Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February

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

Encyclopedia-worthy and lengthy content that, for reasons unknown, was redirected to the article on its manufacturer SOFTWIN, which is currently a stub. I distinctly recall the article's existence as I have edited on it. I have not found an AFD review, and suspected that it may have been prodded off the 'pedia. kelvSYC 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• BitDefender was deleted for being very predominantly advertising; Bitdefender (no capital "D") was deleted as a redirect to a deleted page, then recreated to redirect to SOFTWIN. Perhaps, instead of deletion, BitDefender could have been stubbed, but it was written in a very POV manner. I don't have any problem if someone wants to create a new NPOV version of BitDefender (and Bitdefender could then be redirected to the new page). Trebor 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as advertising bordering on spam, but without objection to the creation of a new, neutral article. Subject definitely seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no prejudice to recreation. Notable software, but even a stub would be preferable to an advertisement. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Is a PROD review available, as well as its last revision before deletion? I do not believe that, at the point of last working on it, it was advertising beyond what is allowable on Wikipedia (in the sense that the "advertising" is effectively restricted to talking about the existence of the product and its notable aspects). Besides, I had severely worked on the fact that BitDefender is currently the only non-Mac antivirus program that is bundled with a Mac antivirus program (VirusBarrier X4 DP), which was keep-worthy. I think this is good enough to challenge the prod and put it in a formal AFD review. kelvSYC 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  The article was speedy deleted as spam, not via the PROD process. GRBerry 23:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion This article was pure advertising, but this subject is notable. A new, rewritten article should be created. -- Wenli 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I wouldn't mind if a new article is created, nor am I advocating the restoration of the original (although it would make a good starting point). However, the article had many editors working on nontrivial portions of it, and to simply dismiss their work as spam does not seem right. I question whether the original CSD nomination was in bad faith. kelvSYC 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion, and should be restored or unprotected. h2g2bob 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Conservapedia is already being discussed, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 25#Conservapedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, very sorry --h2g2bob 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

i have changed the original artical so that it comlplies with wiki Tommyisnice 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I saw this before it was deleted. In process speedy of blatant advertising - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - If the revised version didn't qualify as spam, and I believe it still did, then it still would have been a {{db-web}} candidate. A single page 3 newspaper article, no rank on Alexa, 13 google hits for findamob, with a couple concerning EverQuest all adds up to not yet notable. --Onorem 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Onorem; if not spam, then not notable. Trebor 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Miss Venezuela 2001 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I'm nominating this article for a deletion review. It was nominated for deletion just some few days after its creation. i believe improvability of the article can not be questioned. please review comments by those who wanted to keep this article. the comments of those who wanted to keep the series of Miss Venezuela articles has much bearing against those who wanted to delete it. RebSkii 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - main arguments for keeping look to be "it's useful" and "it's new." Deletion arguments were stronger. Otto4711 19:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The deleted article consisted of only--and I do mean only--a contestant list and an external link to a site with the same contestant list. I don't know if an encyclopedia article can be written about this topic (my gut instincts say no but I'd be happy to be proved wrong). I'd suggest rewriting the article in user space before nominating it here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Starblind, but, as I said on the AFD, without prejudice against an article about the contest. A national championship like this is indeed notable, but a list of contestants and nothing else is unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the "keep" reasons were not compelling. Trebor 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was no procedural error that I can see, even as a raw vote count the Deletes had it, the year-by-year articles seem way excessive, and the nominator doesn't describe the improvements he could do if only more time were provided. If policy is allowed to weigh in the balance, the lack of sources in the surviving Miss Venezuela certainly argues against keeping the articles for the individual years. EdJohnston 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I weakly supported keeping at the AfD (just as a stay of execution in the hope the articles could and would be improved), but the discussion was properly closed as "delete". I do not oppose proper recreation of the articles that provides more context rather than just a list of the contestants. -- Black Falcon 17:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ormus matter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was speedily deleted because another (much shorter) article written by somebody else had been found unsatisfactory. Can a topic from the natural sciences really be banned in the same rapid scanning process used for weeding out pranks, descriptions of unimportant persons/bands and such? Should its validity be determined by the bunch of often unserious users (see their discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMUS) who happened to be present when that other article was discussed? I will say that the reported discovery of a new form of matter is worth a Nobel prize. (Regrettably, the private person who had spent several million dollars on finding and investigating it, didn't also pay the scientists to publish scientific reports.) Documentation and phrasing are debatable, and might be flagged for improvement the wiki way, but a speedy deletion is ridiculous for a science topic. The speedy censor wrote: "the ormus concept is not generally acknowledged by physicists. To put that another way: ORMUS is pseudo science which is not even notable enough to be written up as such or as an hoax." The truth is that this matter is disregarded because its detection requires use of a Russian analysis method. Labelling the topic as a pseudoscience is no basis for speedy deletion, as also pseudoscientific topics are valid in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. In the new version of Ormus matter I have added a paragraph discussing the question whether ormus is scientific, and I conclude it is presently a protoscience. But it is also a practical technology, and as such its notability should be evident. (Ormus has a Yahoo discussion group with 1700 participants, and Hudson got several ormus patents.) The new version of the article Ormus matter can be found here in Wikinfo. nomination was by User:OlavN placed in a comment by mistake, restored by --ais523 08:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. This is of course completely made up. But I think our convention has been to go ahead and have articles on pseudoscience, so that when some poor fool reads about it on an oh-so-serious website, they can come to Wikipedia and learn that it's fake. That said, we need sources for both the claims and the debunking, and I don't see any sources in that wikinfo article. — coelacan talk — 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete I do not blame anyone who speedied it as nonsense, but it is the sort of N nonsense that WP does include. The fact that it is totally impossible doesn't make it less N. In a way, its good to have a chem one come along considering all the paraphysics we have.DGG 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD debate above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORMEs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements. The propsed draft does not make it clear in the first paragraph that this is protoscience and does not demonstrate that it is notable protoscience. -- RHaworth 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I had included a paragraph Scientific Status, where the status Protoscience was concluded. So - not stating this in the first paragraph justifies speedy deletion? OlavN 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the touchstone of wikipedia is verifiability not truth. If there are third party sources discussing this discovery exist they have not been provided in the article linked or the AfD's mentioned above. Until and unless such sources are produced this article should stay deleted. Eluchil404 10:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A valid comment, but the wiki way is to tag insufficiently documented articles. How can a nonexistent article be improved? OlavN 08:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Send to AfD The prior discussion was in 2005. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse per AfD below. ~ trialsanderrors 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• comment The relative merits of borderline theories is endlessly debatable, but this one is contradicted by all theories of chemistry and physics. But I am not a RS, and any view I have on the scientific validity is irrelevant. The question is whether this is N, either to established science, or the public. Impossible garbage which gets public coverage is N, and rightly so, because people will come here for information. The N needs open discussion, and I would never judge such a matter on a speedy. DGG 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This wasn't speedied as G1 nonsense but rather as a G4 repost. The AfD's age notwithstanding (though the most recent relevant one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monatomic elements was in November 2006), the same arguments apply: the article doesn't demonstrate notability by citing references in reliable sources. This has nothing to so with the scientific merits of the proposal. Eluchil404 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Stop the press - heavyweight paper found. I just did a Google Scholar search (for ormus and Hudson) and found: Superfluid Modelling of Atomic Nuclei, which has paragraphs describing (and evidently accepting) ormus, m-state, Cooper pairs... (Also several hits in Google Books.) This is the wiki way: Important information can come only if the article is not speedily deleted. OlavN 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, this looks like an undergrad thesis supervised by someone who's not even on the regular staff of the Cavendish lab. No evidence of publication. If that's the most heavyweight evidence there is, the circular file is over there. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I would accept reliable sources if they were offered by the nominator. I see that the last AfD was in 2005. It is indeed possible that new papers could have appeared since then, but I didn't see any such papers offered for our consideration. I scanned quickly through the online paper found by User:OlavN, and the first 90% of it is standard physics, the very end descends into ORMUS with no reliable sources, so it's not helpful for our debate. If this article is to be kept because ORMUS is a hoax, it needs to be a widely-believed hoax per WP:HOAX and we need reliable sources that show that it fooled a lot of people. This is not being offered to us either. EdJohnston 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Please note: This submission for deletion review involves this version of Wikipedia:Esperanza. Previous discussions include Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Esperanza.

(I have two really long arguements for this, so make sure that you have a lot of time and patience!)

The closing comments on the most recent MfD, which I fully support, stated:

The result of the debate was to decentralize Esperanza. I see this as the only viable way to minimize the pain between all parties involved, and understanding that this MfD will have wider, serious implications for other similiar organisations in future. What do I mean by decentralization? The one main concern brought up in this MfD is the membership, the structure of this organisation. Its programs are good-intentioned, and they are supposed to be avaliable to any editor on Wikipedia. This is also the cause of the perceived "better than thou" and "cabalism" claimed by members, and the lack of consensus building. This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza. All programs will be migrated to its associated projects and shall be open to every editor on Wikipedia. The existing program pages should be redirected to its new project page rather than Esperanza itself. Tentatively, Admin Coaching to WP:ADOPT as separate program (per request), Stress Alerts as standalone (WP:ALERT), COTM to WP:COTW, Trading Spaces already transferred, and birthday to WP:BDC. They are allowed to survive in their new forms and may be MfD-ed seperately if nessecary. Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder. A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page. Its talkpage and archives should be clearly marked that its subsequent discussion is only about the essay only. I do not expect the organisation to revive, but hopefully this result will be something that is progressive and less controversial. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The essay on WP:EA, however, does not fulfill the requirements of the MfD closure, particularly the following sentence: "A new essay page describing its history, philosophy and its fate is to replace the existing main Esperanza page". The only things to be shown on the Esperanza essay are statements that factually describe Esperanza's history, philosophy, and fate. As I am about to show you, the current version of the essay is in violation of the closing comments of the MfD...

The first paragraphs of the essay say the following:

Esperanza was a Wikipedia project founded on August 12, 2005. Its goals were to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community. It was the belief of Esperanza that a friendly, supportive community within Wikipedia would help the encyclopedia by keeping editors happy, productive, and on the project. The name is derived from the Spanish word for "hope," and the original goal was to offer hope for the Wikipedia community and bring it together. When proposing the association, the founder wrote the following:

This particular paragraph describes Esperanza's history, because it describes EA's founding and its original goals. Second paragraph...

Esperanza or Esperanza Association is a proposed association of wikipedians dedicated to strengthening wikipedia's sense of community through establishing a support network for wikipedians in an environment that is often hostile and apathetic. Esperanza takes its name from the Spanish word for hope. We have taken this name the in spirit of offering hope to wikipedians who feel isolated and ignored. Spanish is used in the hope that a segment of the wikipedia community will never again feel so isolated that it breaks away from the community as did a portion of the Spanish wikipedia community did to form Enciclopedia Libre.

This paragraph touches lightly on philosophy and history. The founder was describing his intentions for the organization. Third paragraph...

Towards those goals, Esperanza attempted a number of initiatives, such as:

• A stress alerts page that would alert Esperanza if someone was ill or feeling highly stressed due to issues on Wikipedia or in real life, or if someone left Wikipedia.
• Admin Coaching, where newcomers could get assistance from Wikipedia administrators.
• Reach Out, which provided consoling.
• Tutorial Drive, which aimed to write a series of tutorials for using and editing Wikipedia
• A calendar for members to list their birthday, first-edit day, etc. Esperanza tried to send out birthday wishes to Wikipedians.
• The to-do list.
• Trading Spaces, where Wikipedians could request help for designing their user page.
• The coffee lounge for casual discussion.
• The User page awards for well-designed user pages.
• The Barnstar Brigade which gave out barnstars to users for good work.
• Stressbusters, which investigated the source of wikistress.

Some of these programs survive as independent projects.

This particular section describes Esperanza's history. It talks about what Esperanza attempted to do in order to fulfill its goals. Fourth paragraph...

Esperanza was governed by a charter, which stipulated an Advisory Council with staggered terms, as well as an Administrator General who was selected by the council to lead the project. Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. This was criticized as being heavily bureaucratic; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

This describes Esperanza history, talking about its bureaucracy. Fifth paragraph...

Esperanza was first nominated for deletion in November 2006. Critics of the group argued that Esperanza distracted people from contributing to the encyclopedia proper by providing an environment for social interaction. Esperanza was also criticized for having regular Council elections, which were seen as nothing more than popularity contests. Following a no consensus result in the first motion to delete Esperanza, the organization engaged in a series of reforms, which resulted in the deletion of the coffee lounge, the user page awards, Stressbusters and the Barnstar Brigade. The group also attempted to promote participation in the article namespace by creating an Esperanza Collaboration of the Month. While most of the reform discussions ultimately reached a consensus, the overhaul discussions related to Esperanza's goals, its charter, its governance, what constitutes membership, and the noticeboard weren't completed.

This paragraph discusses Esperanza's history, since it talks about the first MfD and attempts to reform afterwards. Sixth paragraph...

A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:

• The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza.
• Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior.
• Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.
• The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event.
• Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

The first sentence says, "A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion." IMHO this and only this sentence describes either Esperanza's history, philosophy, or fate. (In this case, the sentence describes history, since it talks about the second nomination.) The rest of the paragraph, however, describes arguements during the debate, which does not provide useful information that would adequately inform readers in an unbiased tone. The bullet points represent public opinion, and are not based on factual information. This slightly touches into my second arguement later on, which we'll get to soon. Seventh paragraph...

