Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 2

Real Social Dynamics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This has got to be the most ridicules thing I have to do. Background: I closed the AFD as delete at the time. One of the "keep" people contacted me several times to try to ask me to reconsider, and he did eventually find some sources (because the AFD at the time and the deletion were based on sources. I undeleted the page. The page was redeleted by User:Mel Etitis (who participated in the AFD and gave a "delete" opinion), and I was told that I am not allowed to reconsider my original decision. I call this unneded bureaucracy. If we are forced to jump through unneded hoops anytime that we need to do something, nothing will ever get done on this wiki! On the other hand, I refuse to get into a wheel war on this. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• No opinion yet, but is there no end to the overweening vanity of these "seduction community" people? The whole business is vanity built on vanity built on vanity. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy on the issue of these articles in general, and this one in particular. More importantly, though, it seemed to me that no-one should change the closed AfD discussion and undelete the article, not even the closing admin, without discussion here first. If the supposed new evidence that would have convinced me if I'd seen it could be produced here, I'm willing to reconsider — so I'll not give an opinion either on undeleting way yet. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• There you go, thats what I based my decision on. I'm soo sorry that I didn't check with the undeletion-cabal before making my decision. Because, you know, I figure you're inventing process for the sake of process. I figured that I could just go and try to make the encyclopedia better. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Angie Phillips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

While this British weather presenter, formally airing nationally with ITV and now with BBC Northern Ireland, passes WP:BIO, the article during most of this AfD provided no citations or references that would've showed proper notability. Understandably all votes were for "delete." Then the citations of multiple published works on this person [1] [2] [3] (plus others) confirming passing WP:BIO criterion were found AFTER all the delete votes. After I inserted these works into the article and voted, there were absolutely no further "votes" in this AfD and it ended in deletion. Given the references found after all but one of the editors votes, this should be re-instated, at least for another AfD. --Oakshade 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the links seem to be trivial, of which the most non-trivial is a sub-Hello!-esque piece on her expecting a third child, courtesy of that august journal, the People. To pick some of her peers across the north channel, with whom I'm more familiar, the charming Vanessa is notable in the WP:N sense, as is Weather Heather, but Angie Phillips doesn't seem to be on the basis of the links provided. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Per WP:BIO "Trivial" refers to "articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." One article is about her moving to BBC Norther Ireland, one is a human interest story about her covering a storm there are a few stories (much more than "records") on her family. All are well outside the strict definition of "trivial" in WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional Response We might not like the reasons for this person's notability, but when someone passes the letter of WP:BIO, Notability is not subjective and WP:IDONTLIKEIT ceases to be a reason to delete an an article. --Oakshade 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll go with Bwithh's continuation of the listing (and one or other sort of undeletion). I have no philosophical objection to TV meteorologists being included, it's just that I'm not too convinced that Angie does feature as the subject of non-trivial reporting. There are indeed news reports, but they are none of them very meaty that I can see. Has she been the subject of a TV programme, or section of one, on BBCNI? She worked there for long enough, so she may well have been. Ms Phillips (or as they put it "yer woman Angie Phillips off the TV") was the subject of a fine piece of made up stuff on randomshite, which surely proves people in NI know who she is. Did you see that she was in this magazine? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Continue listing (no new listing, retain existing discussion in the listing), inform the people who have already !voted of the continued listing (always a good idea in the case of a revamp or new claims) I absolutely agree with Angus about the sources, but the petition's main complaint (I think) is about the other !voters not seeing the new claims. It's not really the closing admin's job to do this - Oakshade should have done it. But, I don't see the harm in continuing the listing for a couple of days so the other !voters can respond. Bonus ironic quote: "You're not really anybody unless you're on TV... 'cause what's the point of doing anything worthwhile if there's nobody watching? So when people are watching, it makes you a better person. So if everybody was on TV all the time, everybody would be better people. But, if everybody was on TV all the time, there wouldn't be anybody left to watch, and that's where I get confused." Bwithh 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not blaming the closing admin at all. As a matter of fact, I think they made the correct descision based on consensus (I said so in their talk page). I would've been happy to continue the listing, but wasn't sure if that was beyond the scope of a non-admin.--Oakshade 23:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In cases like this it's almost always better to ask the closing admin first. Oftentimes they are willing to revert themselves and relist the discussion. We don't need to make a policy issue out of everything. ~ trialsanderrors 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's possible, I agree that is better. I just made that request on user:A Train's talk page. --Oakshade 02:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'll relist the AfD momentarily. A Train ^{take the} 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Peekvid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Very notable streaming video website. Speedy Deleted by an admin four times apparently on a whim, without even performing a google search [4]. The alexa results are also compelling [5]. When his error was pointed out to him he still refused to even unprotect the deletion. His ground for doing this was that he felt that the request for the unprotection did not treat him with the respect due to an admin of his power and gravitas. He therefore has wasted my time and the time of everyone reading this entry, been unpleasant to a newbie, and abused his admin powers for the sake of his own pride. All credit to User:JzG, he then deleted the discussion from his talk page, see here: [6] David Spart 22:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse all deletions as valid A7s, but unsalt to allow the creation of a sourced article, as there are signs that this site may meet WP:WEB, if only barely. Do not unsalt unless a properly sourced article is created in userspace, per Bwithh and Guy below. --Coredesat 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt to allow the creation of a sourced version of this article, since the google hits and alexa traffic rating indicates that this website is notable. Endorse all deletions per Bwithh and Guy. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 23:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions. Don't unsalt unless a properly sourced article is created in userspace first. A7s seem valid and the petitioner does not produce any evidence to show that this site is encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and we need independent non-trivial reliable third-party sources with coverage showing the encyclopedic notability of this site. Alexa rating and google search doesn't show this and would be an insubstantive basis for an article. As an aside, I know of at least 4 other sites similar to this one (at least one of which is substantially more comprehensive and active - no, not youtube, although I have been able to enjoy the complete Larry Sanders Show on there recently - don't expect it to last) - only the people who run those aren't so foolish as to pretend to be/give the impression of hosting the blatant copyright violation videos themselves as this website does. All of the sites are popular, but I haven't seen any encyclopedic notability for any of what are essentially amateur online pirate video sites. Bwithh 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nice to see that the requester, a single-purpose account, is continuing to be rude and obnoxious even while asking for things. Oh no, that's demanding isn't it? Note: not deleted four times by an admin, it was deleted by at least three admins, all for the same reason. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and keep salted per JzG and Bwithh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• rewrite in user space as suggested above, but from a quick check I think there may well be sources, for it seems to be a significant pirate site, and there will probably be some legal action forthcoming. DGG 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Quite possible. I found a couple of stories, but not really about the site so much as saying it was about to be crapped on from a great height for facilitating copyright violation. Nothing leapt out as particularly authoritative or compelling, or I'd have written something myself. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse and salt. non-notable. Nardman1 23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Germain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The subject would pass WP:BIO. I'm assuming the article was autobiographical and by a novice editor. Brian Germain is a published author, inventor, and parachute manufacturer. If an admin would put the article in my User:Rklawton/Sandbox, I'll see what I can do about re-writing it before recreating it in the article namespace. Thanks. Rklawton 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Had WP:AUTO issues. Userfied. GRBerry 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

