in our conflict of interest guideline? Guy (Help!) 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• I read the conflict of interest guideline. The article was written and up for two years before I contributed. The field (information design) is narrow and unlikely to be known to most Wikipedia editors. An appeal to industry experts on my blog was frowned upon. Given the five-day period for discussion I felt that my action was justified, primarily since it was an attempt to improve the article based on issues I saw as legitimate. Remember it is also Thanksgiving week in the US and many relevant opinions may have been unavailable. I have fully disclosed the conflict and have made every attempt to be neutral in my edits. My understanding of a Wikipedia guideline includes "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Again, this appears to be another example of an ad hominem argument which questions the person making the assertion rather than the assertion or argument itself.Dgray xplane 15:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two things going on here, and you falsely characterise both as ad-hominem arguments (which is incivil but I will let that pass as this is a subject on which you have a deep personal involvement). First, the issue of what are often termed single purpose accounts in the deletion debate. We cannot tell the difference between people who have beeen reading and possibly editing anonymously for ever, but register to participate in a debate; people who are asked outside of Wikipedia to contribute to the debate; and accounts created by a single person to boost a subject. Routinely, we ignore arguments from such individuals, not least because they very often constitute variations on WP:ILIKEIT, which is not policy, and do not address issues of WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are. Second, the issue of your own involvement. Experience indicates that the more impassioned the defence of an article by its subject (which in this case you pretty much are), the more apt we, the hardened, cynical and suspicious bastards who haunt these community pages, are to consider it vanispamcruftisement. Things which work include a measured statement of information not considered at deletion, evidence of being the primary subject of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, attempts to engage in dialogue and establish what the problems are with the article. Things which do not work include talk page spamming, arm-waving and threatening to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. There is no deadline to meet here, and the existence or non-existence of a Wikipedia article should make no difference at all to you as a company. Having an article does not imply that you are better than anyone else, it is not a platform for advertising. All it does is hold your own website off top spot in the Google results. External canvassing is pretty much guaranteed to be counter-productive. Esp[ecially when it's trivially easy to trace a connection between the new users and the subject. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I apologize for any incivility (absolutely unintended). Any misunderstanding of ad hominem on my part is not intentionally false. I am of course an interested party. However I hope you will consider the article on its merits alone. I believe a look at the original and the proposed improved articles at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE will demonstrate both new information (not available at the time of deletion) and evidence that the Wikipedia review process did result in significant improvement to the article. In other words I think the process is working. Dgray xplane 17:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, closing admin was entirely correct to discount single-purpose votes, especially given that "meatpuppet canvassing" had been shown during the AfD. Seraphimblade 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and resubmit to AfD The arguments given by the editors with little to no contrib history to Wiki should at least be read and evaluated for what they say and not just wholly ignored. I think that it may have been more appropriate to have relisted the AfD in order to allow for more discussion among members of the Wiki community. --Strothra 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and resubmit to AfD I think that the closing admin was correct in giving less weight to new users who were sent to the debate by the company's blog. There are very legitimate concerns over the amount of non-trivial third-party coverage that this company has received and I'd like to explain again that an article that contains the phrase "such as the company XPLANE" does not constitute what we call non-trivial coverage. In this particular instance however, I think it's also true that the delete opinions were all rather weak and "no consensus" would probably be a better assessment of the debate. At least one of the new users claimed that he wrote a book chapter on the company's work. Of course it's fair game to question whether the book truly exists (it does) and whether the author is independent enough of XPLANE (that one I don't know) but surely it makes no sense to completely discount that as meatpuppetry. The AfD should be restarted and solid references added to the article so that a more illuminating debate can take place. Pascal.Tesson 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Send rewritten article back to AfD. The original deletion was correct: 1) of all the arguments provided in the discussion, the only ones which referenced policy recommended deletion; 2) if single-purpose accounts are discounted, then only one editor recommended the article should be kept. Deleting the article as it stood was the correct action. On the other hand, while the article developing in userspace appears to be a significantly better article, I'm still not convinced of the existence of multiple non-trivial references to the company in published media, so let's trash it out again at AfD. Cheers --Pak21 17:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• One of the things that I try to encourage novices to do in AFD discussions is to cite sources to demonstrate that the notability criteria relevant to the article's subject (WP:CORP in this case) are satisfied. (I've just asked five times in Qpawn (AfD discussion) for sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied.) Dgray xplane states that the opinions in the AFD disscussion "came from respected authorities in the field". We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. Wikipedia has no mechanism for verifying the credentials of its editors. To everyone, Judyofthewoods (talk • contribs), for example, is just a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor.

  The argument that works is citing sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Not a single one of the low-contribution new accounts that contributed to the AFD discussion did this. Instead they presented unsupported bare assertions such as that the company "is an inspiration to anyone and everyone", that the company is "widely regarded as not just a leader but a unique entity that has essentially defined the space", and is "rare and exceptional", expecting other editors to simply take the words of someone editing Wikipedia under a pseudonym for these. We don't work that way here, and such arguments regularly fail. It was quite right to discount those arguments. (I'm sure that Proto did not ignore them, as implied above. They were almost certainly given low weight because they were invalid arguments that are not based upon our policies and guidelines.) Indeed, we have no way of distinguishing such arguments made by "respected authorities in the field" writing under pseudonyms from the very same arguments made by (for example) people wanting articles on their pet discussion fora kept, also writing under pseudonyms. In both situations, a whole load of new accounts appear that make all sorts of bare hyperbolic assertions about the importance of the subject, without anything backing those assertions up with anything other than "Take my word for it.".

  What distinguishes such discussions from discussions of notable subjects is that for notable subjects it is easy to rise to the challenge of citing sources to demonstrate that the criteria are satisfied. It was only at the very end of the discussion that anyone arguing that the article be kept actually attempted to do this.

  It is true that "Few offered reasoned discussion beyond saying "non-notable" and/or pointing to Wikipedia policies or guidelines.". The nomination was, indeed, a poor one, that didn't follow the advice at User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD. However, simply pointing to the guidelines, which was done after four days, was not wrong, contrary to Dgray xplane's implication above. Indeed it was right. It actually spurred action. Moreover, if the nominator had pointed to WP:CORP right from the start, the discussion would have come to the point of citing sources far sooner.

  After WP:CORP was mentioned, Dgray xplane finally started citing some sources and addressing the PNC. Veinor challenged several of them for being trivial, i.e. only mentioning the article's subject in passing. Right at the very end there were several more things cited that went unanswered. Reviewing them, it is possible that they might have changed editors' minds. Pak21, Capitalistroadster, and Movementarian all based their rationales upon WP:CORP, and certainly would have discussed things like this and this had they been cited. It is because the discussion finally came around to people citing published works right at the very end of the 5-day period, and because there was inadequate discussion of those published works and whether the WP:CORP criteria were thus satisfied; and not for entirely wrongheaded and bogus reasons about "authorities in the field", the purported "relevant credentials" that new Wikipedia editors claimed to have and expected everyone else to trust, and the "reasoned arguments" that were not in any way based upon our policies and guidelines; that this article should be relisted at AFD. Relist. Uncle G 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A masterful summary, vastly better than Dgray xplane's talk page spamming campaign deserved. I have recommended that he have a chat with my favourite reformed spammer, User:Stephen B Streater. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and resubmit to AfD: The article needed fleshing out, but there was no reason to delete it - as I said before. A few notes: (1) I am an editor of the Wikipedia and I did vote to keep the article. However, deletionist policies are about to change MY policy on this; overexuberance is quite notable. (2) The article itself could be improved, as could many others. No attempts were made to flesh this out by deleting admin, indicating a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. These deletionist arguments typically center around 'guilty until proven innocent'. With lack of demonstrable knowledge in an area where a deletion is flagged, admin is suspect. It's time admin started taking some accountability instead of running to the vague (and they ARE vague) policies and guidelines involved. There is much room for speculation, thus there is *discussion*. Discounting discussion because people are 'new' indicates that there is a quarantine time for people to not be called meatpuppets. What is the guideline on that? (3) The 'meatpuppet' discussion is becoming less and less of an argument as more and more people use the Wikipedia. Are we discounting users as far as what they wish to see in the Wikipedia on the basis that they haven't written an article? This policy needs help. (4) Every time people (human beings) are discounted from discussion regarding Wikipedia in *any* regard, it is a debasement of the community and creates the perception that people have no say in the Wikipedia. I find that revolting. Stop it, those of you doing it. Everyone on the planet has a right to have a say in these issues, and if that is not the case - let it be said now. --TaranRampersad 18:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Are we discounting users as far as what they wish to see in the Wikipedia on the basis that they haven't written an article?" — No. We are discounting arguments that are invalid, because they are not based upon our policies and guidelines. Ironically, your argument here is invalid. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets. Your argument at the AFD discussion was invalid, too. Your sole argument for keeping comprised exactly 5 words: "It is a notable first company.". You cited no sources at all in support of that, and expected everyone to just take your word for it. We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. Uncle G 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and turn redirect into a dab page See my later comments below. Wow, it took a while to sort through the whole history here. From what I can see:

1. The original AfD was conducted properly. The closing admin correctly discounted keep votes from numerous sock/meatpuppets. No procedural worries here.
2. The RfD was also conducted properly. No procedural worries here either.
3. The original XPLANE article does indeed fail notability and wp:not (advertising, self-promotion, vanity, etc).
4. The current redirect and cross-pointers in X-plane and X-Plane is very confusing. I suggest turning xplane into a dab page pointing to X-plane (aircraft series) and X-Plane (flight simulator), move the current X-Plane and X-plane to those two titles respectively, and make all unadorned variations of hyphenation and capitalization of XPLANE, x-plane, etc, redirects pointing to the dab page.
5. And, I'd delete User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE too. wp:not advertising applies to user pages too. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Review proposed by someone involved heavily in the subject at hand. My personal scoring method gives 4 points to deletion, and -1 point to keep. Chris cheese whine 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  PS, also delete the recreation and rewrite too. The rules about reposts and advertising apply equally to userspace. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion, and/or put up the new article
  I think the history of this event is important. The article sat there for two years and no one complained. Then Dave added a link to the company. Now that there was a fresh edit, it popped up on someone's radar, and he decided it was some sort of self-serving advert (apparently) based on the fact that Dave did the edit. An AfD fires, and in order to get the article "keep" (and lets face it, everyone on the planet would do the same) he starts asking around about how all of this works. Oh, a voting process? Ok, so he gets some friends to vote keep. And even though the AfD clearly votes to keep, it was deleted it anyway by discounting all the votes to keep while counting the ones to delete. I find this absolutely astonishing.
  And now we see a series of equally astonishing arguments continuing above. Let's see, we have Guy complaining about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, apparently once again failing to note that Dave didn't write the article. Then he supports the claim that it's ok to ignore votes because Dave asked people he knew to vote. Well who else is he going to call on Guy, he's a newbie, he doesn't know anyone here yet. Should he ask people he doesn't know? That seems to be the logical conclusion I guess. Oh, but no, because when he does goes looking for some support that's held against him too! So he can't ask people he knows, and he can't ask people he doesn't know, so... ummmm... whatever. Bad enough as that is, we then move on to Uncle G's ironic argument that because we can't verify the people involved that their votes can be automatically discounted... hmmm, "Uncle G", I assume that's your real name? And then of course there's Chris's note, where he scores AfD's based on quoting policy. Dave's a newbie right? So how exactly is he supposed to cast a "good" vote? Here, let me quote some policy at you, Don't bite the newbies. Considering your AfD eval automatically scores against them, you might want to consider updating the criterion. And as is that weren't bad enough, when admins, including myself, get the page restored to his user space, that is turned turn that into a claimed example of linkspam. Wow. I'm thinking of another policy... let me think... oh yeah, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I see very little of that going on here. Every attempt by Dave to simply return things to the way they are is being interpreted as a craven attempt to linkspam the wiki. Nice!
  There are thousands of much less notable company pages here on the wiki, hundreds of them are outright linkspam, and yet the only reason this one ended up on AfD was because someone tried to improve it. Every argument for keeping it was and is being twisted into a argument to delete, and Dave's pleas are simply shouted down by the admins. This is an example of everything that can go wrong with the wiki.
  I think we should either put up the original page or the modified one, which seems even better. Put a section at the top pointing to x-planes (the series) and x-plane (the game).
  Maury 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Where to begin?
    1. "Oh, a voting process?" - No, not a voting process, but a discussion process, as is made clear in various places on WP:AFD amongst others. If someone adds simply "keep" or "delete" to an AfD, we ignore it, as we've no idea why they want us to keep it.
    2. "Dave didn't write the article" - Indeed he didn't. However, he did initiate this review. Typically, if something is genuinely worth keeping, then someone unconnected with the subject of the article will find themselves motivated to act.
    3. "Then [ JzG ] supports the claim that it's ok to ignore votes because Dave asked people he knew to vote" - This is called "stuffing the ballot-box", and we've already established that AfD is not a vote. We eschew the mere number of recommendations in either direction in favour of the reasons behind them.
    4. "Well who else is he going to call on" - If an article or its subject have merit, then he doesn't need to call upon anyone.
    5. "where [I score] AfD's based on quoting policy." - No. Not based on quoting policy, but on being relevant to policy. If a newbie comes along and says "Don't delete this, important in the field, several books published about it (links to references)", that's a good argument, and grounded in policy, though they may not know it. I find your petty comments an example of being dense.
    6. "Every attempt by Dave to simply return things to the way they are is being interpreted as a craven attempt to linkspam the wiki." - I assume you mean the way they were. I would expect every single candidate for adminship, successful or otherwise, to know that past performance is no indication of future returns. That an article survives for so long is not to say that it gets to stay here.
    7. "There are thousands of much less notable company pages here on the wiki" - This is where another oft-used bit of policy comes in - WP:INN. This follows logically from the previous point.
  • No offence intended, but I am frankly shocked that someone successfully achieved adminship while apparently knowing almost nothing about Wikipedia's policies and processes. Chris cheese whine 23:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ho! You're going to impugn my credentials now? Chris, your scoring system is obviously stacked against newbies, and using that scoring in defense of this thread simply illustrates how unfair it is. Anyone, anyone, following their natural tendencies in order to "save" an article would act in precisely the fashion Dave did, yet all of these behaviors are scored against them. So if you do nothing the article disappears, and if you do something the article disappears. That pretty much defines unfair in my books. But anyway I've said my bit, and I see it has received more than enough support below, I'll bow out for the moment. Maury 15:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The scoring system is not stacked against newbies (as you'd know if you had read my comments above). It is stacked against behaviour that has for a very long time been considered unacceptable. We do not keep articles because someone ran off and got all their friends to come and vote "keep". We keep articles because people fail to make reasoned arguments for their deletion, or because people make arguments for keeping them which are compatible with our policy. If it appears to be stacked against newbies, it will be because of the tendency for newbies to make hasty comparisons, or appeals that they/their best friend/their band/their hobby is clearly worthy of inclusion. Whether an argument comes from someone with no idea of the subject matter, or someone with 20-30 years of experience in the field, is irrelevant. I also doubt that absolutely anyone would act in the same way, since (I will repeat, since you didn't see it last time) if an article has merits, then the author need not call on anyone for support. At AfD, we deal in reason and argument, not popularity and head-count. At DRv, when an article has been to AfD we concern ourselves only with the propriety of the decision that is reached. There is nothing to suggest any impropriety here. Chris cheese whine 20:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • "Uncle G's ironic argument that because we can't verify the people involved that their votes can be automatically discounted" was not what I wrote at all. I suggest that you first read our policies and guidelines and familiarize yourself with them, and then you read what I wrote again, properly this time, in particular where I explained, with emphasis, the reason that the opinions were discounted. Uncle G 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and resumbit to AfD, and/or put up the new article. Pascal.Tesson and Maury have said almost everything I would have said on the topic at hand. To Chris quasi-attacking Maury, I have to say that seems uncalled for and off-base in several places. Maury certainly knows that AfD is not a vote, but newbie Wikipedians generally do not, which was his point (he wasn't espousing a view, he was describing what he believed to be explanatory of the criticized user behavior). Asking a small number people who are likely to care about an article to weigh in on an AfD is not canvassing nor meatpuppetting, it's perfectly normal; the only objection here really is that they were newbies who had not been involved in editing, which is irrelevant since there is NO evidence of a history of sock/meatpuppeting or canvassing on anyone's part here. Cf. Don't bite the newbies. I agree with some of your other points (INN, and relevance to rather than quoting of policy). Lastly the objection that the review requester is connected to the article is pretty moot; I'm declaring right now that if I'd seen this happen live I would have made the request myself, and I have no connection to the subject of the article. I believe the process to have been abused as a consequence of overzealous enforcement of WP:SPAM and its ilk. If this article really is about something genuinely non-notable then it will legitimately fail AfD on WP:V, WP:NPOV and other non-Notability grounds. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I believe the deletion was proper, but that the article has been sufficiently expanded since then that it should address most or all concerns expressed in the deletion. Incidentally this shows that adding to an article is generally more productive in "saving" it than arguing on AFD. Thus the article should be moved back into mainspace. I see no need for a new AFD but if people want to renominate the new article, let them do so. (Radiant) 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• I thank Maury for reminding us all not to bite the newbies. I also agree with Radiant that another AfD would do no harm, but would strongly urge User:Dgray xplane to do some reading about wikipedia policy to gain a better understanding how how things are supposed to work, and why his own actions (intentional or not) were largely the reason so many folks have reacted in the way they have. For example, he should realize that "getting out the vote" in the form of meatpuppets will generally incline people against his cause, rather than for it. He should also understand that arguing strongly for an article about your own company will similarly tend to stir up negative emotions. If he could bring himself to stand by the sidelines and let a new AfD run its course without interference, the article might survive on its own merits; if that were to happen, that would resolve the issue once and for all. But, but the same token, were the article to go down in an open AfD, he's got to live by that decision. If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, its yours forever. If it doesn’t, then it was never meant to be. In any case, I still think (see my comments above) that whatever happens, xplane should be a dab page, with pointers to X-Plane (flight simulator), X-plane (aircraft series), and XPLAIN (consulting company). Differentiating article titles just by capitalization and/or punctuation is too confusing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, but allow recreation if sources are provided The AfD was handled appropriately, and the article as it appeared in the original form was inherantly deletable; and as already copiously noted, if one discounts comments that did not refer to wikipedia policy (regardless of where they came from) the consensus was clearly delete. HOWEVER, if the article can be recreated in NPOV with appropriate third-party references from reliable sources, I see no problem with recreation. The disambig problem will also have to be addressed, but that is a technical issue that should not interfere with the existance or non-existance of an article on this subject. --Jayron32 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD I hate talk page spamming, but in this case the decision should be rethought, and the article as proposed is well worth another discussion as IMO it fits all of the official policies (even fitting the notability 'guidelines' if users wish to reference them objectively). It may help this time to not be hasty about the rejection of opinions just because they are not "part of the community". The behaviour which treats some users as more equal than others is possibly what annoys me most about wikipedia, however, it won't defeat me. Ansell 08:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's arguments that are rejected, not people. It just so happens that it is common for novices to make invalid arguments that are not in accordance with our policies and guidelines, as every single new user did in this AFD discussion. But it has always been the case that valid arguments, based firmly upon our policies and guidelines, are welcome, whoever the user. The Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly says this, in two separate places no less. Indeed, the basis of the argument for relisting this article at AFD is that one of the novices, Dgray xplane (talk • contribs), finally made a valid argument, but it wasn't discussed because it was made right at the end of the 5-day period. (And as I pointed out, the poor nomination is in large proportion to blame for that.) Uncle G 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why is it that bad nominations (not bad-faith, just bad), such as "non notable company" are not chucked out on the spot? If a nomination does not fit inside the deletion policy, then there is no basis for continuing a discussion. On the valid arguments. I do not see how the discussion can continue to the outcome it did. Perhaps this is not the place, but I do disagree with the refusal of "expert opinions." Ansell 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Then I suggest that you think long and hard about how exactly you are determining that these people are in fact experts in the first place and read User:Uncle G/On sources and content. As for the nominations, I and a few other editors regularly try to encourage people to turn bad nominations into good ones. (I point to User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD.) More editors doing this will help. Feel free to encourage any editors that you see making bad nominations to turn those nominations into good ones. (Of course, also set an example in the rationales that you give yourself.) Uncle G 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Will do that thinking about how to deal with experts. One comment that I definitely don't agree with in relation to the matter is "The problem is that the 'peer review' that you're likely to get is going to have a disproportionately large amount of people in favor of keeping the article." That just destroys the notion that the thing is not a vote. Proportions in discussions being bad because experts are involved, that certainly makes Wikipedia the most unique encyclopedia ever. :-( (not in a good way) Ansell 05:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and relist or just restore or just recreate. It seems likely that an article can be written from appropriate sources, now that we've clarified what that means, so let's see it. I don't find it important whether it's an edit of a restored article, or a fresh start, unless someone wishes to use content from the moved article. If any of that is usable, then restoring would be best, to preserve its GFDL history. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it's precisely because of episodes like this that we've been working on making the notability guidelines more objectively well-defined. I would invite other Wikipedians to consider a reading of the guideline wherein "notability" means nothing more than "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent published sources." Feel free to drop in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I can't understand all the handwringing above. 1) the AfD was not out of process; (2) the subject fails WP:CORP and even in the rewrite it looks to me like self-promoting guff. Everything else is a canard. The extensive publications record is a no-go since that is the company's field of business. Comments from the initial AfD such as The fact that such a tiny company commands 30 of the Fortune 500 as clients within such a short period speaks for itself has Delete written all over it. Come back when this passes WP:CORP Eusebeus 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist rewritten article per Uncle G. Lean heavily on the St. Louis Business article, that is a genuine article about the business itself. Don't sweat the passing mentions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist rewritten article per Uncle G, and pay particular attention to Guy. For well debated reasons, Wikipedia has become hostile to taking authors on trust and conflicts of interest. Rewritten article should stick to verifiable facts quoted from reliable (independent) sources, and steer clear of opinions of the contributors. A period for learning the system prior to relisting would probably result in an article more appropriate to WP. Also, contributions from multiple authors, not including the owner, always makes for a better article, even if it is not strictly on message. Stephen B Streater 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD, closing arguments was that it failed WP:CORP. If the rewrite passes WP:CORP, then no argument for deletion has been presented. Relisting will allow for a new deletion argument to be formulated or for the article to be kept.--Rayc 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - It looks like the article has appropriate sourcing, and the AfD looks like deletion was of dubious consensus. While new users were ignored (whether or not they had good arguments), old/non-new users who were not ignored didn't have very good arguments either. I don't consider "NN" or "Delete non-notable" to be any sort of argument - it doesn't really say anything.. Pak21, Movementarian, and Strothra were they only ones that cited reasons it broke NN, which was WP:CORP - and now the article has sourcing - which meets CORP criteria. Fresheneesz 08:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment as closer. No issues with the (vastly improved) article being relisted at AFD, as it is substantially different from the article was deleted. Still suffering from a conflict of interest. Proto::type 10:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: quite a few people chipping in now, so this will help NPOV. Stephen B Streater 09:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - per GTBacchus, Radiant, RoySmith, and Fresheneesz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ATren (talk • contribs) 19:04, November 27, 2006 (UTC).
• Overturn and relist on AFD given that the article was substantially rewritten. Silensor 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[[Cy Fox]] ([{{fullurl:Cy Fox|action=edit}} edit]|[[Talk:Cy Fox|talk]]|[{{fullurl:Cy Fox|action=history}} history]|[{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/Cy Fox|limit=999}} links]|[{{fullurl:Cy Fox|action=watch}} watch]|logs)