After long discussion, it was ultimately decided that Esperanza was to be decentralized and disbanded; see above for a list of now-independent projects. Other pages about Esperanza themselves were redirected to this page, which was replaced with the summary above.

This paragraph discusses Esperanza's fate, describing the close of the very same MfD debate we are describing! Eigth paragraph...

More debates followed on various pages in the Wikipedia namespace, including on a deletion review filed to review aspects of the MfD closure. The closing admin declared the consensus to be that the original MfD decision was endorsed.

This describes Esperanza's fate after the closure of the MfD.

As you can see, the sixth paragraph does not comply with the closing decisions of Mailer diablo. The original DRV even declared that his closing comments should be implemented! Now, on to my second arguement in this debate...

The essay in its current version is also in violation of WP:NPOV. I know...I know...WP:NPOV only applies to Wikipedia articles. However, let's take a look at the following comments written by Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, taken from this page.

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

The majority viewpoint is obviously that of the people who voted delete for Esperanza during its MfDs. But what about the other viewpoints during the MfDs, such as those that supported Esperanza or its ideals and goals? Or what about the viewpoints supporting the general idea of a community? Shouldn't we be able to "address the controversy without taking sides"? Let's take a look at the comments on the second MfD by Fang Aili...

I admit I have not been keeping up with the arguments for and against deletion, and I didn't participate in the overhaul of Esperanza. However I am !voting keep because I find value in the Stress Alerts, Admin Coaching, and Calendar. I simply find these useful and would be sad to see them go. If they can be moved elsewhere that would be fine. But I'd just like to say that I'm sad that the Esperanza community that helped me become a Wikipedian is dying.

There are obviously mixed feelings over this situation. Therefore, I strongly suggest that Wikipedia:Esperanza be edited to reflect the closing remarks on WP:MFD/EA and in the interest of keeping an NPOV. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Close. This doesn't have anything to do with deletion review, at all. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - I would like to point out that I have attempted to discuss the issue with other editors, but no further comments have been made as of now. I would also like to quote trialsanderrors, the closing admin of WP:DRV/EA with his following statement:

Just to be clear, the status quo per community consensus is whatever the closing admin decided. So all unilateral actions after the closure amount to a challenge to the MfD decision and therefore a de facto nomination for review. Unless there is a consensus to overturn the MfD decision will be upheld

I am justifying this DRV on the basis that the essay is in violation of the MfD closure and that other editors have been reluctant to change it, amounting to an objection to the closing admin of the MfD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to get the page undeleted? Are you contesting the closure done by Mailer Diablo? If neither one applies, then this is the wrong venue. I don't see how the low-grade edit war between you and Dev920 over the essay rises to the magnitude of deleting subpages. Go back to the Village Pump, or try the dispute resolution channels. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reptile Palace Orchestra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was speed deleted due to lack of notability. I would assert that it fulfills the criteria for notability of a music related page due to the fact (as was stated on the page) that one of its members is Sigtryggur Baldursson of the Sugarcubes, which is a quite notable band in its own right which also helped launch the career of Bjork. Acornwithwings 00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can offer no reasoned opinion on the matter as I was the person who deleted it in the first place. Bobo. 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Whether it unquestionably meets WP:MUSIC is debatable, but I don't think it's speedy fodder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Since the page was speedied and not salted, it can be re-created anytime. I should note that the original page had no claim to notability per WP:MUSIC and no sources. The only notability claim thus far is that it once contained a member (Sigtryggur Baldursson) who was notable as part of other groups. WP:MUSIC states that a redirect to the notable member's biography is normally most appropriate as opposed to a separate article on the earlier band. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, in that case, it should have either had a tag put on it or put up for regular deletion so that we would have had a chance to discuss it and/or improve the article. If it can be recreated, thats cool, although I personally don't know how to go about doing that. Acornwithwings 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the material from the original article, it's still in the Google cache. I would expand and source it before posting it again, though, or it will probably get nominated for deletion again. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the speedy deletion. No objection to re-creation if sources are provided. EdJohnston 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete I'm sure I can add some reputable notability sources to this article - but don't know how to undelete it.

--Bifftar 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tales of the Questor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|DRV)

In the interests of disclosure, I need to here point out that I know the creator of this comic. That said, I think that there may be a case for its undeletion. While a google search for the name does lead to a large amount of material not suitable for an encyclopedia (unedited reviews in non-notable blogs, and so on), it has won a major award ([1], coverage, for example, here, and its published volumes received reviews here, which I believe counts as a reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. Our article on the Ursa Major Awards was deleted because reliable sources covering it couldn't be found. That doesn't automatically mean it doesn't provide any notability for your webcomic, since Ursa Major is independent of you and it's third party recognition. Beyond that, it does appear that Anthrozine has editorial oversight, and the review there is fairly extensive. The point of notability requirements is to gather enough information, independent from you, for the rest of us to write an article about your comic. There might be enough here. But in any case you will need to avoid editing the article, per WP:COI. — coelacan talk — 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not my comic. I wouldn't dare speak on anything I did. But I figured that it wouldn't be inappropriate to see if I could find evidence that a friend's comic was notable, as long as I stated my interest, and thought, after the research, there might, or, admittedly, might not, be a case. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread. It's not your comic. My reading comprehension has been very poor today. Thanks for clarifying that to me! — coelacan talk — 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• The "major award" does not look that major - any coverage outside the furry community? Are the books self-published or are they published by a reputable publishing house? Guy (Help!) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Self-published, and I'll admit I know nothing whatsoever about comic-related awards, so I honestly couldn't say beyond that one report of the comic gaining the award I stumbled across and linked above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Well, as one of those links demonstrates, the Ursa Major Award is recognized outside the Furry community, in the larger SF community. I would also say that third party reliable sources are third party reliable sources regardless of what community affiliation they claim for themselves. I'd like to see more sources, though, the Anthrozine review helps but it's not enough. — coelacan talk — 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I had another quickish look, and... well, you'll have to be the judge of whether they're notable and/or reliable (I don't know enough to be sure, tending to work on articles on old Victorian plays or modern science, in both of which cases a reliable source is unambiguous) but these may be useful: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, those are just blogs and one is a collection of links. Nothing that meets WP:RS. My own searches aren't pulling up anything more notable either. I'll have to say I endorse deletion. — coelacan talk — 09:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Linked the prior deletion review above. I note that this should not be speedy closed, as the nomination does offer new information not present in the AFD or prior DRV (the sources, not the award), but as the likely closer offer no opinion on overturning/endorsing. GRBerry 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This article seems to have had multiple deletion reviews. I limit my review to the immediately prior AfD and what the submitters have said above. Meeting the WP:WEB requirements for web notability listed by User:Francis Tyers at the beginning of the most recent AfD would certainly be sufficient for keeping, if they were met. He argues that this article does not meet them, and the version of Tales of the Questor at answers.com certainly has no reliable sources. So I'll base my answer on whether anything new appears in this DRV, new sources for example. Submitters above point out that Ursa Major is not a major award, and the fact that the print versions are self-published certainly is worth considering. I agree with User:Coelacan that the links provided by User:Adam Cuerden don't appear to be reliable sources. So I'm endorsing the deletion. I don't object to eventual re-creation with sources, though no adequate sources have appeared in any of the debates so far. EdJohnston 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicked! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

There is a legitimate reason to have a page of this title, for it was an episode of ITV's Police Camera Action! made in July 2002. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't have an episode of a TV show that is clearly notable, even if the title has been deleted several times. sunstar net^talk 23:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and salting None of the other Police Camera Action! episodes have articles. Why should this one, especially right after a wave of vandalism? Melchoir 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• They will have episodes soon, I've just got to find sources for them. --sunstar net^talk 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have actually started creating episodes for them.... see my contributions list. --sunstar net^talk 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's been unsalted. Unless you actually made the episode page before, there's nothing more to do here. -Amarkov moo! 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Editted and renamed article can be viewed at List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

This article originally contained a sizable list of movie adaptations as well as a list of popular culture references. Since several AFD comments suggested the adaptations should be kept, User:Stbalbach renamed it to List of adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray (and, I assume, trimmed it to do what it now said on the tin). The closing administrator deleted the renamed article with the comment "Interestingly enough, the keep arguments provided just as many reasons for deleting as the delete arguments". I don't see how the AFD discussion can be interpreted as a consensus that we shouldn't have a list of movie adaptations of Dorian Gray. —Celithemis 22:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note from closing admin: To expand on my statement reproduced above, the primary keep argument from Stbalbach (talk • contribs) (and used as the keep per basis of most of the other keep opinions) uses as it's primary argument the following statement:

  No one is going to actively engage in edit disputes on a daily basis trying to keep popular culture junk out of articles, it is not worth the time or effort - in reality, no one does it and so the popular culture sections just keep growing like weeds. The only solution is to segment this stuff out and keep it out of the main articles. IMO the real problem here is people trying to delete the "in popular culture" articles over some idealistic notion of what Wikipedia should be, without taking into account pragmatic realities.

  That rationale is not a basis for keeping the article—it is a basis for deleting it. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete the adaptations page; that is a reasonable topic for a subarticle. The AFD doesn't provide support for deleting that page; indeed basically everyone who commented on the newly scoped page, including delete voters, supported it. The discussion was obviously misread. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Your statement regarding comments on the editted page are misleading as only one person who had previously commented on the AfD commented on the editted version. That person changed from arguing weakly for delete to advocating keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  On the contrary, four people supported removing the pop culture while keeping an article on adaptations -- R. fiend, Otto4711, Hoary, and Walton monarchist89. In any case, the important point is that there is zero support for deleting the adaptations article, either in the AFD debate or in general policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, Christopher Parham represents what I said correctly. (Sorry, I'm too busy/lazy to check how he represented the other three people.) -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Otto4711 seemed to support deleting the article and allowing recreation of a sourced list of adaptations, but Mangojuice and I both supported keeping adapations as well. And I really don't see how the "keep per stbalbach" !votes could possibly be interpreted as delete arguments for the list of adaptations.

  Does anyone think that the list of adaptations would not survive AFD if listed on its own? —Celithemis 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  I hadn't got around to looking at the edited version. OK, I am now looking at it. It needs more work, but it's worthwhile, and I'd unambiguously vote "keep" on it. -- Hoary 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list the adaptations page. If a page is changed like that, it needs a full discussion, free from comments on the earlier version. -Amarkov moo! 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment I think from the recent AfDs on this and similar that there is no concensus in general about the handling of the "in popular culture" articles. I have seen perfectly good arguments both ways, and myself am torn between saying that they are generally non-encyclopedic and that they represent an essential safety valve to permit better editing of the main articles. In that situation there will inevitably be contested closings, inconsistent results, abd the opportunity to reverse from repeated AfDs. In this case, I can't see the article, but I accept Hoary's statement that it's now acceptable, and we should overturn the deletion so people can consider it and edit it, though i expect it back on AfD sooner or later. DGG 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question - seeing as how my name is being bandied about in this review and since I didn't get a look at the re-done Adaptations article, is there a way for me to see it so that I can make my views clear on it instead of having others try to do it for me? Otto4711 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  I added the link above to the renamed article. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Overturn deletion of the Adaptations iteration of the article. Otto4711 04:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think overturn and relist is the appropriate suggestion given the significant changes to the article that occurred late in the AfD cycle to address concerns. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Query? Since Doug agrees to a relist and there are no otstanding arguments in endorsement, can this be speedy closed and relisted? It seems like further discussion at AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I (admittedly out of process, invoking WP:SNOW) undeleted the adaptations page, either before this DRV, or at least before I noticed it. It seemed quite obvious to me. This adaptations page is different from the one nominated, and with it being the only article on most of the film's based on the novel, can we honestly say every film in the universe gets an article except those based on Dorian Gray? Leave everything as it currently is; it's already done. The pop culture crap can stay in deletionville. -R. fiend 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Image:Scrub sponges.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Image:Yarn toilet brush.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The images are needed for illustrations in an article and there wasn't even a discussion about them. No one informed me of wanting to delete them and I don't know who deleted them. There are needed in the article. Chuck Marean 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Deletion logs show they were deleted as replacable fair use. It shouldn't be hard to visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. The possibility of someone doing so makes these replacable fair use. GRBerry 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Invalid fair use claim; easily replaceable, or just use images from Commons. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Deleted as replacable fair use was the correct result. I agree with GRBerry and ZimZalaBim. Please read Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy: Even if the use is fair use, the image still must meet the requirement that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." As GRBerry wrote, just visit your local store(s), take a picture of one of each, and upload those with a release to the public domain or under the GFDL. -- Jreferee 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was deleted under the misguided notion that vaporware does not merit an article, which is simply untrue in wikipedia, as there are many articles about vaporwares. Taku 09:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion unless notability is shown with reference to non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you just do a bit of google search? I found [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Need more? -- Taku 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. We need multiple reliable sources (meaning that you could write the article from them). Only one of those could actually source any content; the rest are passing mentions, and one is even a forum post, which is certainly not reliable. And my search didn't turn up anything better. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• okay. If this is the way wikipedia is going to be, then I can live with that. But the implication means we have to delete lots of articles like this one. -- Taku 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does. If you have any in particular to point out, I'll do some research and nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You might want to think of Wikipedia as a compilier of information that already exists in published sources. -- Jreferee 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:Notability. The deletion was properly closed and I endorse the deletion. -- Jreferee 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (3 articles 3 sub categories) – (CfD)

Category:Cities in Kurdistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (19 articles 1 sub category)

Category:Villages in Kurdistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (2 articles)

Ignoring the additional content issues and pov issues completely (which plagued the cfd). I believe these categories fail to meet WP:V.