D.C. Wimberly‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I had an article immediately deleted on Jan. 31, 2007 about a former POW and educator. There was no input from anyone but the person making the immediate deletion. The article has 16 categories and three or four links. It is well-written, researched, and sourced. The objector said that we cannot do every POW just because he is a former POW, but this man was a former president of the group American Ex-Prisoners of War. I would like to see a review of this article, instead of one person unilaterally making the decision. The person is on the webpage of his hometown as a "notable" person from that community. Billy Hathorn 16:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note Errant nomination that ended up on the Jan 22 archive page. I removed the reposting of the article. The nominator owes me a beer now. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list The article does have a claim of notability, so speedy deletion under A7 is inappropriate. I have no clue whether being the head of that group for a year will result in surviving AFD, but the sources offered to date amount to two copies of an obituary, so it doesn't look very promising. Because the only good sources are the obituaries, Wikipedia is not a memorial applies, but it is not a speedy deletion criteria. I suggest the nominator put his researching shoes on and start digging, so they can be prepared to massively upgrade the evidence of notability when the AFD comes. GRBerry 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list From what is said above, there is no way of telling, for almost nobody has seen the article. Using Speedy A7 on a subject where controversy would have seemed inevitable must have been an oversight of the original person who nominated it and the admin who deleted it--or was it one person who did both, in which case the mistake seems much more understandable. DGG 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• List. Looks a lot like a local celebrity only, nothing which amounts to a real claim to fame, but it won't hurt to debate it. History restored for your reviewing pleasure. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• This article cut very close to the border. I personally would not consider being the president of a relatively small non-profit for a year to be a sustainable claim to notability. (I could find no other claims that even came close. Being a veteran and a surviving POW is to be respected but is not particularly notable.) As a judgment call contested in good-faith, it should be restored and listed to AFD but I doubt it will survive community scrutiny. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra Action Marching Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I deleted this page as an A7. It is about a marching band of questionable notability. Ostensibly written by a member of the band, the article's only claim of notability are some self-released CDs. In my opinion, the national touring is not that significant as many local bands of above-average quality get opportunities to play at football games or 8parades and the like. The creator of the article has been fairly persistent in his defense of his band's noteworthiness, and, although I stand by my decision, after this fairly impressive Google return coupled with a failed AfD on a similar street band here, I offer up my deletion of the article to review. Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore National tour is in WP:MUSIC, so that's clearly a claim to notability. Whether it's upheld in AfD is another question. ~ trialsanderrors 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and if it's a WP:CSD#G11 it should be deleted as such. A7 and G11 are at opposite ends of the spectrum — no assertion of notability vs. excessive assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as G11 (starts: "There's really no need to introduce the Extra Action Marching Band: The Bay Area institution has been crashing parties, invading bars, and blowing minds with its signature "high school marching band on acid" punk-meets-Sousa bombast for years now."). Probably also a copyvio. Let's wait until someone without a conflict of interest decides to create it, eh? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore To clairify, the national tours are of clubs and venues (not parades and football games) such as Hollywood Bowl, Knitting Factory, CBGB, Shoreline Amphitheatre, and The Fillmore to name a few. Foreign tours have included performances at Guča trumpet festival (The only american band that has made it there), Stubnitz, and clubs in Amsterdamm, Hamburg, Rostock, Berlin, Praugue, and Linz.

