Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 10

Fixity of the species (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

The article was originally called linnaean lawn when it was proposed for deletion. After being moved to fixity of the species, a more commonly used name, and more was added to the article, it was not reconsidered as a legitimate article by the many who agreed to delete the article. The article now meets all the wikipedia criteria (although, much more can be added). Furthermore, some who agreed to delete the article appeared to be confused as to the difference between "merging" and "deleting". Pbarnes 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Valid close, and you admit that the delete !voters didn't consider it legitimate after the changes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I admit what??? I said they didn't reconsider there votes. They assumed it was the same article as before with the same title as before. How in the world did you conclude "you admit that the delete !voters didn't consider it legitimate after the changes." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
    • You may be right, but you may also be wrong. Maybe they did reconsider it. Either way, there was nothing wrong with the process. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse valid process, and with only 84 Googles I see no pressing reason to spend too much time agonising further over this. If someone wants to make it a redirect to creationism or something then that should be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Closure was valid per procedure and policy. Doc Tropics 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User:Pbarnes re-created the article. I have re-deleted it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned Raggett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

This article was speedied per CSD A7. The article contained an assertion of notability, however tenuous (major contributor to All Music Guide), so I feel the article should have been prodded or listed at AFD instead, to give editors a chance to clean up the article and attempt to make a stronger case for inclusion. The subject has had multiple articles published in a major newspaper (Seattle Weekly[1]), and as a significant contributor to All Music Guide (over 2000 reviews) his writing is widely quoted and reproduced with attribution by sites that use AMG metadata. I've written a draft stub that attempts to make a case for notability. --Muchness 04:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list, deletion seems to be trying to weasel WP:COI in as a speedy criterion. Which it isn't; it isn't even a deletion criterion by itself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - Can you explain the WP:COI? I don't see a conflict of interest. —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 05:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You must know what the COI is, as you deleted it for that. I'm confused. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn valid assertion made, A7 inapplicable. - crz crztalk 06:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undeleted I by no means intended to do that. I appologize, Amarkov, thanks for pointing out that fallicy in my deletion reason. —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 06:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Closed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Pingus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article has been undeleted in the light of more evidence produced. Evidence as to the notability of the article was not present either on the AfD discussion or the page itself. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable Linux game. Has been mentioned in many industry publications, online and offline, e.g. linux.about.com, UnixReview.com, CNN.com. It was Game of the Month [2] at the Linux Game Tome, arguably the most notable online Linux game website. If we have any Linux open source games at all, then we should certainly have Pingus -- it is among the most well known ones. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pingus did not show any consensus to delete.--Eloquence* 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. "Admin discretion" doesn't mean "delete whatever you feel like if you disagree with people who want it kept", or "Ignore given sources if you don't like them". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Notability is established here, and the AfD did not produce anything remotely close to consensus. -- Kicking222 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but undelete. The sources offered here were not offered in the AfD, which means that, for once, I can endorse a NHN closure, but we obviously came to the close without the full information that made it apparent that it meets standards, so it should be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but undelete due to new evidence (sources). AfD was pretty much WP:ILIKEIT voting, DRV nom thankfully is not. --W.marsh 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as there are enough sources mentioned here that weren't mentioned in the AFD to merit reconsideration. GRBerry 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete. We've already proven notability. jgp ^T_C 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(note: an anon misplaced this on the December 5th page; I've moved here, Patstuart^talk|edits 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

• Tourettes Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tourettes guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tourette's Guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tourette's guy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes guy (Oct 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy (Oct 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourettes Guy (Feb 2006, delete)
• DRV, July 2006 [3] (endorse deletion)
• DRV, Nov 2006 [4] (endorse deletion)
• I make it 27 deletions (not including deletions of old deleted-protected pages), three AfDs, two DRVs. In no case has any debate I can find ever done anything other than delete or endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the article for Tourette's Guy be reinstituted for the following reasons:

1. He is a famous person.

2. HIs website has sparked an internet phenomena, with many people visiting his the site to watch the videos of him in action, parodying his videos on YTMND, and putting his stuff on YouTube and other video-sharing websites.

3. Similar internet phenomena, such as "O Rly?" and "Leroy Jenkins" have their own Wiki pages.

4. He has appeared on an MTV commercial.

Moreover, any offense taken by those who think he is "faking" his illness and alcoholism ought to be disregarded, specifically on account that many offensive articles are to be found on Wikipedia. Certainly, if David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, not to mention a Cleaveland Steamer, have wikipedia pages and are not banned for the offensive content, Tourette's Guy can have his own? 69.22.252.216 06:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

• Endorse deletion as per previous debates. No new evidence, WP:ITSFUNNY does not trump WP:V, WP:OTHERCRUFTEXISTS does not trump WP:N. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks PatStuart, I was the person who put it there. Sorry about the date! Anyway, re: the above user's points.

It is most certainly verifiable. The man's website routinely adds new videos of him doing stupid things and his works are widely dispersed over the internet. His existence as a subject of a series of videos about his antics is grounded in fact and this so much can be seen by simply looking at said videos. Moreover, a search on Yahoo for "Tourette's Guy" brought up over 9000 results. This is a level of notority worthy of mentioning on an Encylopedia, specifically when we have articles on Japanese anime characters, professional wrestlers, and webcomics - all equally as trivial as the Tourette's guy.

There is simply no sensible reason why Tourette's guy should not be included in a small entry on Wikipedia.69.22.252.216 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)(Anonymous).

• That which is "verifiable" only by reference to the guy's own website or by reference to crap off "teh internets" is not verifiable per policy. Please provide evidence that this has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Cite new evidence available since this was endorsed last month. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note The version I looked at was a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35 10 December 2006 (GMT).

• Endorse deletion and let it drop already. It's most definitely not verifiable, and it's probably not notable. No reason given why three seperate AfDs and two DRVs should be overturned. You could at least provide some of these reliable sources you claim to have, since you need them for verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)