This was a properly made article quoting sources and websites that was created in the correct section. Deleted by Teke for "CSD A7". ImperialTIEPilot 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)ImperialTIEPilot

• Keep deleted. Sources are supposed to be by uninvolved 3rd parties. Citing people from the project itself makes the article pretty much an advertisement. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, generic fanfiction. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion fanfiction is never kept, especially fanfiction published only on the web and hosted on a free message board with 11 registered users. No way, not gonna happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid speedy and the subject would fail WP:FICT anyway. Seriously, between this and the Naruto fan character articles I've stumbled upon in the past few months, I believe there really should be a separate wiki where fans of all fandoms can post their fanfiction characters and ideas instead of cluttering up Wiki with their wishful cruft. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, most wikis will not accept fanfiction material for both practical and legal reasons. I can't speak for every wiki in the whole universe, but the big guys like Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia don't allow fanfic. If someone were to create a fanfic-only wiki, they'd be treading in some murky legal waters: in the US and most other countries (Japan excepted) it's illegal to make a profit from fan-derived works, so such a wiki likely couldn't sell ads or otherwise make money. There are other prickly issues to consider too, and it's too big a topic to fully cover here, but believe me that there's lots of good reasons wikis steer clear of fanfic besides their being "cruft"! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Inhuman (webcomic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (AfD)

Deletion with unsubstantiated reason Icarus morning 4:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC) A standard webcomic style article, there was no clear reason why the Inhuman article was deleted while other similar webcomic articles were left untouched. Opabina regalis gives only the reason "lots of text but no assertion of notability." There is no difference between this and any other webcomic article. Unless vast quantities of webcomic articles are meant to be cleared in the near future, the Inhuman one ought to be reinstated. The website fails to obtain an Alexa rank due to the robots.txt file banning Alexa and the Internet Archive wayback machine engines from large portions of it.

• Endorse deletion indeed no assertion of notability is a speedy deletion criteria. Argument that other articles may also meet the criteria don't tend to cut much sympathy, we are not in a position to magically remove all such information in one go, nor to stop people creating more. It gets dealt with as and when. --pgk 11:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Being a webcomic is not an assertion of notability. Don't try to use comparisons (Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability), rather use WP:WEB and WP:V. You still haven't given any sources. ColourBurst 01:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• So how are we supposed to know how much of an audience it has? That's the most important thing for a webcomic. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse - failure to assert notability in the article is a deletable offence. Chris cheese whine 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Reasoning given is downright silly. Tons of webcomic articles are deleted all the time, it's certainly not just this one. As for the robots.txt thing, it's not our fault if the website is broken, and besides Alexa gets its rankings info from a browser plugin, not a webcrawler, so that shouldn't be affected by robots.txt anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pick-Up Mastery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Deletion without Reason DanTolumbro 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Overly rapid deletion without thorough review. Lucky 6.9's unprofessional reason given for deleting was literally "Oh please..." Nothing else. This is an informative article on an social skills company which is all over the internet. There are other dating companies who have articles up such as Real Social Dynamics, Mystery Method, David DeAngelo and Lance Mason. If there is something that needs to be edited, I should be told that, but quick deletion is unreasonable.

• Comment The merits of the (ostensibly speedy) deletion notwithstanding, oh please... is not only less-than-civil but not particularly constructive; I imagine that Lucky 6.9 meant to suggest that the article failed G11 or A7, but I hope he'll clarify his intention straightaway. Joe 07:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the subsequent recreations and deletions seem to describe the situation from the deleting admins point of view. "Reposted Spam", fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP reads as advertising copy. --pgk 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh and statements like " He has admitted taking heavy influence from Tyler Durden on these matters." - guess would create an "oh please.." reaction in me also. --pgk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably fair to say, although content can be entirely silly and wholly worthless and nevertheless not speediable as patent nonsense, such that one might properly react with an oh please even where speedy is not appropriate. That aside, though, oh please must be one of the most benign edit summaries ever offered by a spent new page patrolling-admin, and so I surely don't mean to suggest that there was any breach of civility here—my less-than-civil was probably unnecessarily harsh.  :) Joe 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I apologize for my less-than-professional summary (it's been a busy night on NPP), but this was plain old link spam as it stood. I'm not opposed de facto to a version without the "adspeak" and with verifiable sources reinforcing notability. - Lucky 6.9 07:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, self-promotional spam.-gadfium 07:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Pgk is quite right; I rather overlooked those subsequent "reposted spam" deletion reasons, which seem readily and properly to explain the speedying. In any event, Lucky's surely correct; the nature of the article as G11able adspam notwithstanding, there appears to have been no assertion of notability (a quick search leads me, FWIW, to belief that nothing reliable toward notability per WP:CORP can be adduced), such that A7 properly entails. Joe 07:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, blatant spam. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as extremely blatant spam (founded by Dan Tolumbro and posted by a user named DanTolumbro). If the poster cannot bother with even the slightest attempt to obscure the fact that this was clear and shameless self-promotion, I don't see why we should bother wasting extra time on it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Brent House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Wrongful deletion of informative article Tomthebombsears 04:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC) The article created about Brent House is an extension to an Article about Trinity College School, and it further explains the concept and life of a private school boarding student. This article which was deleted was incomplete at the time, and with more information, would be a very valuable resource for Wikipedia to host. This article about Brent House also hosts history of the residence, explaining its founding and the man who it was appropriately named after. Brent House need not be world famous to exist on Wikipedia, however it has, in its time, had many worldly people come through it. There was no basis for a speedy deletion of this article as, at the time it was proposed for speedy deletion, was just started. --User:Tomthebombsears

• Redirect to Trinity College School and add the information there. (Radiant) 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Individual houses are not independently notable, and the author has a clear conflict of interest (see the vanity namecheck in the article). The chances of anyone looking for this rather than the school are remote. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per JzG. Naconkantari 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Feel free to write an article if you can indicate how this place is notable, but remember that the bar is pretty high for houses. Start it in your userspace and don't post it in the article space until it's ready to avoid a half-finished entry being deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion. Articles on individual houses do not really belong. A subsection on the parent article about the college is OK, but there is no evidence of this house having notability outside of the context of its university. --Jayron32 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

P-P-P-Powerbook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook - 20 May 2004 (Delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook - 31 Oct 2005 (NC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination) - 1 May 2006 (Keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (third nomination) - 22 Aug 2006 (Keep)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (3rd nomination) - closed as redundant per 4th
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook (4th nomination) - close no consensus by Parseltongue, one of his numerous contentious closures; deleted as unsourced by Brenneman, taken to DRV
• DRV, Oct 4: [24] - deletion endorsed due to lack of independent sources. Specifically, fails WP:V form WP:RS and also the primary notability criterion, being the subject of multiple non-trivial treatment in reliable sources independent of the subject.