--Cat out 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you determine what falls inside Kurdistan and what doesn't in a reliable and verifiable way? I challenge anyone to provide this information, otherwise I can't see how the inclusion criteria would be inline with WP:V. --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to add: It is not my job to prove that a category lacks an inclusion criteria, its the other way around. The creator (or someone else) is supposed to provide this information. --Cat out 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Renamed to make clear this is multiple categories, and moved within the day's log to put it immediately above the review to undelete the categories that were deleted. This is the review to delete the ones that were kept, down there is the one to get back the ones deleted. GRBerry 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Strange, isn't it? --Cat out 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This nomination had been sitting without being closed for over a week after the normal discussion period. I looked over the comments provided and felt that there was not a consensus to support keeping or deleting. So I closed the nomination as no consensus. In removing the nomination templates, I decided to speedy the two that were empty and are now listed below for recreation. I did update my closing comments to reflect this fact. While there was no consensus, I did suggest a possible rename from the discussion that I thought might be able to reach consensus if it was proposed. I still feel my close was proper and that maybe this discussion can move the issue to some form of consensus. Vegaswikian 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and speedy close. Nothing in the nomination concerns to the CFD close, so what, exactly, are we supposed to review? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Angus. Nom gives no rationale for review.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I respect that you believe they fail WP:V, but there was no consensus to that effect. DRV isn't XfD round 2. -Amarkov moo! 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Well... I do not know what more to say. I Gave a lengthy rationale and people hesitated to vote. I gave a short one people complained. I am not sure what more to say. I even provided 4 completely different maps of Kurdistan to demonstrate the WP:V problem... --Cat out 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I interpret this listing as essentially an opportunity to see the general picture, and can be closed when we have decided the case below. More logically, this question must be decided first, and then the case below. DGG 00:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)DGG 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure -- except as I comment in section below re the deleted categories. --Diyarbakır 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and speedy close, no review rationale, and renaming the categories (a better idea, IMO) is an editorial decision. --Coredesat 15:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Turkish Kurdistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Category:Villages in Turkish Kurdistan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Improper deletion. Category was depopulated during a no consensus CFD. --Diyarbakır 08:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Not, strictly speaking, a WP:CSD C1 candidate, but what is DRV expected to achieve here? You may recreate the category if you wish as CSD G4 does not apply to speedy deletions. However, dispute resolution would be a more appropriate way to resolve the underlying conflict. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  A dispute resolution was attempted but was ignored: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan --Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment merged both categories, identical nominations and commentary to date. GRBerry 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. - Francis Tyers · 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Still fails to meet WP:V. This is not how we categories elsewhere. --Cat out 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Other similar noms: #Category:Airlines_of_Kurdistan_and_Sub-category_Airlines_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan, #Category:Current_governments_in_Kurdistan --Cat out 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 2 This is the review to get back the categories deleted as empty that were mentioned in a CFD. Immediately above is the review to delete the ones that were kept from that CFD. GRBerry 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I was the administrator who closed the main discussion as no consensus. When doing that these two categories were empty and apparently had been for a while. As a result, they meet the C1 criteria for speedy deletion. That is what I did instead of removing the CfD notices and leaving the empty categories around. Since they were speedy deleted as empty, anyone should be able to recreate them if there are valid entries for those categories. But as I suggested to the editor who first discussed this with me, it might be better to get a new name resolved before doing a recreate. Vegaswikian 19:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've seen this issue being debated in a number of places, but can't remember all of them. I'd argue that 'in Kurdistan' needs to go, but 'in Kurdish areas' would be acceptable. Somewhere I thought there was a proposal to rename the categories. Can anyone who has been following the issue add some information about the debates elsewhere? EdJohnston 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  There was some debate here on this Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_9#Category:Settlements_in_Kurdistan
  I do not think cat:"kurdish areas" also meets verifiability. We lack a census to determine what area is kurdish. Also even with a census US states and cities are not categorized in the proposed manner. --Cat out 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  OK, I admit the verifiability problem with 'Kurdish areas'. I withdraw my suggestion that the categories be renamed. EdJohnston 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Since they are not verifiable, shouldn't they be deleted. --Cat out 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, since they were only speedied as unpopulated. But it really would be best to address the issues first. -Amarkov moo! 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - These may have been legitimately deleted due to being empty, but my purpose in bringing this here is to review the fact that the categories were improperly emptied during the CFD (and was discussed there) and thus their empty state was the problem; deleting them after such poor conduct encourages the tactic of depopulating categories during CFD. --Diyarbakır 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  As I asked before can you please give us your inclusion criteria. How do you determine what falls inside kurdistan and what doesn't? --Cat out 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  That'll be our famous "verifiability, not truth". If there's a plausible source that says X is in Kurdistan, then X is in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Is there any verifiable source that declares kurdistan as a country? Are there any verifiable borders for kurdistan? Since no one answered to either of these questions, the categories are NOT verifiable. --Cat out 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Subcategories of Category:Settlements by region would not necessarily be countries as the text on that page states. Any region which is not a nation state, whether it is Europe, Asia, Kurdistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, Tibet, New Guinea, or something else, is going to require more careful policing than by-government categories will. Every proposed inclusion would need to be considered. However, I think you'd have a hard job convincing unbiased observers that Kermanshah, Arbil, or Diyarbakır, were not cities in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  If you look in our Diyarbakir article, you see its attribution as the 'unofficial capital of Turkish Kurdistan', but the reference for that consists of two blog postings, neither of which is a reliable source. Even if that city is correctly placed in Kurdistan (which can't be shown currently), Wikipedia is unlikely to be able to provide that information based on reliable sources for all the cities that people want to put in this category. So they will probably just put them in anyway, based on 'personal knowledge'. By vetoing recreation of these categories, we are sensibly anticipating the fact that any actual attributions to the category are most unlikely to be based on reliable sources. Lack of a census (that would record people's national origins) is certainly a major part of this problem. EdJohnston 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Angusmclellan on the contrary, I would expect unbiased observers to think the contrary. This map redraws borders of Greece and removes Turkey from existence. Are you proposing that we should retag all Turkish cities accordingly? How about this map which redraws the entire middle east.
  Wikipedia:Categories#Some_general_guidelines #8: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."
  --Cat out 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Well, it took all of fifteen seconds to find references to Diyarbakir being the "the so-called capital of Turkey's Kurdistan", and "the politico-cultural capital of Turkish Kurdistan", and "the capital of what Kurdish clandestine nationalists call Kurdistan", and simply "the capital of Turkish Kurdistan", using Google books. Any editor who was interested could have done the same as I did: Find sources: books, news, scholar I could hypothesise why there might be a problem, but that would soon head into WP:ABF territory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  The politico-cultural capital? That doesn't even make sense and is probably a controversial definiton. A non-contraversial way to reference to Diyarbakir is that it is the largest city of Eastern Turkey or that it is the Capital of Diyarbakir province.
  Based on the search you provided... there are a number of false positives with "Persian Capitals" and "Diyarbakir being province capital". In addition scholar and news returned no matches. I fail to see a widespread acceptance of Diyarbakir as the capital of Kurdistan. diyarbakir+capital+"turkish kurdistan" returned no matches. Some Kurdish groups claim Arbil and Kirkuk as their 'capitals'
  --Cat out 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion of categories emptied out of process. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New Ivies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

At the time this article was deleted, it was a freshly coined term that had not yet taken off. Yet, it is clear that this term has been since adopted by the universities described as well as the education community. A simple Google search for "new ivies" or "new ivy" reveals coverage in sources like college newspapers, blogs, etc. I think it has entered the cultural lexicon and probably merits an explanation. Andre (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Are there any sources for the term (as opposed to just usages)? -Amarkov moo! 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. A quick search reveals one source and evidence that another exists (evidence for even a third source, but rather garbled, is also available). --N Shar (talk • contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy: allow re-creation This term was becoming N at the time of the last Afd. as a result of a Newsweek article that included a rating of those schools.

"25 New Ivies; The nation's elite colleges these days include more than Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Why? It's the tough competition for all the top students. That means a range of schools are getting fresh bragging rights.; [U.S. Edition], Barbara Kantrowitz, Karen Springen. Newsweek. Aug 21, 2006. Vol. 148, Iss. 7; p. 66,"

In addition,many schools which came out well have put it on their official web sites, egg. stories/082106TuftsNamedANewIvy.htm Tufts, RPI, as well as local newspapers, such as [www.rnews.com/Story_2004. cfm?ID=40983&rnews_story_type=7 Rochester], Pittsburgh, and " Weekend Journal; Taste -- de gustibus: Rejecting the Ivies Before They Reject You--Peter Schroeder. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Aug 25, 2006. p. W.11"