Articles about the band:

• 2006 Current TV
• 2006-05-10 SF Bay Gardian:"Brass in pocket"
• 2006-02-01 Spin Magazine:"Blood on the Sousaphone"
• 2005-10-09 The Register: Rockers fight for their right to restore dignity to the Download Festival
• 2005-08-05 Artforum:"Sweat and Lowdown"
• 2005-06-27 LA Times:"Pink linen suit and another creative hat"
• 2004-08-02 Prague.tv:"Daily Pick"
• 2004-08-01 London Times:"American hellraisers set to invade the Balkans"
• 2003-11-00 The Wire:"Soul Desert"
• 2002-08-15 The Wave:"On Parade"
• 2002-06-09 San Francisco Bay Times:"76 Trumbones at the Eagle"
• 2002-02-22 SF Chronicle Extra Action knows how to get on the good foot
• 2001-10-24 SF Weekly:"Memorable Moments From the SF Weekly Music Awards"

--Dirty tuba 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, invalid as an A7 due to the touring assertions, and the cache suggests it's not a valid G11 either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Badlydrawnjeff is right - not valid as A7 or G11, though article is in pretty bad shape and needs help. Argyriou (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore see http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2007/02/extra_action_marching_band_del.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.114.166.165 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Restore see http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/26/david_byrne_mops_up_.html - I think having performed with David Byrne adds at least a semblance of veracity. If the content is weak, flag it as such and give the author(s) time to correct the problems. Deleting it outright would not be a good approach. Randy J. Ray 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore historical merit alone, makes them notable without question. --Buridan 03:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Article may need work, but their activities have certainly been notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.30.246.45 (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• restore It is claimed above that it is "probably " a copyvio, although not on the basis of evidence. (People can write in the same flowery style here that they write elsewhere, with the two being quite independent.) Considering the subject, someone will find it if it is & it can then be dealt with appropriately. DGG 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:South Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|MfD|MFD2)