Inappropriate re-closure of debate. Article has been nominated for deletion four total times. It reached no consensus on 23 October 2005, and keep on both 25 April 2006 and 14 August 2006. Was nominated a fourth time (just over a month after previous nomination) on 25 September 2006 (which could probably be seen as bad faith in itself). The result of the debate was originally no consensus. A day later, another editor came along and singlehandedly overturned the result of the discussion, which was inappropriate and out of process. --Czj 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• This deletion has already been reviewed and endorsed here [25]. WarpstarRider 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• This description seems to be missing some important details: the original n-c closure was by a non-admin, was out of process and was clearly against deletion policy (as the subsequent closure and its review demonstrated). Ziggurat 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per arguments at previous DRV. The closure by Parseltongue is irrelevant here; the article has, despite several debates, remained entirely free of any evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. As I said before, this is one of my favourite bits of crap off teh Internets, far better than the average YouTube vanity junk, but without non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources I'm afraid it's no deal. I'd be delighted to userfy for transfer to Wikinfo or somewhere. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy. I'm trying to work out the basis of this nomination when we've already endorsed the reviewing of Parseltongue's close, and no new evidence has been presented. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse deletion per previous DRV, new listing adds nothing additional to consider -pgk 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Aaron's complaints about sourcing is based on the heavily contested WP:RS. All of the proposed remedies to that pages numerous flaws would leave us in a position to keep this article, and there is a clear lack of consensus behind the current sense of what a reliable source is. Thus, despite Aaron's insistences, this article poses no meaningful problems with WP:V or WP:RS. The reason for its deletion is non-notability, but there is no white-line policy for that, and it is not something where one admin should defer to the 2/3 rule of thumb. Phil Sandifer 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yebbut, it's mostly contested by people who want to include more crap off teh Internets. I don't care what medium the coverage is, it can be on a respected technology correspondent's website just as well as treeware, but I do want to see enough non-trivial discussion in secondary sources of some demonstrable authority that I can verify both the content and its neutrality - and of course so that we can avoid original research. Phil, I love this story, but do you genuinely believe it is an encyclopaedia topic? Would it not be better suited to some other medium? Guy (Help!) 17:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm generally wary of deciding that something is better suited to "some other medium" when we don't have a place for it. Given that the issue appears at least somewhat well known and appears verifiable, unless we have somewhere else we can think to put it, I think we should err on the side of presenting the information. Phil Sandifer 19:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• And of course we are all right behind WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and so on, so what we need is to see this subject as the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatments by reputable authorities. These have not been provided. Sure we can prove it exists and we can précis the primary source, easy, but we are not supposed to do that, are we? Without authoritative critique we can't verify neutrality. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Guy and Pgk. You don't get to just put something up for debate over and over again until you finally get the result you want. Either find a new argument or move on. --Aaron 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This again? Issue discussed in detail in DRV and deletion endorsed. Don't see any new arguments emerging this time Bwithh 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Initial closure faulty, endorse d-d-d-deletion - contesting a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy (WP:RS is somewhat requisite for WP:V) is hardly grounds for including everything that comes through a series of tubes. Chris cheese whine 22:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning. Naconkantari 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion for the second time; I was the one who uncovered this horrific AfD close by Parsssseltongue, and the DRV came back that there was in fact concensus to delete it. See WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Also, the most cruical point, Parsssseltongue had !voted "Keep" in the fourth AfD'. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note" This, especially the last sentence, is very worrying.[26] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse last DRv, keep deleted The fourth AfD looks like a 'delete' to me when duplicate arguments are discarded and the remainders considered on their merits; there doesn't seem to have been much of an attempt to show the sources to be reliable. The fourth-AfD closure was out of process, the subsequent deletion/reclosure was also out of process, but DRv, within process, decided that the closure should be delete, and there's no reason as far as I can see to change this result. --ais523 10:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse last DRV, keep deleted The first three AfD's were based on notability, not verifiability, so are irrelevant. The fourth nomination (mine) was based solidly on verifiability policy: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Had process been followed from the beginning, all the "Keep, its notable" arguments should have been ignored, leaving almost no "keep" arguments, and most of those based on including a source that doesn't mention the incident. The DRV action was an in-process correction. The proper way to recreate the article is to find a reliable third-party, independent source that discusses it, and mention that source in the nomination for undeletion. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per previous AfDs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Survival of a previous AfD is not (IMO) a valid reason for overturning a more recent, equally valid, AfD. Chris cheese whine 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And in any event, consensus cannot override the requirement for Verifiability. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that this did. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And I'm very much against using AfD multiple times to get a desired result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So, the way to ensure that original research stays on Wikipedia, in your book, is to nominate it for some other, weaker reason, let it be kept, and that forever immunizes it from being reconsidered under the actual problems it has? Three determinations that a story is notable do not create reliable third-party sources out of thin air. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • T'm not interested in keeping OR around. I am, however, interested in following WP:V and, in what may be clearer as I've noticed in recent days, fixing the inconsistencies around them. This article specifically did not violate WP:V, and an argument can be said that it possibly didn't violate WP:RS. With it meeting the policy and with dispute on the guideline, we shouldn't be removing it when there's no question regarding it and WP:V. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, come on. May 04, Oct 05, May 06. That's hardly gaming the system. No article is immune from AfD. If it were felt that an article really were beyond deletion, the recent AfD would and should have been speedy closed. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to weighing up the arguments, previous AfDs or not, failure to address WP:V is a delete by default. So, in summary, we have an AfD with consensus to delete, already endorsed by a DRv. Chris cheese whine 21:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • We're very bad at closing AfDs as speedy keeps when they should be. Unlike the rush to speedy delete, that is. I don't expect any change here, regardless - we actively want to be wrong about this as a community, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I remember voting to keep this once, long long ago. But looking at the issue as a whole I don't think it quite measures up to our current verifiability standards, and it looks like the last AfD was properly closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse D-D-D-Deletion, this already failed DRV once. As funny as I find the story, there's still no non-trivial coverage of the incident in reliable sources. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BlackNet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

The deletion summary says "db-spam", but the last time I checked this article it was not spam. If it is resurrected, then the "Blacknet" redirect to "BlackNet" should also be summoned back from the dead as well. mdf 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse unless the nominator can come up with something better than "it was not spam" (the article was not spam, why?). Did it have sources? That's actually more important. ColourBurst 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked at it, the non-spamness was self-evident. Sources, if not present, are easily found for the subject (the message, the PGP crack, etc). However, now that the article has been deleted, I find myself in a bit of a bind proving or disproving these statements. mdf 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a compromise: Undelete and Userfy and let mdf work on the article, and send it to AfD (or not) when it's done. I'm not as familiar with the subject as I should be (I remember vaguely reading about it), or I'd actually help. Geogre, I can't look at the article, but was the copyvio usenet posting in from the first revision? ColourBurst 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this I can answer! Yes. I put it there from the start. mdf 23:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse: It cannot be referred to AfD, even though it is not spam (in the CSD definition), because it has a long copyright violation. Therefore, we can't have it and wait for a bit while AfD comes to the inescapable "delete" motion. Geogre 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The BlackNet message was published anonymously to a mailing list (and then to USENET); it's erstwhile author later came forward, after possible legal issues became moot, and simply claimed responsibility for it. Indeed, for all we know, Timothy C. May did not in fact write it. So the copyright issue is likely a non-starter. Is the "inescapable" conclusion derived from this copyright matter or some other issue? Was the article first tagged as a copyright violation prior to its deletion? (Again, I can't see any of this.) mdf 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: If it contains that possible/likely/certain copyvio, we can't just undelete the article. We could only refer it over to AfD for hanging out for deliberation for 5 days if that were gone. If we undelete, then we are consciously taking an action that might/likely/does violate copyright. That's the inescapable problem. The tagging was wrong. I would have preferred an AfD consideration, as I couldn't see how it was a CSD (I agree with you, in other words), but that paragraph puts everything off limits, IMO. Geogre 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Take out the copyvio usenet posting and you still got an article. Lack of sources: never was a speedy criterion. Advertising for a 1994 encryption in 2006: Yeah sure. Only thing I could see that it a pretty crappy article, but that isn't a speedy criterion either. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I know, don't argue with a supporter, but I'm beginning to wonder if anyone is actually reading the article in question. Or perhaps it has been changed beyond my memory of it? It's not "1994 encryption", but a simple (and very famous) experiment that Tim May conducted back then that led indirectly to an unambiguously significant cryptanalytic result, adding more to its fame. Nor can it be a copyright violation, as the "true" author is inherently unknown, by explicit design (just in case reading the text of the message isn't enough (cf. "[...] we have no way of identifying you, nor you us [...]" and even disclaiming intellectual property stuff as "relics of the pre-cyberspace era")). Nevertheless, if by whatever machinations it must be deemed a copyright problem regardless, who am I to dispute such wisdom? Just email me the last useful text of the deleted article, I'll re-create it and prompty submit to AFD to make sure it passes the muster. mdf 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "author unknown" or "author thinks copyright is a relic of the past" put this into the public doamin, but the point is that WP:CSD G12 requires that there is nothing else in the article than the copyvio stuff. This article had a noncopyvio intro and is therefore not subject to G12. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an overly literal interpretation of G12. Either way, if the copyvio is deeply entrenched in the article, then undeleting any revision of it would be entirely inappropriate. Suggest recreating from scratch, using only reliable sources which can be verified, and without using someone else's words. Chris talk back 19:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is. In any case, I've userfied the article at User:Mdf/BlackNet, with the offending bits removed. ~ trialsanderrors 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. The joke is on me, I guess. I edited the redacted article that trialsanderrors gave me in my user-space. I then attempt to submit it to AFD, as per my promise above. However, AFD is not for user-space articles: the error message told me to give it to MFD instead. And so I did. Today I read a nice message that MFD is not for this either, and that I must return it to DRV or CSD. Looking over the criteria at CSD, I can't figure out if this case applies either. Will I be told to go away there as well? I have no idea whatsoever.