Perhaps we are interpreting WP:NEW a little too rigorously. DGG 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:NEO is appropriately strict. As the term 'new ivies' spreads around, will it continue to refer to the same group of colleges, or will it be a constantly fluctuating group? How would a college substantiate that it was a New Ivy? Would Newsweek continue to be the owner of the term? Why keep this article unless multiple reliable sources recognize this as a term that has entered the common vocabulary? EdJohnston 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per EdJohnston. This term still lacks firm definition. This should wait a while longer. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion' - As background, Wikipedia has the following articles on ivies: Wikipedia:Ivies, Little Ivies, Public Ivies, Ivies, Southern Ivies, Jesuit Ivy, and Hidden Ivies. As used in the cited references, the term new ivies seems to refer to ivies that are new, rather than "new ivies". Perhaps in the future there may be a new ivies vs. old ivies distinction (like new money vs. old money). However, there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:Notability. This appears to be the consensus in the AfD, which was closed properly. -- Jreferee 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ASCII comic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Seems like outlandish deletion to me. Overwhelming consensus to keep during AfD (remember, Merge is basically keep). The closing admin claims that "no reliable sources provided", which is completely false if he had bothered to read either AfD or the article itself. Totally pissed off,  Grue  07:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • For those who think it was "within admin's discretion" to close like Samuel did, I have to tell you about 3 factors that closing admin usually considers when closing AfDs (from my experience):
    1. Sheer numbers: 8 keeps, 4 deletes -> clear consensus to keep
    2. Tendency: After the article was expanded, almost everyone was for keeping. Therefore there's tendency to keep.
    3. Quality of argument: the argument for deleting the article is not of any quality, all we have are some cliches like "fancruft" without any links to policies that this article fails at.
  • Basically, what we have here is a consensus to keep. No way in hell the closing admin can disregard these 3 factors and delete the article. What we have here is a clear closing error, and I fail to see how it can be otherwise.  Grue  08:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. - Francis Tyers · 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • May I ask why?  Grue  14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the content wasn't merged, it should have been. But I understand the content was merged. This topic does not have enough reliable sources to stand alone as an article, it is better placed in ASCII art. - Francis Tyers · 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't merged, and afaik GFDL requires that merged content is not deleted from history. So, undeletion is needed regardless of whether the article was merged or not.  Grue  20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Actually, it should simply redirect to ASCII art, as that's what it is basically. bogdan 11:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of people who participiated in this AfD seem to think otherwise...  Grue  14:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I'd say to merge, because I believe that is a different, and valid, outcome. With so many people saying to merge it, it shouldn't have just been deleted. The issue is, nobody gave any reason why it should be merged. So relist and tell people to actually say why. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• overturn From the discussion, I see it as no consensus, just as the previous AfD. It was not a correct closure. Then, if people want to debate the merge, they don't need to do it on AfD. DGG 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closure against consensus. Spacepotato 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Wikipedia is not a democracy. While there was not an expressed consensus to delete, the nomination raised issues of verifiability, and keep commenters mainly argued on issues of notability. It was within admin discretion to delete. I would recommend a rewrite of this article using reliable sources, which would then address the concerns of the original nominator as well as the closing admin. I see no error in process in this close, however. GassyGuy 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "I would recommend a rewrite of this article using reliable sources". Uh, that's what I already did during the course of AfD. And with so many keep !votes, it wasn't within one particular admin's discretion to override community consensus.  Grue  07:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You've already said as much. I gave my opinion. Please do not repeat yours as if mine is inherently flawed, especially in a rather condescending manner. There's really little to gain by commenting on every dissenting opinion. You've brought it up for a review - let it run its course. GassyGuy 08:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The discussion ended in a consensus for preserving the content, either by keeping the article or merging it. As I did not participate in the AfD, I cannot say with certainty whether the merge was or was not performed. However, the fact that the article was deleted instead of redirected with a {{R from merge}} tag suggests that a merge was not performed. Thus, I believe the deletion should be overturned, the article reinstated, and a merge to Ascii art suggested via {{mergeto}}. Please note: I think a merge should be suggested/recommended, but not necessarily enforced. -- Black Falcon 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as closed against consensus. Bucketsofg 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Within admin discretion to delete. Merging relevant material from the former article in ASCII art is, of course, perfectly reasonable. Nandesuka 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Since when 4 deletes against 8 keeps is within admin's discretion to delete? Especially when every reason for deletion was adressed during AfD? For the article to be deleted, there's got to be consensus to delete. There's no consensus, simple as that.  Grue  15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Since AfD is not about vote-counting. Hope that helps. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's about consensus. There was no consensus to delete AND there was no reason to delete which was valid at the time the article was deleted. Hope that helps.  Grue  22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Luigi30 deleted this article on an open source video game (a popular Angband variant) citing only 'spam' and further explaining himself that 'it read like an ad'. Is this guy for real? Anyway, it was a genuine article on a notable subject, it was not spam, it was by no means an ad, and the delete was completely uncalled for and the work of this man alone. Call it abuse of rights or whatever, this article needs an undelete, and then, perhaps if one finds it necessary a minor rewrite. IDX 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Judging solely by the cached version on Google: This looks borderline for a speedy, but there were no sources and no assertion of notability. I don't think it would've survived an AFD, and a casual search didn't turn up any news coverage that could be used to improve it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It shan't be too difficult to cite sources. I admit this was a failing of mine. However, I still assert that Luigi's decision was misguided. If it were undeleted I'd find sources myself (there are plenty). There is an article on ZAngband - which going by this website [11] is now less popular than Heng/Entroband. There are articles on the most minor of open source games on Wikipedia. I don't see why this is not notable - and if properly sourced, can't be an article. And there are still broken likes around [12] IDX 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind that some of those open-source game articles might exist simply because nobody's noticed them and had them deleted yet. It's always better to make a case for an article on its own merits than to base that case on other articles. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The claim to notability is that it is based on something else. There is nothing that establishes that this game is downloaded/played, and the list of "roguelike" computer games is enormous. What sets this one apart from the mass? Well, the article gives the update list. It lists the features. It doesn't read like an ad so much as it does the version history from the download. Geogre 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm a roguelike aficianado. I'm aware of Hengband's existence, but not of any evidence that it is "popular" (and, popular compared to what?). If you can find reliable sources demonstrating that, an article might make sense. But there, are as [13] notes somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, "1001 Angband Variants!", and being one doesn't automatically make one worthy of an article. Nandesuka 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Angband, problem solved. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh. If it redirects anywhere, it should go to List of Angband variants (AfD discussion), if that survives. —Cryptic 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no evidence that this is more notable than any other freeware game. No opinion on redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was deleted in December 2006 because it failed to meet notability guidelines for a web page (see AFD here). The site has drawn some recent attention in the media, including prominent blogs such as the Huffington Post [14] and Wonkette [15]. The criteria under which the original article was deleted appear to have changed. "Conservapedia" now has 164,000 Ghits, where it had no more than 20 at the time of deletion. Justin (Authalic) 18:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article wasn't deleted for want of google hits, but due to a lack of notability. Are there now multiple (or sufficient) independent, non-trivial reports with which to write an article? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Some information I found (i) Gibson, Charles (February 23, 2007) World News with Charles Gibson ABC News now/World new now. (reporting, "And among today's top rising searches is Conservapedia. We're not sure why this is rising. But a group of self-described online conservatives have begun their own version of Wikipedia, which they say is both anti-Christian and anti-American, their opinion. And so they've tried to create an alternative."); (ii) Kansas City Star (February 27, 2007) Blog bits. Section: B; Page B8 (writing, "In the Wikipedia, there is an extensive and well-written entry on the term African-American, which serves as anchor pages for many other related topics on our history, culture, religions, political movements, civic organizations and more. In the Conservapedia, I could find no entry for African-American, Black or even Negro. There is however, a page there for "Mulatto." Just in time for Barack Obama's presidential campaign!"). (already cited by JoshuaZ below (see [6])-- Jreferee 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and continued protection from re-creation. This website still does not satisfy WP:WEB. Huffington Post and Wonkette are not reliable sources, they are blogs, and even the Wonkette entry was trivial. WP:WEB calls for sourcing from multiple non-trivial independent works, and that does not exist as of right now. If in a couple months months the website has gained recognition in sufficiently indepedent and reliable sources, then perhaps it can come back here.--RWR8189 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on new sources I think the protection can be removed, no judgement on whether the article would definitively satisfy WP:WEB.--RWR8189 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nothing has changed here significantly enough for this article to come back. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion absent evidence of non-trivial reliable sources from which a proper article could be written. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Still no reliable sources. Wickethewok 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I was considering saying to overturn, but I missed the word "blog". Blogs are almost never reliable, and being well known does not make them such. As mentioned above, Wonkette doesn't really give it non-trivial coverage anyway. -Amarkov moo! 03:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to overturn. Really, if sources like that have been found, I don't mind if you strike my comment out for me. -Amarkov moo! 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted There are still no reliable sources citing Conservapedia yet. BTW, I link to some Conservapedia criticisms on my user page. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 12:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Overturn per Joshua. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why not incubate the article at Eagle Forum, using reliable sources, until it becomes large enough for its own article? Andjam 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because if there were enough reliable sources to write about it at Eagle Forum then there'd be enough to write at least a short article about it at Conservapedia. There aren't, so here we are. — coelacan talk — 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't really associated with Eagle Forum is it, other than that both have overlapping people working on them? Corvus cornix 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - There are no non-trivial reliable sources currently that mean this article has a chance of coming back. Of course, I don't mind it if the nominator creates a version in his userspace, and brings the issue up next time at DRV. But for now, it's endorsed. --sunstar net^talk 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No reliable sources => no article, regardless of Google hits. If this station web site is truly famous, it's bound to get coverage in the mainstream media eventually. When that happens, the article might be restored. EdJohnston 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Conservapedia was deleted last December because it was not notable. However, it now gets 200,000 Google hits and it has been covered by several media outlets (Guardian, Mobuzz TV, Wired). I believe it is now notable enough for inclusion. --h2g2bob 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation/Undelete per H2, additional reliable sources include [16], [17], [18]. There are more than enough sources now to write a decent stub, and WP:WEB is easily satisfied. JoshuaZ 19:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do not count this due to a conflict of interest, as I've been editing fairly actively on Conservapedia. I think Conservapedia may have become borderline-notable in the past 24 hours and may at least be a low-grade Internet phenomenon.

Over the past few days there's been considerable merriment at Conservapedia's expense in non-conservative blogs. Some of it is deserved, but some of it is not-so-innocent merriment. They've been laughing at genuine content; adding tongue-in-cheek phony content; being taken in by phony content and laughing at it, laughing at Conservapedia for being taken in by phony content, and generally participating in the easy task of heaping scorn on the whole thing.

Anyway. The result of all this is that literally within the twelve hours or so, Conservapedia has gotten itself noticed. As I write this, a search on Google News now returns twelve hits including Carlisle Sentinel (PA), Guardian Unlimited, Information World Review, Wired New (quite a good article), and, believe it or not (and I do find it hard to believe) CBS News. These are just blogs-are-talking articles, don't expect Katie Couric to lead with it. Not a big deal. CBS News!

Oh, and Wikimedia asked me if I'd be willing to answer questions from a Congressional Quarterly reporter who apparently contacted them with questions about Conservapedia.

As I write this, Alexa rank is about 600,000, so I don't want to press the point too hard. But I'd suggest keeping an eye on Google News and on Alexa to see whether this is a seven day's wonderflash in the pan or whether Conservapedia actually ends up getting some traction. Of course there's absolutely no rush to have an article on Conservapedia in Wikipedia. If it fails deletion review someone can always try again if and when it's more-than-borderline notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather wait a month than a week; internet phenomena usually turn out to be rather ephemeral, and I'm interested to see just what sort of staying power Conservapedia has. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant to use the idiom "nine days' wonder" and got it wrong. And I didn't mean for it to be taken literally. And as I said, there's no rush. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. User:JoshuaZ asked me to take a second look at this issue, since he has offered some better sources (see his entry two comments above). The first one in his list is a column at cbsnews.com called 'Blogophile'. From reading that one, it's clear that the author looked at Conservapedia and then looked at a few blogs. No interviews were done, and no other news outlets were cited. The last one in his list is one from the Kansas City News, but it seems it is not an item that actually appeared in the newspaper, it's a posting in an associated blog. I still think we need to wait for more media coverage. By not reporting on Conservapedia in their regular printed news pages, editors are expressing a judgment on its importance. Perhaps another DRV in three months can be considered. EdJohnston 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'll take a look at JoshuaZ's sources, this is interesting. --sunstar net^talk 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify, there are other editors other than just me who have given new sources. Those sources are highly relevant as well. JoshuaZ 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying this, JoshuaZ. What are the sources?? --sunstar net^talk 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If you look above, more sources are given by h2g2bob and Dpbsmith. These include articles in the Guardian and Wired. JoshuaZ 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the deletion. There are enough third-party sources now. I agree that the Wonkette reference is trivial, but the article at the Huffington Post shouldn't be discounted merely because it's labeled a "blog". The author's bio shows serious journalistic credentials. The article in Wired News is particularly valuable. Caution: If the article is undeleted, nothing in it should be flatly asserted as fact based solely on what the self-admitted ideologues at Conservapedia say. Acceptable: "The site reports that it has x number of registered users." Unacceptable: "The site has x number of registered users." JamesMLane t c 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Josh and James. Guettarda 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per JoshuaZ, h2g2bob, Dpbsmith. --sunstar net^talk 09:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't say "per dpbsmith." I did not say the closing should be overturned. My comment was exactly that: a comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The site is attracting considerable attention and even Jimmy Wales has commented on it.[19] The current arrangement, with a redirect to Eagle Forum but ever increasing Conservapedia-related information there, is unsatisfactory. Bondegezou 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• (Possibly Weak?) Allow recreation (or Undelete, if all the previous version lacked was sourcing) based on the sources. Personally (read: not based on Wiki Policy), I'd wait at least until the project has proven that it has come out of its childhood state and that it doesn't collapse under the weight of its sudden quasi-notability (especially in regard to bandwidth and stability). However, those are personal issues, and judging by the policies/guidelines, the sources should be good enough to write an article. --Sid 3050 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak recreate. Conservapedia is now attracting a large amount of attention. (Which might backfire...the project seems like a little bit of a mess, since there isn't just one kind of "conservative" out there.) Thunderbunny 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The site is referenced at New Scientist and Wired News and is being referenced (mostly made fun of) all over the internet. People will be searching for information about it and it needs an entry other than a redirect that is just confusing.Tmtoulouse 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn They have risen to nearly 10,000 in traffic rank. This means either a tremendous increase in interest, or a concerted DOS attack. In either case it would seem to me to be notable. Paul Studier 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've started working on a draft using the above sources for a new article at User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia. Feel free to help out. JoshuaZ 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not that it means much, but a plausible possibility of the jump in traffic is due to the fact that Conservapedia was linked to on 4chan's /b/.
    ...But that would be giving 4chan too much credit, I suppose. --Kenjoki 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the original delete decision. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion as set out in this deletion review by h2g2bob, JoshuaZ, and Dpbsmith so that the topic now meets WP:N. Please use the source material to add content to the article. Please do not write the article and then add the sources. At least one source per sentence would be great! -- Jreferee 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since February 28th, it seems to me that the Internet's interest in Conservapedia has faded. A Google News search shows the most recent article to be dated March 1st, and the list of hits in an ordinary Google Web search hasn't changed much in the last few days. Conservapedia has apparently done some major beefing up of its server and bandwidth, and as I write this the site is alive and well. I'm not sure what they're doing about registering new users—I don't want to try registering as a sockpuppet just to see whether registration is enabled—but vandalism, which was wildly out of control, has now died down and the pranks have mostly cleaned out. (Yes, there are still some silly real articles, but it no longer says that Jesus has announced that he is God's nephew rather than his son, etc). I said before I thought Conservapedia might be borderline-notable. Well, I'm less sure now. (OTOH, Alexa's curves are still rising. By the way... does anyone here use the Alexa toolbar? Has anyone here ever seen anyone using it? Just wondering.) In any case, there's no reason to rush at all on having an article on Conservapedia. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we shouldn't care if anyone "scoops" us. I wouldn't be surprised if Conservapedia was clearly notable in a couple of months, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't.
• Comment Also, as I note on the Talk page of JoshuaZ's draft, it seems to me that there is a lot of stuff I'd like to know about Conservapedia, and would want to see in an article, for which no sources are currently available. Andrew Schlafly is obviously associated with it. One article calls him "the" founder, but only in one place; the rest of the article uses the phrase "founders." Is he "the" founder or not? If not, do we really know who the other "founders" are? It's dangerously tempting to make assumptions about this and other things. Who funds it? One guesses it's Schlafly personally, but does anyone know? Many obvious questions, currently few sourced answers. I think JoshuaZ's draft is a good idea, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Palindromic words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Palindromic phrases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Palindromic phrases (English) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Query whether decision to delete reflects the majority view in deletion debate. Matt 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The three pages Palindromic words, Palindromic phrases and Palindromic Phrases (English) were all included in the same deletion proposal. Before the deletion discussion was moved or removed (I can no longer find it to verify), I counted 9 votes to keep, 10 votes to transwiki (which I understand to mean move to Wiktionary) and only then delete from Wikipedia, and 8 straight deletes. Contrary to the majority opinion that the content should not be lost, the pages and links thereto appear to have been summarily deleted with no indication that the content has been moved elsewhere. I propose that the pages and links should be restored. Matt 12:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse. Afd seems proper. Palindromic phrases (English) never existed; Palindromic words was properly transwikied (transwiki log). Palindromic phrases and List of palindromic phrases in English patently don't meet wikt:WS:CFI to my eye, so no point in transwikiing, but if Wiktionary wants them (and I'll point this drv out to some active Wiktionarians to be sure), there's no harm in a temporary undelete. —Cryptic 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I already pointed it out over a week ago at wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Do we want an appendix of palindromic phrases?. The ensuing discussion noted the existence of wikt:Category:English palindromes for which such lists should be considered a to-do list — lists of words being categories of words at Wiktionary. Uncle G 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But what about the phrases? Is the view that they are or aren't suitable for Wiktionary? If not then the Wikipedia deletion debate needs to be reopened as a "Wikipedia or nothing" question since many people originally voted for deletion from Wikipedia on the understanding that the phrases would be "transwikied". Matt 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. I am pretty sure that Palindromic phrases (English) did exist. I think the confusion (and possibly the reason I could not find the deletion log) is that it was at some point renamed/redirected to List of palindromic phrases in English. Now that I can see the deletion log again, I am reminded that Palindromic words was indeed put into some sort of "holding area" at Wiktionary. As far as I see the process was never properly completed: the list is effectively unfindable at Wiktionary, and all the links from the Wikipedia article were deleted rather than changed to point to Wiktionary. However, fixing this does not require undeletion. I would like to see the palindromic phrases treated similarly so that the content is not lost. Matt 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Either no article ever existed at Palindromic phrases (English) or the database is screwed. I suspect the former. Maybe a different title? Guy (Help!) 13:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It was Palindromic Phrases (English). No deleted revisions there except a redirect to List of palindromic phrases in English, though. —Cryptic 13:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh for goodness' sake. Sorry, but this ridiculous case sensitivity is one of my favourite pet hates. Matt 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Deletion discussions are not closed on vote counts alone. Policies such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary govern the process.