See previous MfD here
Inactivity or bad-quality of the portal themselves aren't valid reasons for deletion, and neither is the fact that the South Park template might be sufficient to "link" the articles. Portals with a similar quality are usually put on Category:Portals needing attention until a bold editor comes along and improves them. Two recent similar discussions were also made on the Belarus portal and the M*A*S*H portal, both of which resulted in keep. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Let's see... first MFD got a unanimity of fifteen people concurring with deletion. After recreation, the second MFD got a unanimity again, albeit a smaller one. So I closed it as a "delete". This is different from the two portals Michaelas mentions, which got quite a bunch of keep-comments. So endorse; "we usually do things differently" is not a strong argument. >Radiant< 10:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the other nominations, they both seem to have been submitted due to quality or activeness issues, which isn't different from this. A consensus should normally have a valid ground for deletion as described in the deletion policy, although none has been provided by the delete !voters. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: linked the MFDs into the header. GRBerry 14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• It had two unanimous MfD discussions, and I don't see adequate reason to overturn in the nomination here. GRBerry 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The first MfD had the statement that it was too narrow of a topic in the nomination, and as Radiant said, it was unanimous with 15 people. "Too narrow" is a reason for deletion. -Amark moo! 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd have to disagree here. South Park is Comedy Central's highest-rated series, and has a lot of coverage on Wikipedia which is sufficient for a portal. Besides, Wikipedia has portals on two similar topics - The Simpsons and Futurama. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• The nominator has given valid arguments that the portal should exist. So don't undelete as such, but allow re-creation (and recovery of deleted material, if desired), as long as he invites one or more other people to maintain it. - Mike Rosoft 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Overclock.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was cited in numerous websites, magasines, journals and newspapers, which we have lost the links since you have deleted the page, written in a neutral point of view, and those newspapers are verifiable !

What criteria does this page lacks for it to be included in Wikipedia ? Work has been done to improve the article from a simple one paragraph article to a near page of information, and yet you delete it. And I remember that the first reason that the article was going to be deleted for, was because of lack of links and notability. We've proven those two wrong. Please, re introduce it, and keep it. User:F2002yann a.K.a OCN gravity 08:02, February 2, 2007

• Speedy Endorse Deletion nomination adds nothing new from the AFD. --pgk 11:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Xxxchurch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1|AfD2)

I'm a little aghast at how this afd went: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xxxchurch. Nearly every single delete !vote fell into one of these categories:

• A total derision of the site's politics (i.e., WP:IDONTLIKEIT ad absurdium]]:

• Delete in the noble campaign to make an anti-porn-free Internet
• Delete as a devious trick. I thought Christians were above such things. I guess not.).

• A claim "it's not notable" without any reasoning behind it. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT#Just_a_policy_or_guideline.

• Delete nonetheless, non-notable. Haha, a porn-free internet, what will they come up with next? - CorbinSimpson
• Delete non-notable website. --Terence Ong
• Delete, non-notable, even if the article is fixed to actually be factual. Now if it really was a christian porn site, that would be a different thing entirely from a notability standpoint. --Isotope23 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. I like the "Jesus loves porn stars" t-shirts though!
• Delete per Agamemnon. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Finally, the only valid !votes deletes seem to have been along the line that it has a low alexa ranking. But, of course, we know that's not a valid indicator.

Similarly, there is a plethora of evidence, both in this afd and out, that the site is notable. This very valid comment about it passing WP:WEB seems to have been passed over:

• Big-time news coverage, for them and their event: the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader[7], the Spokane Spokesman Review[8], the Sacramento News and Review[9], CNN[10], the Toledo Blade[11], the Hartford Advocate[12], WTOL (Toledo's CBS affiliate)[13], the Winston-Salem Journal[14], the Cincinnati Enquirer[15], the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier[16], the Orange County Register(syndicated from the Christian Science Monitor)[17], etc. There are more, too, but I think the point is made. -Colin Kimbrell 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Colin then goes on to mention more articles, and is rightfully taken aback by when no one seems to pay any attention to him. He seems to be asking, "how many notable news programs, from ABC news to CNN, have to do a piece on these guys before they're notable?"

I can personally add to Colin's list by mentioning the fact that Ron Jeremy personally had a debate with the creator of the website (the fact that Ron Jeremy and a Christian leader would meet must show that there's some importance in the movement here). See Ron Jeremy and [18].

Since, the article has been recreated and deleted several times: one time includes with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XXXchurch, where there was no actual debate on the site (which is the whole reason it was renominated), rather just a call for g4 (there was no discussion of the website itself. However, I can assure you that it's notable. It's receiving quite a bit of news on google news even right now: [19]. Part Deux 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