So basically, I give up. Delete the article please, by whatever means you have at your disposal. Completely, on sight, in toto. Thanks for the help and sorry for all this trouble. mdf 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a subpage of your userpage, you can just tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-userreq}}. If you think the article is worth keeping now, though, and it doesn't violate any copyright, then you can move it back to the main namespace. I guess it's up to you if you put it in AfD or leave it for someone else to do so if they feel it needs it. --Tango 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As above, I don't believe there was ever a copyright problem. But some say there is, so that's that: since I created the problem, I don't think it's appropriate for me alone to decide if a solution actually exists. I'll add the tag you suggested and move on to other matters. Thank you. mdf 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jet Air Service, a freight forwarder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

copyright NOT violated Please restore this page. The page used content from www.jas.com/company but the author of the article and of the jas.com page article are the same. Content was NOT used without permission. Content on both pages was provided by JAS, for JAS.

• Endorse deletion per above, really. Single purpose account with no edits outside of this subject, garden variety spam. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/Recommend logical article: We do not have an article on JAS, which actually passes WP:CORP, but a copyvio isn't the way to go. Furthermore, the article would need to be at the most-used formulation, which is JAS, and it certainly wouldn't have "a freight forwarder" in it. Geogre 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. And it stays that way so long it is not originally written and sounds like advertising in any way. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It may not have been a copyright violation for the person who originally put it up, but then anybody else editing it would be guilty of violating the copyright. No copyrighted text, at ALL, should be on Wikipedia, because then only the copyright holders can ever edit it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  Whaaa?? - since when does copyrighted text not become subject to the GFDL once it is submitted by the original copyright holder?? -- nae'blis 21:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • • Copyrighted text is not subject to the GFDL, unless the copyright holder specifies that. The author being the same person who wrote the article does not release anything to the GFDL; they must specify such on the text they are copying from. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well the copyright holder is specifying that when they agree that their contributions fall under the GFDL as they do when they click the save button. The question surely is that should we expect further verification (either by an update on the original site, or a formal mail to permissions etc.) than the assertion made on this DRV. --pgk 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Sorry, thought I was making my opinion clearer than I apparently am. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetWiki

This is an unusual one. The debate was closed as Delete by Cyde (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), and the article almost immediately restored by Davidcannon (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), who had voted Keep in the AfD on the grounds that this "powers Wikinfo", but leaving the AfD header at Delete. I can't find any trace of David having notified Cyde or anyone else. Maybe he did and I just didn't see it. Cyde's close noted (correctly) that powering WikInfo does not, in and of itself, override the cited reasons for delete (lack of notability, lack of reliable secondary sources). I vote to endorse closure and delete - this software still only scores 140 unique Googles and none appear to be reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: recreated by Robert Buzink (talk • contribs) at 11:56, November 24, 2006 (UTC). --Calton | Talk 14:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, powering Wikinfo ≈ "mentioned in multiple reliable sources"? I suppose not. Kimchi.sg 13:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't an unusual one, this is no different from your standard out-of-process recreation which I have speedied per WP:CSD G4. Editors wishing to dispute closures take them to deletion review, admins wishing to dispute closures do exactly the same damn thing, thank you very much. Endorse closure, with no reference to third-party sources the case for keeping relies on Wikinfo, and there is no explanation of why Wikinfo confers notability on the subject that powers it. Notable businesses don't confer notability on their suppliers, notable actors don't confer notability on their make-up artists. For that matter, the case for Wikinfo's notability is exceedingly weak, but that's not what's under review here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - It's iffy on whether or not it's notable, but deciding that question isn't really the primary purpose of deletion review. Several things bother me - (1) the closing admin's comment was more like a vote than a judgment of where the consensus was. He said, "The result was Deleted, powering Wikinfo really doesn't establish sufficient notability." It is fully within the purview of the closing admin to ignore an apparant consensus in the face of sockpuppetry or an obvious policy violation, for example, however, disregarding the lack of consensus because you disagree with it is not a good thing. (2) The best argument for keeping it - from David Cannon - came late in the game. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who offered an opinion after David Cannon spoke supported keeping the article. That alone would suggest to me that a keep would seem to be in order. (3) That said, the decision of BOTH the restoring admin and the second deleting admin to potentially start a wheel war rather than bringing the dispute to the appropriate forum is troubling. BigDT 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. The arguments for keep were founded on the fact that one moderately notorious Wiki uses this software. That was what David said, and that is what "per David Cannon" means. The fact that one possibly-notable website is powered by this software does not, as Cyde rightly said, trump the lack of secondary sources. And undeletion without review by an admin who had already voted is highly irregular. As to the fact that all the votes after David were keep, I'm afraid that lights up my offsite solicitation radar. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Applying WP:CSD G4 is not wheel warring. It is done dozens of times a week (statistic brought to you by the Department of Making Plausible Stuff Up), just not so often with administrators who ought to know better. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• The thing that you need to understand is that other people feel just as strongly that their position is correct as you feel that yours is correct. David Cannon, presumably, felt that he was correcting (to him) a patently incorrect closure. The whole idea of not revert warring or not wheel warring is that YOU need to choose to be the one to not continue it. Both you and he, IMHO, were wrong to reverse an action without discussion. The appropriate action in either case would be to bring it here for discussion. BigDT 18:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is plainly not an obviously wrong deletion, so the reason behind recreation is irrelevant. Articles recreated despite legitimate deletions may be speedy re-deleted; whether an admin or a non-admin recreates it makes no difference. Administrators are not higher beings and are not exempt from policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about we simply redirect this to Wikinfo? (Radiant) 14:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh. Ok, endorse second deletion as an inappropriate recreation, because everyone has to use DRV, not just peons. Second, relist would have been a probable outcome of a well argued DRV case (which was not made). Third: Redirect to Wikinfo, per Radiant!, and let the single sentence necessary for describing the software go there. The closing was iffy enough for a relist, but no one gets to recreate out of process, and the supposed "wheel war" that BigDT fears would have been solely with the person recreating against procedure. Geogre 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Um ... second that Ugh. Is that a good !vote? :-) I'd like to agree with Geogre, because I think I agree with the reasoning completely, from the questionable AfD to the unjustified recreation, but I'm not quite clear what he settled on. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification: Endorse. Create a redirect de novo. The rest was my attempt at wagging my finger at people who recreate or undelete legitimately deleted articles because they disagree with the result. If an IP does that, we quickly suspect bad faith and put them on the hit list. If an admin does it, it's not substantially a better action, IMO. This page is for everyone. Granted, some folks don't know it's here, so they may be innocent in intent, but it's still the wrong way to go. Geogre 04:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per George. JoshuaZ 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist The recreation was completely out of process and shouldn't have happened, but he does have a point that there was not really a consensus to delete. --Tango 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikinfo sounds good; then and now, I still don't think this merits its own article. It's just not a very big subject. So what if there's a fork of MediaWiki used to power a site? There's lots of forks of all sorts of different free software. --Cyde Weys 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - 50-50 really isn't grounds for deletion, and its level of notability isn't out of step with a lot of the rest of our content, so I see no reason to delete despite a lack of consensus to delete. Guettarda 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - there was certainly no consensus to delete. 50 percent does not constitute any kind of consensus, and similar percentages have normally resulted in a "No consensus" verdict. I realize that I took the wrong turn when I undeleted the article - twice - and apologize for doing so, but I still believe that the article does not merit to deletion. As a compromise, I would be willing to accept merger with Wikinfo, provided that all pertinent information is copied. David Cannon 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, as most of the 'keep' votes were, frankly, ludicrous, the close was within admin's discression. Would settle for a relisting (someone please let me know if it's relisted at AFD). Proto::type 11:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• In summary:

  Deletes were variations on WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, and WP:RS.

  Keeps were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:POKEMON.

• I think that says it all. Original close not that much of a stretch with discreation. After all, 50/50 is meaningless, since AfD is not a vote, hence a strict supermajority is not required, especially when keep proposals don't demonstrate any sound reasoning for doing so. Endorse both closure and further deletions. DC's recreation is an abuse of positions - admins have to use DRv too, you know. Chris talk back 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion whilst some of the deletes were pretty terse, the keeps seemed to be variations of keep because we have other stuff which is worse, notability by association, or it's survived for this long so it must be ok. Not a vote and the keeps seem pretty weak, certainly within the bounds of reasonable discretion by the closing admin. --pgk 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per David Cannon. There was absolutely no consensus to delete, and notability criteria are guidelines, not hard-and-fast policy, and as well, subjective in their interpretation by individual editors and administrators. Consensus should be achieved whenever possible, and when there is no consensus, there should be no deletion. It's as simple as that. metaspheres 21:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability is a corollary to WP:V, which is hard-and-fast policy. In fact, it (along with WP:NPOV and WP:OR) are above policy, and are not negotiable. Notability is not subjective, because the world at large decides if something is notable. Chris cheese whine 22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Above policy? Oh, really? As in, above the law? What the hell kind of language is this? Has Wikipedia suddenly mutated into the Central Intelligence Agency or National Security Agency??? And last time I checked, everything is negotiable and subject to consensus, so please refrain from stating blatant untruths. See WP:IAR. metaspheres 00:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Evidently you didn't look hard enough. I draw your attention to the following, present on all three of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR (emphasis added): "The principles upon which [NPOV/V/OR] are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". There's guidelines, there's policy, and then there's the Big Three. Chris cheese whine 02:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And I draw your attention to WP:IAR as well as statements from Jimbo which contradict your false assertions. Policy only goes so far and you're literally taking it too far to the point of absurdity. In this case you can even ask Jimbo and I think he'd agree. And kindly refrain from labelling legitimate sentences as "personal attacks" for Christ sake. The whole tone of this proceeding is surreal and bizarre, and quite frankly would drive any sane person away from Wikipedia. I urge you to stop. metaspheres 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV is non-negotiable. Period. IAR absolutely does not bypass that fundamental rule, and WP:ILIKEIT comes nowhere close. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. IAR applies to everything, including itself. You should not that it says to ignore all rules, not to defy all rules. You are free to ignore WP:V when editing the 'Pedia, however someone will likely take the opposite position and ignore IAR. I would like to know what possible statements from Jimbo you could be referring to. Chris cheese whine 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia if this article was not deleted. There was a spirited debate in the AfD discussion, with a very narrow 60/40 split of opinion. Chicago god 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Closer comment - I stand by my decision. Many of the keep advocates were socks, and another didn't give a rationale. Some said "What's wrong?" and didn't reply to the concerns expressed by the "Delete" advocates. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Absolutely a valid AfD closure, considering how many of the keep !votes were from socks, and that the points brought up by those urging deletion went unanswered by those arguing for retention (though I definitely see strong claims of notability). -- Kicking222 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - There is one sock (who voted to keep twice using the same IP) and one completely unsigned keep. The rest of the keeps look legitimate to me. And as far as I can tell, every valid delete point was answered in the AfD or through article updates: notability added, sources added, and original research removed. Is the delete, at the very least, not questionable? Chicago god 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep comments include "Come on, keep it. I don't even see the reason for deleting it.", "Kiwi isn't just cute. It has a message.", "There should be a wiki page for it if people want to know more about it.", "What's not to like?" and "Don't let the lame nazi censors delete it.". So, I make it around 12 reasoned deletes grounded in policy, and keeps grounded purely in WP:ILIKEIT. Looks like a perfectly valid AfD to me. Endorse. Chris talk back 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 3 of the 5 lame 'keep comments' that you just mentioned were from sock and unsigned users, which I agree should be disqualified. The reasoned deletes boil down to three criteria: notability, sources, and original research -- which were all answered in the AfD or through article updates. Chicago god 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the debate. This article was original research and that was not remedied by the time of deletion. Wikipedia policy makes it difficult to document crap off teh Internet here; there are other places where there are no policy problems. Try one of those? Guy (Help!) 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD closed properly, sockpuppet votes are to be discounted. - Mailer Diablo 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Significant POV sneaky vandal's LTA page, deleted by user:Pathoschild under the impression he was "inactive". But this was very misinformed. The vandal concerned is a chronic sock user, and has a habit when socks are identified of merely switching to new socks with new names and IPs. This LTA page under his "best known name" (the name Arbcom and many users know him as) is used to allow documentation of this vandal and information for admins, and counters his chronic abandonment of old discovered accounts and switching to new ones. At this time he is far from inactive, is presently back to his old tricks, and apparently seems to have (under a new name) yet another bunch of people knocking on arbcom's door. Please restore urgently, together with any other accidental related deletions, such as his user page/s, catefgories for HeadleyDown socks, etc which might have been deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FT2 (talk • contribs) .