      As for the list being unfindable: That's because no editor such as you has stepped forward to do the work to put the information into proper Wiktionary format. Wiktionary is a wiki. There's nothing stopping you from doing the work yourself. Go and ensure that all of the actual word articles for the words on the transwikified list of palindromic words are properly categorized into wikt:Category:English palindromes and the other subcategories of wikt:Category:Palindromes — which are the already existent categories of words in the dictionary that encyclopaedia articles should point to for lists of palindromic words in various languages. Uncle G 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

      • I am aware of this, but the person who deleted the list from Wikipedia should not have left things in a state where it appears to someone unfamiliar with these minutiae that the information in the list has been lost. Even I thought it had been lost, and I participated in the original debate where, I am now reminded, it was noted that the single words at least had been "transwikied". I am also not a fan of the category method. It is too stark, and gives no opportunity for additional comments such as were present in the list, or for mini-definitions in an easily accessible form (without having to click on every single link). The list currently at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words is a far better format IMO. Matt 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse List of palindrones in one particular language? No. WP:NOT --Doc^g 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse "votes" to transwiki are properly counted as supporting the deletion of the content from wikipedia. If the suggested target can't or won't accept the material a simple delete is the necessary and correct outcome unless people explicitly say otherwise. That it certainly how I understood my own "vote" in the debate. Eluchil404 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse First is a interesting topic, and it doesnt harm anyone being here or be transwikied. This wikipedia is in English, and a list of palindromes in english is a great idea. Second, it surely have encyclopedic value. People are arguing that Wikipedia is a dictionary, but when a palindrome has been in a dictionary? A dictionary is a book of meanings for words, and as far as I know, anitalavalatina (the only one I know, nd its in spanish) doesn´t have any meaning. This articles doesn´t harm anyone, and as Jimbo said once: hard drives are cheap.--ometzit<col> 01:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused by your "endorse" vote. Other people are using "endorse" to indicate support for deletion, but judging by your comments you seem to be against deletion? I guess "endorse" is just an unfortunate choice of word. It could be understood to mean either endorsal of the original deletion, or endorsal of the proposal here to reverse the deletion. Matt 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I might have screwed something but i`m too lazy to corrected so im plain words: I want the list back, whatever that mean here. I`m against the deletion, endorsing reverting the deletion.--ometzit<col> 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, WP:WINAD. >Radiant< 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Per Radiant, Eluchil and Doc. This is unmaintenable, hard to source and unclear what the inclusion criterion are (for example if I have any palindrome P should we include "Racecar" + P + "Racecar"?. If someone wants to have a list of notable palindromes (with sourcing for the fame of the palindromes) that would be ok. Roughly speaking, an list of all articles which are palindromes (and are important for being palindromes would be a fine list). So for example it might include Madam, I'm Adam or A man, a plan, a canal, Panama or others where there is enough sourcing to write something nontrival (I'm presuming there would be enough in these two cases). JoshuaZ 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just do not understand why people feel the need to delete perfectly reasonable content that many people have contributed to, put effort into, and no doubt find interesting. And for the sake of what? Saving a few bytes on a server somewhere? I am extremely disappointed by this outcome. Matt 15:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Jeffree Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Jeffree Star is a celebrity who is well known for his controversial music. His fame started mainly from sites like myspace and is well for being a make up artist to the celebrities, including kelly Osbourne. Though the article that was originally created seemed liked a biography page, stated in the reason for it's original deletion. The article should be recreated do to the fact that he has a new EP coming out, titled Plastic Surgery Slumber Party that will be released in March on iTunes. Also he has made many media appearances such as being on America's Next Top Model. He was originally an Underground Celebrity but now has emerged to be comparable to any other television star. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs).

Category:Mega Man antagonists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

No consensus was reached here. The same is true of all the similar categories also dicussed RobbieG 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question: You are claiming that User:Mike Selinker closed the CfD incorrectly? If so please spell out your objection. I can see that summarizing the different votes could have been challenge. All I can find is your message to Mike [20] where you argue there was no consensus. I hope we will see Mike's opinion here also. EdJohnston 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, to clarify: many people put forward their opinions on the CfD, and their were (IMHO) strong arguments delivered by both sides (I personally feel that one side was stronger, but I can understand the concern expressed by those supporting the other POV). User:Mike Selinker closed the discussion, as I understand it, on the grounds that it had been going on too long. He then proceeded to follow the suggestion he himself made during the debate, with no apparent reference to anyone else's suggestions. I believe that to have been an incorrect closing of the CfD; if I'm wrong, then I'm sorry and please forgive me, as I'm rather unfamiliar with this aspect of Wikipedia (I normally just edit the articles themselves). RobbieG 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking back the suggestion was not his originally, so he was taking other people's suggestions into account after all. However, the fact remains that the disputes were never truly resolved, and both viewpoints had a similar degree of support. I do not consider that to constitute "a consensus." RobbieG 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to give my perspective, and I thank RobbieG for alerting me to his concern. I closed it because it had been 15 days since the nomination, so it seemed like it should be closed. When there is a contentious debate like this one, I look at three things: 1) Is there an overall consensus to delete? In this case, no. 2) Is there a majority opinion to do something? In this case, I believe that there was at least a tie considering votes in favor of either deleting or merging. 3) Is there clear precedent to make a certain type of change? In this case, absolutely. All POV terms for characters--heroes, villains, protagonists, and antagonists--the latter very clearly at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Fictional_antagonists, which had unanimous consent--had been merged to "characters". It seemed that all that added up to a case for merging (not deleting), and so I did it. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Is precedence addressed by any Wikipedia guideline or policy? I'm not sure what the advised practice is in such circumstances. Several people - for example, I think User:Cosmetor, argued that video games were exceptional circumstances and fundamentally different from the other fictional antagonists. I stress that that is not my viewpoint, but it was a concern that was not addressed. If Cosmetor was correct, then precedent was, in this instance, irrelevant. RobbieG 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes. It's governed by WP:CCC, meaning that consensus can change and that precedence does not tend to hold over the long term. ColourBurst 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but that precedent was three weeks earlier, not the long term.--Mike Selinker 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As "substantially similar" recreations, WP:CSD G4 applied, and debate was unnecessary. Considering the debate, which is frankly irrelevant, there were many similar CFDs closed over the recent days, including at least two on the same day, which merged "X villains" into "X characters" Local consensus does not override broader consensus, and the broader consensus was clearly to merge up these categories. Cosmetor made the same argument dozens of times, with almost no impact in terms of editors citing his argument. WP:CCC isn't relevant over such a short timescale. In my opinion the debate should have been closed as a speedy delete, not a delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable closing according to guideline and precedent. >Radiant< 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as nominator. Closing admin has explained his reasoning very clearly here and acted on a large number of precedents regarding POV-named fictional character categories. Otto4711 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a sensible streamlining of fictional character categories. I agree with the reasoning of User:Otto4711 who was the nominator of the original CfD. EdJohnston 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Who in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

As background, there has been a "drive" lately by a number of users to delete "in popular culture" articles. For example the nominator Otto4711 has nominated 24 articles in the past 2 days and dozens more over the past few weeks, along with a few other users. The arguments are mostly the same, citing WP:NOT. However WP:NOT says nothing specific about "in popular culture" articles, the nominator did not clearly establish this article is in violation of WP:NOT, nor did any of the other delete votes - it is an opinion without supporting rationale. In fact three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article! Deleting the "in popular culture" articles has been controversial and it's been about 50/50 depending on who happens to vote and the quality of the article if it survives or not. Controversy can be seen in the discussions of each AfD, and This discussion. Wikipedia has a long and clear tradition of "in popular culture" articles and there are not clear rules against it. The only argument with strength in this AfD is that the article had some cleanup issues and was not of the best quality, but those are content level issues and have nothing to do with the articles existence. Stbalbach 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion — this article is in the same boat as Rush in popular culture, which was deleted with overwhelming consensus. I feel that overall, consensus is to delete these types of articles. — Deckiller 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Many pop culture articles are surviving AfD, there is not "overwhelming consensus", in fact it is very controversial. Anyway, I thought we are reviewing the AfD decision based on the strength of the extant votes. Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy against in popular culture articles. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion in popular culture. Almost every "in popular culture" section or article fails the ten year test. Most fail the ten minute test. A few fail the ten second test. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "However WP:NOT says nothing specific about 'in popular culture' articles" isn't really a good argument that it doesn't satisfy WP:NOT. It doesn't say anything specific about game guides either, but the consensus seems to be to delete most of them. The main problem I have with these types of articles is that they're places for rampant original research as people say "well this might be related to X so I'll add it in X in popular culture just in case", and then try to defend it by saying that these things don't need sources because it's obvious to everybody. ColourBurst 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• the consensus seems to be to delete most of them - that is inaccurate, 50% or more survive AfD. Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy or consensus about popular culture articles, so why were these arguments counted in the closing decision? -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Looks like the closing admin made a reasonable judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion your disagreement with the editors on their interpretation of WP:NOT does not constitute an error in judgement on the part of the closing admin. I suggest take the argument to Village Pump, and get the policy about 'in pop culture' changed, if you believe that concensus can be arried at for that outcome. But in this case, the closing admin made an impartial and reasonable assessment of the editors input to the deletion debate. Jerry lavoie 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• What "policy about in pop culture"? Three of the four delete votes said delete it simply because it is a "in popular culture" article. There is no policy or consensus about popular culture articles, so why were these arguments counted in the closing decision? -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC) -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I could not see an error in the AfD process for this article. It's fair to raise general arguments here about a class of articles, like 'in popular culture', but it's not clear what criterion that DRV reviewers should apply when they hear such claims. Since I'm at a loss for a criterion, I'm going to just accept the AfD as being correctly decided, and give my support to the idea of User:Jerry lavoie that you take the general issue to the Village Pump. EdJohnston 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is as mentioned above, credence was given by the closing admin to the notion that there is consensus and/or policy about 'in pop culture' articles - which is not the case. If you remove that from the vote, there was really only one or two delete votes and everything else was keep. And the delete votes didn't make a strong case IMO compared to the keep votes. -- Stbalbach 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question So your request is that we should overturn and relist the AfD and tell the next closer to disregard all votes in which 'in popular culture' is cited as the reason for deletion? EdJohnston 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is serious business deleting an article, it requires a compelling and clear argument, in particular when there are many keep votes. I just don't see in this AfD, the deletes were mostly general non-specific arguments about pop culture lists. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Many of these articles end up being deleted, but many of those arguments appear to be mere opinions and not very convincing. Calling verifiable facts "insignificant" or "unencyclopedic" is subjective. The closer "felt" that the delete arguments were stronger. WP:NOT#IINFO may be cited, but why it is cited has to be explained, because it doesn't cover "in popular culture" articles. At least some "in popular culture" articles achieve consensus to keep. Please stop citing Rush as a precedent, as someone could very well cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination), even ignoring the fact that Rush in pop culture had copyvio issues at the outset. Those who wish to reinstate this article should look for reliable sources that discuss The Who's prominence/impact on popular culture. Perhaps write it in contextual paragraphs instead of a list so it looks less like "trivia". Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles may be of interest. Pomte 16:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - can't recall if I nominated this one or not, but regardless I still endorse it. Wikipedia may have a "tradition" of this sort of articles, but consensus can turn against them and I dispute Stbalbach's contention that 50% of "...in popular culture" articles survive AFDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes have all closed recently with deletes. A number of the kept articles were kept under the theory that it's better to have this sort of trivia in its own article than in the main article, to which I respond that junk is junk whether in the main article or in an "...IPC" article. Stbalbach has said on at least one occasion that he agrees that this sort of information doesn't belong on Wikipedia so I'm at a loss as to why these DRVs. And yes, the words "...in popular culture" do not appear in WP:NOT. I would prefer that a clearer policy statement be made and I have proposed such a statement. However, I believe that existing policy statements against indiscriminate collections of information and lists of loosely-associated topics already speak strongly against these "...IPC" articles. Otto4711 05:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Spacepotato 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• The game is pretty well known in open source circles, see for example http://happypenguin.org/show?Neverball which has almost 200 comments for Neverball;
• It's included in almost all linux distros; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paxed (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• There is an active community for it at www.nevercorner.net;
• Several other open source games have just as "bad" articles on wikipedia, if Neverball article is deleted, then those should be deleted too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Bubble and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLTron for example, I can list more with a bit of searching, if needed...) --Paxed 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist -- the article might not have been the most well written article on Wikipedia, but it appears the editor who deleted the article didn't take the tiniest bit of time to investigate the matter. A simple search on Google shows that speedy deletion is clearly unacceptable in this case. -- parasti ^(talk) 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to creation of a sourced article (content will be userfied on request). A free download game with no secondary sources is a valid A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with no predudice against recreation. Your argument "if X is deleted, then so must Y and Z" is a clear example of fallacious logic. The representations made above about supposed notability are contraary to WP:NOT... blog and forum comments do not constitute sources. The fact that the program is distributed with Linus does nothing to establish notability. Closing admin made the correct decision. Jerry lavoie 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist The article on speedy deletion says that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub." I find it difficult to believe that it couldn't at least been reduced to a stub, from where a more appropriate article could have been developed. As for Neverball's notoriety, the fact that, as paxed says, it comes with many Linux distros (eg: Fedora Extras); is often featured in lists of 'top' open source games (eg: this one here); and is recognised as being one of the more polished and successful open source games around by every single person I have ever talked to about it (unfortunately, I only have my personal experience to cite here). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.231.40 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
  • To that I can add that, contrary to a comment above, the Linux Game Tome isn't a "blog" or a "forum" and is in fact one of the most prominent game sites of its kind; Neverball scores 9th by rating (3rd by the old ratings) and has been among the top 10 games for a couple of years now. -- parasti ^(talk) 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Relist I enjoy playing Neverball. It is a super GNU game and part of several Linux distributions including Debian, and could be part of Windows and presumably also Macintosh distributions. There are over 200'000 Google references. Even if there are a great many duplicates and blog-type mentions, I'm sure this shows notability. It seems the article itself needs work, but for this it should be relisted. --Theosch 07:55, 1 March 2007
• Endorse No evidence that this is notable, no claim of notability in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(software) says: "... the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable: 1. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor. 2. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution. Statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution."