• • Another afd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XXX_Church which also ended in delete Bwithh 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep, I'm stunned this has been deleted. I know it has been mentioned many times in the news, how could it possibly have not survived an AfD?!?! Shocked and amazed. Gee, the nominator couldn't even get it right when stating what it is, calling it a "porn site"! I suspect the reason for deletion was because of the average vocal wikipedians bias against porn, you list something to do with porn at the right moment and if you "get lucky" (no pun intended!) it will get deleted. When this gets recreated get in touch with me on my talk page and I'd gladly help out for a while improving the article on any serious points made against it if any are still remaining. Mathmo ^Talk 10:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, since this does indeed appear to have been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Amazingly. Go back to the AfD'd version, though, not the one reposted by a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The more recent AFD's delete opiners all were solely based on the first AFD. The closest any of them come to demonstrating that they considered it is one comment that "and nothing has changed.". Yet I can't see any evidence in the first AFD that people actually looked at the sources. As far as I can tell, the evidence wasn't seriously considered at all, so it should be overturned. I stopped about halfway through the list of sources, having become convinced that at the very least a real discussion is needed and that more likely an article on the group/website should exist. (A few are now broken.) But since I'm convinced that the evidence offered wasn't evaluated in either AFD, I believe that the AFDs should be overturned. GRBerry 15:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. Yikes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I'm a deletionist/exclusionist and participated in one of the 3 afds above, in which I !voted weak keep based on some references in newspapers and books (weak because I was unimpressed with the depth of the coverage/references though the book references brought me over to weak keep). I'm surprised too that all 3 afds ended in a deleted consensus given the generally very low interpretation of notability bars that prevails in afds. I guess this is an unusual repeat knee-jerk delete-response-without-bothering-to-consider-sources, a rarer cousin of its knee-jerk keep equivalent but just as troubling. Also another instance showing why closing admins should not just consider simply the consensus of the afd discussion (though there may be an argument that a couple of the articles were recreation end-runs around earlier afds but then why hold another afd?) Bwithh 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn but definitely relist. There's enough here for a second look at the matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and possibly relist on AFD, per above. --Coredesat 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per all above, no view on relisting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• overturn I quote from the AfD "Keep and Move to Xxxchurch.com. Big-time news coverage, for them and their event: the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader[2], the Spokane Spokesman Review[3], the Sacramento News and Review[4], CNN[5], the Toledo Blade[6], the Hartford Advocate[7], WTOL (Toledo's CBS affiliate)[8], the Winston-Salem Journal[9], the Cincinnati Enquirer[10], the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier[11], the Orange County Register(syndicated from the Christian Science Monitor)[12], etc. " As this was unchallenged, the closing was against the evidence. DGG 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually a lot of the local news coverage is pretty trivial but the CNN report unquestionably is not. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Local news coverage that is all from the same locality is pretty trivial, but when it's getting mentions in different local news venues all over the country I think that adds up to non-trivial and therefore notable. Plymouths 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, this is one of the worst abuses of "notability" that I've seen; this is a site that unquestionably meets our guidelines. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think misuse of the concept of notability is what happened here. Looking at the 3 afds, the impression I get is that people weren't following guidelines properly by not looking at the sources provided due to 1) jumping to premature/biased conclusions about an anti-porn church campaign 2) Treating it as just a website rather than as a ministry with presumptions about online ministries being a dime a dozen 3) calling for speedy delete of apparently recreated content, with the flawed assumption that people looked at the sources properly in a previous afd. When people produced sources, there doesn't seem to be discussion of whether the sources are valid - they just seem to have been ignored altogether. (There's also this tendency some people have of having a policy of ignoring new sources produced in the course of an afd discussion and only considering the references currently in the article itself. I don't really understand this but once or twice I asked why people weren't looking at references i provided in afd, I was straightforwardly told that they wouldn't unless I put them in the article itself (which is actually not always appropriate for an article's format and content) . Bwithh 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By abusing "notability" I mean abuse of the term without regards to the actual guidelines. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn numerous links proving notability were provided in the AFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for XXXchurch (as nonsense/spam), and probably relist (or re-write and relist) for Xxxchurch. - Mike Rosoft 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The community has spoken. Remember, DRV does not question if the consensus at afd was right only if the process was right. Both afd's happened by the book. Nardman1 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• The community has spoken in the policies and guidelines we have. AfD is an attempt to apply those to a specific article. In this case there undoubtedly is non-trivial coverage, and quite a lot of it at that - an entire segment on a news programme, for example. We are supposed to use Clue, and here that indicates that we go back to the version before the repost. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete per Guy and several others above, an abundance of non-trivial sources appear to be available so sourcing is a non-issue. RFerreira 08:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Those sources look good to me -- something strange about the whole issue. Wouldn't be opposed to relisting, though I'm not sure it's necessary. Shimeru 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:7chan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This is a discussion page and should thusly be allowed to exist so that discussion can occur. What justification is given to this article's removal? User:Centrx fails to explain the reasoning behind deleting and protecting this article in it's log. Being that I was the last user to edit the article, I herby call that this is a case of biased censorship by a user that refuses to except the existance of 7chan as a worthy subject of an article. Brain fork 05:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid G8, recommend speedy close. --Coredesat 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the article being deleted, I don't see the point of keeping a talk page about the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• (Comment posted after closure:) I remember there being a part saying "Article needs media". Well, there's the Hal Turner show and now this: [20]