Can we move these pages to Meta or something? I agree with wanting to deny recognition, but it is undoubtedly helpful to have some kind of record of the MO of serial disrupters. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Firstly it's a good idea to ask the deleting admin first in this sort of case, I not you did that after raising this review, but I would suggest ask, wait, bring here if you don't get a response/think the response misses the mark. Secondly can you elaborate on how the page helped people recognise the actitivty (I'd guess the vast majority of people have never read it, yet still recognise the disruption caused without much effort), given the nature of the person where the socks don't have any obvious connection how is a list of previous sock names going to help anyone detect this vandal? I'm quite happy to believe some of the LTA pages had/have some value but vague assertions that it's "important", don't really cut it. Given that your account was only active for about a month prior to the deletion of the page, and the deletion was a couple of months back, I suggest picking up and becoming an expert on this vandal and maintaining that expertise isn't that difficult, so wads of documentation seem irrelvant. Also you claim that the vandal is still currently operating, please elaborate, again this is just a vague assertion, which users do you believe are this particular person and why? We've certainly had those who are the subject of LTA pages (either as the original or an imitator) come and request their recovery in the past (hence actually demonstrating some of the reasoning behind WP:DENY), so it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for something a bit more concrete before going along with recovery --pgk 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) After some thought and looking a bit closer, I've changed my mind. I'm not going the whole hog to suggest restoration but I do think there is probably a good case for this page, albeit my preferred choice would be to perhaps restore this to userspace, let it get cleaned up to remove the irrelevant stuff like pictures and so on, before making its way back into the main area. --pgk 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Preserve somehow. Maybe meta, maybe restore, maybe something else entirely, but this information is very useful, and deleting these pages with even the principles of WP:DENY (which is not and should never be guideline/policy) has shown to be a mistake, given the recent issues with Crawford socks and the decided lack of information available about the situations. When losing this information causes our best and brightest users and admins to make otherwise good-faith decisions mistakenly, it's evidence that getting rid of the information isn't working. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well there was never a LTA page on Crawford, nor I doubt would there have been. The Crawford sock got picked up and dealt with pretty quickly, I would say that is evidence that an LTA page was largely irrelevant. As I say above I agree some information can be useful, but shrine pages are not. Your blanket assertion that it has shwon to be a mistake is a bit premature, I can certainly cite examples of vandals adding lists of their own sockpuppets to LTA pages and in one instance a screen shot of their own vandalism, I can show examples of one user who engaged in large amounts of pagemove vandalism (via socks) trying to get the LTA page on Willy on Wheels pages retrieved (on several occassions). You are welcome to your opinion on WP:DENY but many differ, similarly "don't feed the trolls" (which in my estimation is an equivelant of WP:DENY) is not endorsed by everyone. We need to take a realistic view from case to case WP:DENY isn't a blanket call to delete all information, it is a call to make sure we don't needlessly "glorify" vandalism or become an Encylopedia of rouges. But merely asserting that the page was "useful" does not make it so --pgk 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No, there wasn't on Crawford, but the page for Crawford was deleted. We continue to delete these pages, and the information that we can use to make judgements like with the Crawford issue disappears. While I think WP:DENY is silly, I didn't have a firm opinion on the matter until this past week, so I think "usefulness," while not something that's a worthy argument for articles, is entirely necessary when judging issues like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that "usefulness" is a valid reason, but a vague assertion of usefulness is no better than a vague assertion of "notability", "non-notability" etc. etc. If something is useful it shouldn't be difficult to specify what about it is useful, if it's full of junk it should either be deleted outright or heavily trimmed to prevent such pages becoming shrines. Some of the LTA pages were clearly of the former (does anyone not know that moving a whole string of pages to "on wheels" is unhelpful? Does anyone see value in a list of 100 usernames where there is no visible connection in the name and so cannot be "useful" in detecting further names). Whilst other LTA pages still exist and indeed there is no reason why others shouldn't exist. As I say it's a case of applying common sense on a case to case basis, to me it's just as silly for someone to say WP:DENY delete, delete as someone saying WP:DENY is rubbish ignore, ignore --pgk 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we're essentially on the same page here. Sometimes it can be useful, sometimes not. But perhaps an MfD should be the arbiter of that rather than a unilateral action? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, as the person most aware of both HeadleyDown's actions, and also aware of the traffic related to people spotting him, and noting where he was active, this was a very useful resource that was in ongoing use. Its usefulness far outwieghed the issue of WP:DENY. HeadleyDown doesn't use Wikipedia to get a "fame page". he's normally used covert socks, new accounts, and gets off on pretending to be a genuine contributor. At present he's been censured on (I think) between 3 and 5 arbcom hearings, permabanned under multiple accounts, and his response to all this has been to continue the same under new IP, new socks, unconnected (on the surface) to his old ones. He's been doing this now at least 2, possibly 3 years, This page is an essential tool that several users refer to in educating people who want to know more in case he's active on their pages, and documenting where he's active. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to labour this, but you are just asserting a vague notion of usefulness without saying why it is useful, again you stated above he was active right now etc. Come on spill the beans which accounts do you believe are this user. Indeed it's been deleted for nearly 3 months without anyone "noticing". I also note you created the page on 7 July, your earliest remaining edits to any article are from 11 July. Doesn't sound that complex to me if a brand new user can sign up and right up an LTA page on them. Looking further at the page it contains such useful information as " Known IPs: Any (uses IPs around the world)"," Physical location: Believed Hong Kong or possibly UK". Can you tell me how that information is useful for others to know they are dealing with the same vandal? (OK, I picked the worst two points I could just glancing down, but there is other stuff although arguably not as vague, still no where near being useful in identifying this guy) --pgk 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Struck through the above, my mistake I misread the date from the earliest contribution it is July 11 but 2004. --pgk 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To address "and also aware of the traffic related to people spotting him, and noting where he was active" , to address this 4 other people than you edited the page. One changed some spaces to underscores, one replaced some ip with use of the {{ipvandal}} template, one added a picture (Irrelevant picture) and one tagged it for speedy deletion. --pgk 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(Above points discussed with Pgk by email FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

• (Comment as deleting administrator) I'm sorry if my presumption that the malicious user was inactive was incorrect. I judged this from the edit history, which was only edited meaningfully by FT2 between 07 July 2006 and 23 July 2006. There being no content edits in nearly a month, I assumed it was a temporary vandal spree. Had you asked me directly, I would have restored it immediately and sent it to Miscellany for deletion instead. As it is, I have no opinion on this page. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Understandable and reasonable. I figured once deleted it needed to be requested here rather than via direct approach to deleting editor. If that impression is incorrect then that's something learned today :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Restore. I recently went looking for the deleted article, and I didn't understand why I couldn't find it. It had valuable details for identifying the malicious user and understanding the scope and seriousness of their abuse. The difficulty in collecting those details allowed an especially long period of abuse. Given the record, I would not at all be surprised to see the malicious user return; in fact, I expect it -- especially now that the banning administrators have retired or otherwise withdrawn. Without the information on the deleted page, well-meaning editors and administrators will have to start all over again. The intention of WP:DENY is laudable, but at least in this case, incidental recognition would be the lesser of two evils. -- Shunpiker

PircBot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

Deleted for being 'none notable software', but it has 100k+ Google hits and it's a commonly deployed IRC bot framework Darksun 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that PircBot is heavily referenced in the book 'IRC Hacks' by Paul Mutton, published by O'Reilly [27]. --Darksun 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of stub which made no claim to notability. No prejudice against a proper article citing reliable secondary sources. I will userfy the stub is that will help. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, userfy and recreate if and when it's reliably sourced. ColourBurst 18:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WiktionaryZ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

The article deals with a preparatory project for the Ultimate Wiktionary as part of the Wikimedia Project. Andres 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion if the above is the argument for inclusion. See WP:WEB. --W.marsh 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the information is important for the Wikimedia contributors. The article should at least be placed in the Wikipedia namespace with a redirect from WiktionaryZ. There is an article on the site on several wikipedias, including de:Wikipedia:WiktionaryZ. This German article better explains the importance of the site and it is in the Wikipedia namespace. Andres 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See also the coverage on meta:Category:Ultimate Wiktionary.

Andres 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion. In the article namespace, this fails WP:WEB (no media mentions, etc). I would support a move to the project namespace if someone could show how this is relevant to Wikipedia, but it doesn't look directly relevant to us, only relevant to Wiktionary, IMO. Kimchi.sg 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, given this already exists where it should be, in meta. Maybe put something in Wikipedia: namespace if it's relevant to us. Chris talk back 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, yes, probably belongs in Meta. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, at present doesn't belong in main space. We'd probably as standard respond to a statement such as the above with WP:NOT a crystal ball, or that if it's simply publicity that WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising, I can't see we can hold a wikimedia sponsered project to a lesser standard. --pgk 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse per above. --mathewguiver 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, it's just not notable right now. Maybe if it ever is finished and does become a huge hit, then it can get its own article. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)