I went over to this suggested site [21] and found that Neverball seems to rank 1290th of 12170 packages, i.e. almost in the top 10%. Now I call that notable! --Theosch 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Relist Neverball is matured and well-known game that should be on Wikipedia. I agree that the article needs work, but it should not be deleted. -- Wenli 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

YouThink.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I-Am-Bored.com, a less significant site was not deleted. either I-Am-Bored should be deleted or both should be merged onto Youthink.com.Electricbassguy 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Also, the other article mentioned should disappear in a short while or five days. MER-C 06:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Someone already removed Speedy and Prod on the other article. People seem to be defending it do to the no consensus. I think it's only fair if that is kept, Youthink and IAB should share one article, preferably YouThink.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse valid AfD. To show notability you have to have non-trivial 3rd party sources. None have been produced. I-Am-Bored currently has two links to 3rd party reviews. Note that being cool, interesting, useful, or even popular are not reasons for keeping an article on wikipedia if the subject is not encyclopedically notable. Eluchil404 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I-am-bored is actually Youthink, however. the whole site is a copy of the "Links" from Youthink.com. Also, I could find 3rd party reviews of YouThink as well. There are several online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse - and I-Am-Bored has disappeared (well, when I hit ALT-D) -- Tawker 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion "If X is Deleted, so must Y and Z" is fallacious logic. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to overturn a properly closed AfD. Jerry lavoie 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MY HUSBAND, THE PIG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

VERY USEFUL 128.187.0.178 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I use Wikipedia all the time to look at information about my favorite T.V. shows, and as I was looking at the next episode of Desperate Housewives, I noticed this comment in the VERY USEFUL Episode Guide Template: ‹The template Desperate Housewives episode has been proposed for deletion here.› I am not impressed, because I and my friends find it very useful. There should be no reason that it need be deleted. So, although the deletion has been proposed, I urge you not to ratify it. Thank-you.

Hamilton Stands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

My article on the Hamilton Stands company was deleted under WP:A7 (non-notability) by Centrx, despite the fact that Bob Dylan and The Monkees notably used their products, as mentioned in the article, and a link to the company's Web page was included. I have spoken with Centrx, who insists that "reliable third-party sources, such as books and magazines, that cover the company as their main subject", be cited before he will restore the article. I find this ridiculous; by the same token, the Wikipedia articles on such companies as Ernie Ball and Dunlop Manufacturing should also have been deleted, since they do not cite such sources. Dylan biographies have included photos of Dylan with a Hamilton capo (if you've ever seen one, you can spot them a mile away) on his guitar, and Rhino Records liner notes to Monkees albums mention Hamilton Stands... as was noted in the article. I do not have the time to dig through media in an attempt to find an outside article or story about the company, and should not have to; the foregoing mentions ought to be quite enough to assert the company's notability. (A Web search for "Hamilton Stands" also turns up scads of listings of their products for sale.) Zephyrad 08:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse simply being used by a notable professional or being sold over the internet does not confer notability. See also WP:INN it is quite likely that there are articles on wikipedia on companies even less notable than this one, but that doesn't mean they won't be held to the same high standards just that they haven't been yet. Eluchil404 10:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Will this work, as an article asserting notability? Bill Carpenter acquires Hamilton Stands This article states that Hamilton originated the folding music stand. I'd call that notable. Zephyrad 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:Notability and WP:CORP. If Hamilton originated the folding music stand but there are no sources about the company itself, then that invention should be mentioned in some article about music stands or music history, but it does not warrant a separate article about the company itself. —Centrx→talk • 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to be reliable, independent, and non-trivial. If another one can be found I will strike my Endorse opinion. Eluchil404 15:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The comment by User:Centrx that you found to be ridiculous is just standard Wikipedia policy: insisting that "reliable third-party sources, such as books and magazines, that cover the company as their main subject", be cited before he will restore the article. If you believe this is an important article subject, then it's reasonable for you to find the needed references and add them. Having the sources means that future readers will be benefitted. In that way you will have shared your knowledge. EdJohnston 17:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already listed one news article about the company above, and have also contacted the company itself for information about possible news stories. Are you (collectively) saying there needs to be a whole book or magazine devoted to the company's history, or will an article in a magazine or book be sufficient? I have to wonder which among you are musicians; any musician who has bought or used a Hamilton product would shake their heads (at least) at the idea that the company isn't "notable"... and I have already "shared my knowledge", in the deleted article. Zephyrad 18:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The "rediculous" statement by the closing admin is actually a longstanding fundamental policy WP:N of wikipedia that was derived from community Concensus. Your article, in absense of cited sources is Original Research, and is not allowed. WP:NOR It is not possible to verify a neutral point of view WP:NPOV without sources. The subject of this article does not seem to me to be notable. Possibly, providing sources could sway that decision. Jerry lavoie 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am prone to disagree. This is not some tinpot company a guy runs out of the back of his garage; this is an American manufacturer that has supplied equipment to musicians and music students (particularly public school music programs) around the world, for over a hundred years. Have you considered that the reason there may be little current press coverage is because musicians already know about the company and its long history? My questions about what would suffice for "notable" coverage, and are any of you who have weighed in against it musicians, have not been answered. (I will look for printed press coverage about the company, but I am concerned that a trade-paper article about the company wouldn't be good enough for you all, since the Net article I already cited above apparently is not.) I do not find the statement itself to be ridiculous; I find the usage of it to be so, and I think you're setting the bar too high for "notability" in this case. Zephyrad 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn Hamilton Stands is an actual company that actually exists and actually produces something. A lack of sources doesn't take away from the fact that the company exists and contributes something to the world. If 'Hamilton Stands' were actually the name of an obscure bit-part character from a Star Wars spin-off novel, would it then warrant an entry? armanddeplessis 17:05, 26 February 2007.

• • I believe that you ment overturn the speedy deletion and restore the deleted article, as you appear to be arguing for its retention. Endorse in this case, means "I endorse the deletion of the article as proper". Eluchil404 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, as I believe armanddeplessis intended to vote. Does it help that it's mentioned in the Middletown, Ohio article? --Lukobe 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, list at AfD Company exists since 1883, that's enough of a claim to notability to run it through AfD, especially if it's a specialized equipment manufacturer. AND "Unimproved for months" is certainly no speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Binary Star (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The hip hop group of Binary Star (comprised of emcee's Sennim Silla and One Be Lo (OneManArmy)) is very important to the underground hip hop community, their first LP sold over 20,000 copies, a lot for an underground independant group. Many groups nowadays cite Binar Star as an influence, also their first album Masters of the Universe has a page, as well as One Be Lo a previous member of the group. It seems weird that Binary Star is unimportant but their album and one of its emcee's deserve a page. Anyways if the previous page does not cite its importance I will be willing to add information that will stress this groups importance. Many other, less popular groups have pages, some that are even longer, yet Binary Star's page is deleted. I am for reinstatement of this page, or if everyone pleases I will edit the original page. Either way the original page was very good and shouldn't have to be completely redone. All underground hip-hop heads please consider this. --HiphopisNOTdead 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If you can provide evidence that this group meets the notability criteria for musical acts right here in this deletion review, that would be very helpful. For example, what kind of media coverage have they received? Have they gone on a national tour? Have they released at least two albums on a significant independent label? Have they hit any of the music charts? If you can provide us right here with links to reliable sources to back up any of this, you will probably manage to have the original page restored or at least allowed to be recreated. --Metropolitan90 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Response. Various online coverage on Binary Star: http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/2001_01_masters.html rap reviews coverage right here. http://www.onebelo.com/ , One Be Lo's (former Binary Star member) website citing several positive comments from people from the Onion, XXL and Scratch Magazine. Also check out the press page on his website citing several more articles on Binary Star/One Be Lo. http://www.chopsuey.com/dec06.shtml Seattle, WA venue showing the Binary Star show on December 2nd (Binary Star is from Pontiac, MI) Sold out show (I was there, front row AMAZING!), one of the many out of state shows that Binary Star has done since they broke up. Binary Star and One Be Lo have toured with MF Doom also of underground hip hop fame, playing at least two shows in Seattle. This should be enough proof that Binary Star is notable. There album and One Be Lo have pages, why not the original group? Whoever deleted this page did not do enough research on Wikipedia about related articles, or any research at all regarding the group. --HiphopisNOTdead 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also like to add that the user who deleted this page has a strong bias against any form of hip hop, please scroll down this page to the section on "Go Too Far" and read Guy's comment on rap music. Guy or JzG is the user who filed this page for A7 speedy deletion. Someone who has an obvious bias against rap music deleting an article about a notable hip hop group, seem a little wrong? It does to me, as well as the fact he obviously did absolutely no research to back up his deletion, all of this shows to me that this deletion was based on a personal bias which is absolutely no grounds for deletion. --HiphopisNOTdead 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Thing is, I didn't tag it, I only deleted it. It contained no assertion of notability (Criterion 7 for speedy deletion). The supposedly notable former member One Be Lo has two releases with articles, which sold 4,000 and 14,000 copies respectively. No independent non-trivial sources were cited. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice for re-creation if verifiable, reliable sources can be found. howcheng {chat} 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per User:JzG and User:Howcheng. No procedural error in the speedy deletion. Assertion of notability backed up by reliable sources would be welcome. EdJohnston 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Institute of Brand Science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The Institute of Brand Science was previously named the Zyman Institute of Brand Science. At first I made a simple mistake. I tried changing the name by creating a new article with the new name, as I did not know about the move function in Wikipedia. Subsequently, I significantly updated the entry for The Intitute of Brand Science with completely new content. I am disapointed that this content was deleted, as it contained vital information about the academic research organization. There are many institutes listed in Wikipedia, including those listed in List of Research Institutes. As such, retaining a profile on The Institute of Brand Science will help make Wikipedia an excellent source of information on institutes. I am requesting either a reinstatement of the deleted material, or an official move of the original Zyman Institute of Brand Science to The Institute of Brand Science page. Jambaloop 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Although someone concerned about a deletion has the right to ask for a deletion review, I expect to see evidence of a real problem with the original deletion. I gather that the original article Zyman Institute of Brand Science was claimed to be a copyright violation. That seems to be the only unusual thing about the process thus far. Though I can't read either of the two articles, arguments in both first and second AfDs seem typical of what is often said when an article is too close to advertising, uses promotional language, and lacks outside sources. In User:Jambaloop's request for review I didn't see any acknowledgment of the issue or a proposal for addressing it. And as noted there seem no anomalies or bad process described that would justify overturning this deletion. EdJohnston 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment The above comments are not relevant as they reference an obsolete version of the article on the institute.Vodu 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my own closure and deletions, if I'm allowed to do that. Valid AfD, IMO (duh, coming from the closer). Nominator hasn't explained how it was invalid, just that he thinks there should be an article. On a side note, the G4 was valid since the recreation didn't address the issue which led to deletion (lack of multiple external sources). – Steel 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It seems Steel is protesting because lack of sources in the article. That is simple to remedy. Reinstate the article and I will edit that. Jambaloop 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Per EdJohnston comments, the copyright issue is not valid the new listing has not taken content from other published documents. The prior article was claimed as a copyright violation, but the institute endorsed the use of the text making that argument pacified. The text was written without promotional language in a neutral tone. EdJohnson is looking for outside sources. Those will be added as soon as the article in resinstated. Or if I can do that prior to reinstatement I am happy to do so. Jambaloop 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• (a) You're the nominator. We know you want the deletion overturned, no need to !vote, (b) I don't recall the article being deleted as a copyvio, and (c) you'd be best off providing sources now. – Steel 20:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• (a) Pardon my ignorance...where do I find the deleted article so I can add the references.Jambaloop 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Place the references in this thread so we can read them. ColourBurst 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here are referencesJambaloop 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarkar, Christian, The Institute of Brand Science web [link accessed 2007-02-20]

Srivastava, Rajendra (2006-11-12). "State of the Institute". Colloquium on Internal Branding. 