Also, "I don't see the point of keeping a talk page about the article. Wikipedia is not a forum." What? It's a tad obvious that Wikipedia is not a forum, but try and go to the 7chan page (not the talk one). It says to go to the talk page to dicuss why it was deleted and try to get it back. 82.4.213.207 12:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Benfer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• Knox (flash artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist)
• Robert Benfer, Jr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer, Jr
• Knox Wiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
• Klay World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World
• Klay World: Off The Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World: Off The Table
• Klay World: Off the Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World: Off the Table
• Villain (Knox movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (Knox movie)
• Knox (animator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Knox (Animator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox (Animator)
• Villain (2007 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villain (2007 film)
• Robert Benfer (animator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 June)

To quote WP:DP, "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article". The admin who deleted his entry and prevented its recreation last October (see page logs) based his judgement on this deletion vote in February 2005. A review of his notability since that time has not been undertaken. I argue that he currently fulfills several criteria of WP:BIO: "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" and "Name recognition" may be signs of notability. His website is the #1 result when you search for "knox" on Google ("knox" is a common word which is used in many other contexts and is the namesake of several important institutions - this seems to signify that his nickname "knox" is widely associated with his person). Also, a search for "knox", on animateclay.com (a kind of news website for stop motion) results in 369 news & forum entries. His website has been visited nearly 15 million times, he's the 6th-most bookmarked artist on Newgrounds (a website with over 1 million members), and his films on Newgrounds had been viewed 10,959,036 times as of Oct. 12, 2006. He doesn't satisfy the central criterion, as he's only been the subject of one non-trivial published work, but I believe that these other factors fulfill the notability requirements for people.

I realize that this is a sore point for many of you, but I hope that you will nevertheless base your decisions on policy. The Filmthreat interview can be used as a base from which to build the article, as well as a few other sources (ie. there are several independent confirmations that he's currently working with a crew on a feature film called "Villain": [21] [22] [23] [24]). Esn 04:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. That aspect of WP:BIO ("a large fan base") is a subset of "notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known [films or TV shows]". Being popular on Newgrounds does not entitle an article on Wikipedia (indeed, LegendaryFrog was deleted per CSD A7 in November), and being the #1 hit on a Google search does not confer notability, either (particularly due to the possibility of Google bombing. --Coredesat 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse several deletions (I think it is about twenty at various titles) and at least two previous deletion reviews. He was "currently working on" a film last time, too, and that has moved from a (then) 2007 to a 2008 release on IMDB. I think we can guess who added it to IMDB in the first place. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (yes, I'm one of the several deleters). Making your own films and putting them on the internet is not particularly different or rare these days. I wish the guy best of luck with his career, but 15 minutes of fame is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, possibly Speedy close as this has been debated so many times before and even the nominator admits he hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial works by reliable sources. Please don't keep bringing this up, it has no realistic chance of being undeleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The real problem here is that one day he may be notable, but there have been so many re-creations and deletions and so much arm-waving by fans that it'll be really hard to get that overturned. I'm pretty sure this one is prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World: Off the Table, where it is noted that Benfer's promotion and self-promotion has been removed many times. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion No new information from last deletion review. When the nominator admits that he doesn't satisfy the central criteria, because there aren't independent reliable sources about him, we won't be able to maintain an acceptable encyclopedic article on him, even if we assume the other claims met the secondary criteria of WP:BIO. GRBerry 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions. Google hits are necessary but not sufficient for notability. Let's have some citations from reliable sources, please. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no new information from the last deletion review. --sunstar net^talk 16:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry D. Alexander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry D. Alexander)

The Larry D. Alexander article you deleted had previously been restored by an administrator after a request made by me. He re-edited the article and labeled it with several "citation needed" requests. I took a lot of my time to help satisfy his requests. I was able to verify through newspaper, art publications, and the library of congress vast amounts of information on Mr. Alexander. I uploaded about a dozen newspaper articles on various art related exploits of this well-known artist. They included articles on his "Clinton Family Portriat", which he presented to the president in 1995, his work that is a part of the permanent collection at the Southeast Arkansas Art Center in Pine Bluff, Ark., his work that is housed at two universities, his four Greeting Card lines that I found registered at the Library of Congress, one of his books being used to help create a supplement to improve the American History curriculum at high schools, etc. I also found on-line, 5-star reveiws on two of his books at Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Books-A-Million, and many other book retailers. you can veiw the upload in the "what links here" in the tool box where you deleted his article. I have come through in a big way with all the citation verifications you requested and more. Please do the right thing and restore this article on this most worthy artist and author. Thank You. 31 January 2007 Charles Dillion

• Endorse deletion. No information here which was not present in the AfD debate, where what existed was dismussed as unsourced. It was unanimous. -Amark moo! 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the original closing decision. Mets501 closed the debate. The outcome of a deletion debate was delete, which appears to have been the correct interpretation of the AfD debate. By "I uploaded about a dozen newspaper articles on various art related exploits," Mr. Dillion means that he scanned in actual copyrighted news articles on Mr. Alexander and violated copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy by uploading the scanned, copyrighted news articles into Wikipedia's database. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Larry_D._Alexander. These uploading actions appear to have been after the close of the Larry D. Alexander AfD. Although there may be significant new information that has come to light since the deletion, I do not think that the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article since the information still appears in commons and in user space even after the Larry D. Alexander article was deleted. Thus, I endorse the original closing decision and do not see reason to support other actions. -- Jreferee 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid and unanimous AFD, and my WP:COI-sense is tingling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD. --Coredesat 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alan & Denise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted by db-bio, though the duo meets with a chart hit obviously criteria for musicians and ensembles. -- 84.178.25.44 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good Lord Overturn "medium chart success" is not a claim to notability? ~ trialsanderrors 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Medium chart success in Germany with a novelty song - so not really, no. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC begs to differ. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC thinks you can have an article even if there are no non-trivial sources about the subject, and based on some pretty arbitrary tests, so it is a steaming heap of dung :o) Guy (Help!) 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• no it doesn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• They're not arbitrary if they're written to make sure Listed under WP:MUSIC implies almost surely that Non-trivial sources exist. Of course the existence of sources is completely irrelevant for speedy deletions, that's something to be hashed out at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 02:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Charting anywhere is a claim to notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore: It is not aim of Wikipedia to create an Anglo-American bias. Germany was at that time the third biggest music market in the world. Our criteria are pretty clear in that. -- Triebtäter 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• List on AfD. Looking at de:Alan & Denise it would appearthat they had one song which reached no. 43 in the charts, no hits in their home country. I would advocate deletion on that basis, but it does amount to an assertion of notability and it won't hurt to give it a go-round in case there is more to be said. Which, judging by the Google results, there isn't. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Yep, that is an assertion of notability, so speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 is incorrect. Probably even enough to survive AFD, given the standards documented in WP:MUSIC. GRBerry 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I actually planned on bringing this here tonight for the exact reason the nom and T&E noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn due to assertion of notability within the article (meets WP:MUSIC just barely), and per WP:BIAS. --Coredesat 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• overturn I thought Speedy for notability was when there was no significant evidence at all, and I do not see how this could reasonabley have been the case here. DGG 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: At the time of my deletion of this article, I was simply going through CSD, and a cursory reading of the article (in my eyes) did not support the notability (while this is not a CSD and more of an AFD thing, I used my discretion). It's a bare partial passing of WP:MUSIC. I would not oppose to its listing at AFD, where it would be subject to a greater audience of review.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deletion. Here's my problem. There is no sourcing as to the German chart. It doesn't say which German chart (I'm guessing that there are many) or give any other information. And "medium chart hit". Regionally? Nationally? I don't think we should just take "medium chart hit" on its face value. That's a little too bare bones for me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Lack of sourcing is not a reason for speedy deletion. And re charts, yes that was a regular chart and radio hit. Novelty fershur, but even I remember it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Charted act, is an assertion of notability. Catchpole 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn just barely passes WP:MUSIC criteria...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete since this meets our WP:MUSIC criteria, even if it is barely so. RFerreira 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Alkivar and trials with errors, notable enough to be article worthy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)