Schultz, Don (September-October 2006). "Trash Trove". Marketing Management 15: 10-11. 

Thomas Jr., Greg; Jeffery Parkhurst (November-December 2006). "Suite Talk". Marketing Management 15: 48-54. 

• Endorse. All seem pretty small beer, and the AfD alsthough it notes the invalid page move does not rest on it, deletion is based on the unanimous opinion that notability is not established. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• make the articles visible for the purpose of this discussion so we don't have to go by partial guess-work or memory.DGG 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The first article, 'Zyman Institute of Brand Science', is still visible at http://www.answers.com/topic/zyman-institute-of-brand-science. Unfortunately by current Wikipedia standards it would be tagged by some editors for speedy deletion. It lacks references except to its own web site, and seems to consist entirely of promotional language. In fact it did receive a full AfD, and was finally deleted on the basis of the copyright violation. EdJohnston 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment above comment is not relevant as it references an obsolete version of the article in review.Vodu 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion Thanks, one look made it obvious. Apart from other considerations, we do not usually enter research intitutes which are ppart of individual university departments.DGG 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment above comment is not relevant as it references an obsolete version of the article in review.Vodu 05:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• contest of above comments

The original article (the one still viewable on answers.com) is not the article under consideration. The new article is the one that is under consideration. Can someone make that one visable? Please do not make a ruling based on obsolete information.

EdJohnson is mistaken thinking the only references are to the EmoryBI website.

Regarding the comment "we do not usually enter research intitutes which are ppart of individual university departments." Universities are departmentalize into their various disciplines. We list Haas Business School, which is a department of UC Berkeley, SRI (Stanford Research Institute) which is a department of Stanford Unversity, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing which is a department of Mysore University. We post information on departments like City University's Journalism Department We even allow the posting of information on individuals who are in sub-departments of Universities, such as Michael Porter. If there is a rule against posting information about departments of organizations, please reference that rule.

Regarding notability, Don Schultz has written about the organization. He is one of the most famous professors in communications, and is affiliated with Northwestern University. The institute is credited with the development of high level research that is publised in peer reviewed academic journals like the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, etc. This makes it notable as well.

24.98.156.245 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Please don't put strikeouts through other people's comments. The new references you have provided are not too impressive. (1) seems to be yet another reference to the university's own website. (2) 'Colloquium on Internal Branding' does not appear to be a book or a refereed journal, it appears to be a fragmentary reference, and the author, Prof. Srivastava, is a staff member of the Institute itself so clearly not a third party, (3) the citation to Don Shultz's article in 'Marketing Management' includes about 150 words of comment on the Zyman Institute, asserting that it will provide 'a truly holistic approach to brand comprehension', mostly discussing what the Institute will do in the future and not what it has accomplished thus far, (4) the article by Thomas and Parkhurst in Marketing Management is, in fact, a substantive 8-page article, but it is co-authored by Greg Thomas, who is a staff member of the Institute, so he is hardly an outside party who can comment on the notability of the Institute. If the Institute was only founded in 2004 it may have existed too briefly to have received substantive comment by outsiders, so it may not qualify for WP:N. EdJohnston 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion I said in the AfD it should be deleted on the basis that institutes as part of a university were N only in exceptional cases. SRI is an excellent example of what counts as an exceptional case--it might be almost as well known as the parent. City U. may conceivably also be an exception, but the present article in my opinion does not show N, has no 3rd party refs. & should be deleted. Alll India " is located in Manasagangotri (Mysore University Campus), Mysore, India. It is an autonomous institute under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare" --my emphasis. DGG 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  bolding on duplicate opinion struck GRBerry 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I concur with EdJohnston's analysis of the citations. There are still not enough third party reliable soures to justify an article separate from Goizueta Business School. — coelacan talk — 06:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PLAYSTATION® Store (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I do not think it fit the criteria for a speedy deletion. There are articles for similar virtual markets and this one is just as big, such as the Wii Shop Channel and the Xbox Live Marketplace, which are competing online stores of the PLAYSTATION® Store, thus it is a notable page and should fit speedy deletion. DanB91 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The existence of similar articles should not be interpreted to justify the existence of a particular article. Since it was speedied as NN, that suggests the previous article had no assertion of notability. Can you provide reliable sources demonstrating the notability of this website/business? —Dgies^t c 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability can come from the Official PS Store site, content can come from a reliable source demonstrated here. Another example is here here which is content the PS3 will get via the PS Store. DanB91 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good enough justification for me. I see no good reason not to have this article! --24.154.173.243 00:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability (web), you can't use a subject's own website to establish their notability. Blog-like sites such as gamingbits.com generally fail the WP:RS test. Can you find some examples of the mainstream press writing about this? —Dgies^t c 19:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Joystiq site, and here's a site that references the PS Store. Most sites that have anything to do with video games are blog like sites. If these sites are not good enough, can u give me video game sites that are not blogs? DanB91 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• IGN, Gamespot, any of the magazines in Category:Video game magazines. Blogs tend to have very little fact-checking and content control (I think Joystiq may be an exception to this, but I forget whether it's actually been used as a source), which is why they tend not to be reliable. ColourBurst 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• ENDORSE® deletion of distinctly spammy article with no credible assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Response: I still see no reason to delete it. If this is deleted then the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Wii Shop Channel should be deleted, but there would be no reason to it would just cause unneeded clutter in the Xbox Live and Wii Channels pages. Same should apply to the PlayStation Network and the PLAYSTATION® Store. I know other sites should not justify another but my response is only to User:Guy. DanB91 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• That would be covered under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - It's a major software component of the PS3 and I don't see the need to delete. If it was badly written, it should have just been tagged as such. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• overturn so it can be properly rediscussed. Going by the limited information available, there's possible case.DGG 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The Playstation store is a major part of the PlayStation Network, and the PS Store should have its own page.Cjcamilla 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not going to write an endorsement of my own deletion as I think it's for others to decide, but I've restored a copy of the deleted article to User:Enochlau/Temp, and you might all understand why it looked like something that should be zapped straight away. enochlau (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• No opinion either way as to whether it's salvageable, but if it's restored, dear Zog don't leave so much as a redirect behind at this abominable title. —Cryptic 11:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion It is a central concept and substansive knowledge that obvious should be shared. However remove the ® from the article's name! No one can search for the article with and ® in the name. Lord Metroid 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I personally like the ® in the name, because thats the true name. I had "ps store" and "playstation store" redirect to it so it shouldn't be a problem.DanB91 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do please see WP:MOS-TM. Neither the all-caps type nor the registered-trademark symbol are (remotely) acceptable. —Cryptic 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess it should be changed to the PlayStation Store, if (when) it is restored. DanB91 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, seems like a notable topic. Andre (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, I see no independent sourcing provided despite a request. If this can be changed, allow recreation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It can be reliably sourced. I know it's been discussed in the magazine GameInformer, at least, and I'd imagine other magazines and the larger gaming sites have written about it. Shimeru 08:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question: How long does a review last? It seems that most of the users are in a consensus of overturning the deletion, and plus sources have been posted. DanB91 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. In the copy of the article at User:Enochlau/Temp there are literally still no sources. The article as a whole has an amazing resemblance to a typical candidate for speedy deletion. Previous !voters seem to imply that its importance should override its resemblance to a speedy deletion candidate. I'd consider changing my vote if a participant in this DRV could offer any reliable sources. Is there not even a weekly printed computer-industry trade publication that has said anything about this? Nothing at all in the Wall Street Journal? If you have a source to offer, please spell it out here completely in the review, in good enough form that it could be added to the article without further discussion. EdJohnston 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Response: I can give you a bunch of sources from IGN, Gamespot, Joystic, QJ.net, there are probably articles in the Playstation Magazine, probably Game Informer, etc. I listed a bunch of sources at the top. Here is a link that references the PlayStation Store at the bottom. I don't know if anyone saw but it was listed as a stub before it was deleted, and I was hoping that someone would expand it more. I will look into more sources if the 5 or so sources weren't good enough. And again I ask is there any video game site that is considered "reliable"? DanB91 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The link you provided is to a blog posting. That would not be a reliable source anyway (per WP:RS), and what it says about the Playstation Store is only a few words, a very sketchy summary of what they plan to sell. Hardly enough to show that the Store is notable. I could even accept a blog as helpful if there was a truly critical entry commenting on the significance of the store, history of similar stores, strengths and weaknesses etc. Especially an entry that pulled together actual experience with the store from a variety of sources. The Xbox Live Marketplace article is considerably better than this one. Note that it includes some critical comments about the store. EdJohnston 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Here is an article (video rather) all about the PlayStation Store DanB91 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Stabby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

"Mr Stabby" as an article has rightfully been deleted, however Wikipedia does already carry information on Mr Stabby, at Weebl's cartoons#Mr Stabby - why not make a protected redirect from Mr Stabby to Weebl's cartoons, as is already the case for other entries, like Magical Trevor? 62.31.67.29 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Peppers (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Like many editors, I hope to work on establishing a notable and verifiable entry for internet celebrity Brian Peppers, so now that the Grand High Poobah deigns to let us to write about it again, I was upset to find that admins have deleted and blocked the Brian Peppers talk page. There is no reason why this should be the case - the arbitrary year's embargo has lifted, we should get on with creating a good article on Brian Peppers. If we can't go about this collaborative editing process in the article itself, we at least need a talk page. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion we don't keep talk pages around for deleted articles. Andrew Lenahan 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is enough rubbish on the wiki without discussing the revival of some of the stuff we've already deleted long ago. --Tony Sidaway 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - we've quite enough of this --Doc^g 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - we've been there, seen that, got the T-shirt. Doc said it all. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore talk. Maybe if the talk page is open, people will actually be able to find and discuss the topic and everything won't be WP:SNOWed or otherwise closed early... --Dookama 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Even more of a magnet for particularly sick trolls than the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Talk pages of deleted articles are deleted as well. It's pretty simple. --Cyde Weys 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. We only keep talk pages of deleted articles around if there's a chance that the article will be re-created. That's not going to happen here, no way no how. —Cryptic 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The only reason that it wouldn't happen would be because of abuse of WP:SNOW (or other methods of closing discussion early) or people not wanting the page to exist due to some vague notion of "unencyclopedic" content. --Dookama 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse deletion "endorse" because of the normal processes per Cyde and Cryptic. "Strong" because it's the humane thing to do and because of BLP concerns. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Talk pages for deleted articles are subject to G8. --Coredesat 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Enough!--MONGO 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Cyde (talk • contribs) & Cryptic (talk • contribs). Just for full disclosure, I did a speedy delete on the talkpage yesterday. I speedy deleted the talkpage because there is no article and per the article DRV, discussion on WP:AN, etc. there is no realistic chance anything said on a talkpage is going to change that fact.--Isotope23 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Well, he's never going to have an article again, so endorse.--Wizardman 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Per G8. But would be acceptable for people to collaborate on a fully-sourced, WP:BLP-compliant article in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? At least there it will be a much weaker troll-magnet. —Dgies^t c 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• people hav found about 4 sources and they have looked pretty hard. I doubt there will be many more for the time being.Geni 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I suppose the problem is that though there are good references establishing facts, there are few to no reliable sources establishing notability. —Dgies^t c 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per nom. Khoikhoi 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - per the CSD criteria. -- Tawker 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Exercise in pointless masturbation. Listen: this article, even if it did exist, would never be longer than four sentences. Everything that could conceivably be discussed about Brian Peppers has already been discussed. Let. It. Go. Thunderbunny 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. We don't keep talk pages without articles. Maybe you should start up WikiProject:Brian Peppers if you really want to spend time on this. Jesus. Time to move on, Chuckles. Herostratus 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion No reason for this to exist. --Folantin 08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This has gotten too long for transclusion. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt

World Trade Center in film and media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

While the nominator is under no obligation to notify the article creator, it really would have been helpful if someone notified me about this AFD when it was posted back in November. My watchlist is massive, thousands of pages, so I missed this one. The AFD wasn't a unanimous 100% delete. 2 of 6 said keep, and I would have said strong keep, and then it would have been kept as no consensus. The subarticle was created per WP:SUMMARY to keep the "film and media" section in the main article pared down to ~two sentences. Since it was deleted, trivia is starting to creep back in and becoming a nuisance to maintain. Someone even started re-adding a list of films with the WTC in them, and was "offended" when I cut it out. (See the top of my talk page) As primary maintainer of the main article and creator of the subarticle, I strongly prefer having a subarticle where people can put stuff like this, as it makes maintaining the main article more manageable. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, the WTC article is getting to #5. We need to go back to #3, with just a very brief summary in the main article. At some point, as the main article reaches featured article status, I would go through, cleanup, and pare down this subarticle if we could have it undeleted. Please let us have our subarticle back. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please restore per my nom. --Aude (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse since AfD is not a vote™ the addition of another keep argument would have changed the result only if it was persuasive. Instead of restoring the highly problematic old list I would suggest simply recreating a list with clear and exclusive inclusion criteria. The "we don't want this material in our article so we need a place to put it" argument is generally unpersuasive. If it is unencyclopedic it should be excised not quarintined. Eluchil404 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (a featured list) and Joan of Arc (featured article). Ultimately, if the WTC gets to featured article status (may happen in the next couple months or sooner), the subarticles will all be made at least good articles if not featured themselves. In the case of pop culture references, it would be a featured list. Now, do I have to start from scratch and make up a new list or can I please work with what was there, try to find references, and cut out what's not notable. It would be much easier (a big time saver) for me to do the latter. --Aude (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case I have no objection to userfication. You can work on the list in your userspace and when it meets minimun standards move it back to the mainspace. It doesn't need to be FL ready but some basic standards on inclusion and some secondary sources would be a big help in convincing people that it has potential. Eluchil404 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The two keep comments didn't provide any arguments to why the list should be kept. So they had almost no weight in the discussion. Also AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore; per Aude above, we need something like this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• YEah the DRV nom is rather vote-ish. The two keep "votes" in this AfD were rather weak ("useful list", "interesting list"... arguments not based in policy but just WP:ILIKEITs), if another weak reason for keeping had appeared I probably still would have deleted. All four delete "votes" linked to or at least mentioned policy. But the DRV nom is not all that weak of a reason. I would be okay with restoring it if the people really think it could be improved, but the article does need a huge overhaul... glancing at the deleted version, I can't really imagine who would possibly want to read that entire laundry list of trivia. --W.marsh 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think/hope the opinion of the subarticle creator and maintainer(s) of the main article who is working to get it to featured article status would carry some weight. It's difficult enough as is to get an article like this to featured status, and dealing with the pop culture aspects isn't fun for me. But apparently Wikipedia attracts people who are interested in it that sort of information, and some of it is notable such as King Kong (1976 film), with the Empire State Building in the original film and the WTC in the 1976 version,[22] and Godspell.[23] Per WP:SUMMARY, there should be a brief summary in the main article (1-2 sentences) and a subarticle. Since pop culture isn't my strength, having something to work from and find references/notability would be much preferrable. --Aude (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there were certainly a lot of uncited items to work from in the deleted versions of this article. It would take a vast amount of work to get this article to the point where I'd support it as a featured list. Anyway, would you like me to restore this to your user space so you can work on it there? And unless there are any objections we could close the DRV and you could move the list back to the article namespace once you're ready. --W.marsh 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving to my userspace is okay. I tend to agree that this stuff isn't really interesting. But it is notable and interesting to some people. Since pop culture is outside my expertise, it will take work to find appropriate references (especially for films from the 1970s). I think Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is the example to follow. The new "sortable" table thing there would be good to use too. --Aude (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's at User:AudeVivere/World Trade Center in film and media now. --W.marsh 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore This is a subarticle of World Trade Center and was created to ensure the main article wasn't overcrowded with peripheral information. I can't now see the deleted article, but I remember it being well referenced and definitely encyclopedic.--MONGO 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There were about 200 items listed, and just 2 references, in the last versions of the article. Personally I can't imagine a list of all the video games where the WTC appeared in a background image for a few seconds is all that interesting to anyone except fans of that game maybe. One of those lists where everyone wants to add something, but no one wants to actually read the list. But really that's just my opinion and I wouldn't enforce it to keep the article deleted against consensus, since there's not a serious policy problem with this article. --W.marsh 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per nom. --Tbeatty 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Go Too Far (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article has been deleted for prevention of recreation. The single has been confirmed. A music video has been released and the single as already started charting. What more is there to say. This page should be unprotected and recreated for the benefit of fans and other artists etc. User:Zz128 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, agreed as per nom Lord Metroid 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:PERNOM? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse again, for the same reason as on 11 Feb. What's changed since then? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  Opinion on Feb. 11 was "Endorse absent credible evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, so the school of thought which has it that foo is notable therefore all albums by foo are notable therefore all singles from albums by foo are notable is seriously flawed. This artist has released precisely one album. This single has not, according to the article, charted. It was pretty much a one-sentence stub, adding nothing which could not be covered at the entry for the album, which should probably, given that it is his sole output to date, be merged at this time to Jibbs. Articles on individual non-chart songs by barely-notable acts definitely Go Too Far. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)". That DRV closed as request withdrawn. GRBerry 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I would strongly suggest endorse deletion but as my userpage states I'm extremely repulsed by any rap/hiphop song so my endorse vote would border COI. So no opinion here. Wooyi 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem: rap song is a tautology. Not sure why the C is silent in rap, but a song has a tune. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Guy, I'm sure you meant oxymoron (or more precisely contradiction in terms) rather than tautology. -- Ben 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I did indeed. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wooyi, someone I greatly respect, C. S. Lewis, wrote (among other things) book reviews, but declined to review mysteries, saying that because he disliked the genre he could not fairly judge whether any given book was a good or bad example of it, and he wished not to write any unfair reviews. It's nice to see that you share the same scruple. -- Ben 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The video has been released; "Go too far Jibbs" gives you something like 230,000 ghits. And, btw, this is not "gangsta rap" - this features a member of the Pussycat Dolls and is strictly tame suburban rap/r&b - this would not sound out of place on a KISS-format station. --Brianyoumans 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ghits? I think you need to look past the google test and find some evidence that proves this is notable. Lots of ghits justify a redirect for reader convenience, not an article. For that, we have WP:N and stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• WP:GHITS? -- Ben 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but leave the redirect I've created. Chick Bowen 18:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Ray Regan 13:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC) User's first edit
• Endorse deletion but keep the redirect, per User:Chick Bowen. If this song receives specific press coverage that can be added here in the DRV in the form of complete references that are usable in the article I would reconsider my vote. EdJohnston 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:BinSL.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

Image was deleted for not complying with Fair use, although it did comply, and it is needed as a citation. TheGreenFaerae 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment image can't be used as a citation. If you upload it to wikipedia you'd then be using wikipedia as a source which is circular. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles. (Images can be manipulated so its appearance on wikipedia proves nothing). --pgk 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. "Proving existence" is not a valid fair use claim, nor does a picture that could be doctored actually prove existence. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The photograph's authenticity can be proved by logging on to second Life and searching with the same terms i used as typed. the photograph is not the citation, the text in Second Life is the citation. The photograph is simply the only way to transfer it out of the Second Life client and to Wikipedia.TheGreenFaerae 09:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, that was just the reason it was on Wikipedia. It is not the basis of the fair use claim. i had broken down and itemized how the image was fair use on the image page itself before Ryu deleted it.TheGreenFaerae 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Logging in ... would be Original research as for your not the basis of the fairuse claim, reviewing the deleted page under the section entitled fair use rationale " Purpose of Image : This image is used to show that there are groups that call themselves either /b/tards or some derivative of /b/ in second Life." --pgk 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you still feel as if it has no place on WP, I will respect your decision. I am thankful that you took the time to fairly review it however.TheGreenFaerae 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC

It's not my judgment which counts, it's if it is verifiable, i.e. are there multiple independent reliable sources who have covered this in a non-trivial way, it there is it is verifiable and you can cite those as to the significance and existance of this groups, if there isn't then it shouldn't be in the article. --pgk 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the reference itself isn't the subject, but I think I am beginning to agree with the photo side of things.TheGreenFaerae 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The deletion of this list was discussed with two marginally related pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Final Destination 3. The conclusion "delete all" didn't take in account that some opinions favoring deletion very mainly about Deaths in Final Destination 3 and opinions for keeping specially the above list weren't examined. -- User:Docu

• Overturn as per above. -- User:Docu
• Relist while delete may well be the correct ultimate outcome, the balance of arguments at the AfD suggest that this article needs to be considered seperately. Eluchil404 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist due to the fact that most of the opinions for deletion either didn't take Lists of deaths in the Friday the 13th series into account (for example, they noted the over-the-top plot summary nature of the list--while the Friday the 13th list was very brief and matter-of-fact) or they expressed an opinion to keep the list. I think that this list, being very different from the Final Destination lists should get a chance to be deleted or kept on its own merits. janejellyroll 10:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist given the comments above, and see what happens. (jarbarf) 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I found both this list AND the Final Destination one helpful. It just really boils my blood when I try to relocate a good article and it's magically disappeared because of some random goofs who want to ruin this site for a widespread audience. If people are interested, keep these things and if YOU don't like the article than just ignore it. Gosh! --24.154.173.243 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. It seems proper that the Friday the 13th death list should have its own separate vote. The copy of the list that can still be seen at answers.com does not appear excessive. As User:Janejellyroll says above, it's very brief and matter-of-fact. EdJohnston 16:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per snowball clause. Yes, we could take the bureaucratic approach and discuss it again, but it will simply yield the same arguments and the same result. WP:BURO. >Radiant< 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of supercars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Don't bother going to the link, someone has started a new page with the same name. The AfD was a very weak delete with no consensus (5 to 4 by my count) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_14#List_of_supercars My particular objection is that that that article was on my watchlist and yet the AfD notice did not appear in it, which I check every day. Also the deletion summary was not filled in thereby forcing me to do a manual search for the AfD debate, which is a waste of time. Greglocock 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and re-deletion as G4. AfD is not a vote, and the delete arguments pretty clearly demonstrated that the subject inherently requires subjective judgment. If we can't possibly write an article without original research, we can't write that article period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• While a vote may not be mandatory, a consensus is, by my reading. I see no consensus. Also I have checked my watchlist for that date, and taken a screenshot of it. No proposal for deletion was posted on that page, so far as I can tell. Greglocock 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

An AfD notice would've been posted there, but you'd no longer see that. Since the page was in fact deleted, its history would be gone as well, and not show up on your watchlist. An administrator could look at history of the old page and verify that the AfD notice was posted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. If a magazine or two calls a car a supercar, then add it, otherwise remove it. There are plenty of lists that have subjective inclusion criteria. Placing a movie or band in a certain genre is a judgment call, but we do it based on statements in reliable, published sources. Recury 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (my) deletion. Consensus must always, on Wikipedia, take into account policy. The 'keeps' were ignoring the issues about the Wikipedia requirements for articles to be neutral and referenced. Proto ► 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. We should not have a list with a subjective criterion for inclusion, per User:Seraphimblade. EdJohnston 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin followed appropriate policy in deleting the article; keep arguments along the lines of "it can be worked on" are not compelling. Otto4711 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD 2)

I recreated this after searching for the original deletion reason. The only thing I could find was that it was frequently vandalized and that nobody could be bothered protecting it. I don't believe that this is a valid criteria for deletion, otherwise we would have deleted George W. Bush some time ago. It seems like the beginning of a reasonable article on a notable enough subject (an example of web 2.0 emergent behavior) to me so I recreated it. Seraphimblade speedied the article pointing out that it was probably deleted for a reason. The AFD was "No consensus". I originally searched for Drawball on Wikipedia as I had read of it elsewhere and wanted to know more. This seems like a good criteria for an article to me. AntiVan 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Notes and clarifications It was actually Lectonar who deleted the article, though I did G4 tag it (and Coredesat who closed the AfD). I'll notify them of the DRV. Also, while the first AfD was indeed a no consensus result, this did not lead to deletion-no consensus results default to keeping. It was the second AfD which led to deletion, this time on the basis of lack of notability due to no reliable secondary sourcing available. I endorse deletion unless those sources now are available and can be cited, but am willing to change my mind if they are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry Seraphimblade for incorrectly attributing the deletion to you, and thanks for notifying the others. Obviously I am not familiar with this process. In support of secondary sources I offer these: SmartMobs, The Wilx Collection & AdRants. I appreciate these are not the same as a front page story in the Times, but I feel it should be enough to support a little stub of an article. Thanks, AntiVan 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately, blogs tend not to count as reliable sources, due to lack of editorial supervision. ColourBurst 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the most recent AFD was valid. I have linked it in the nomination statement. Blogs are also generally not considered reliable sources. --Coredesat 03:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid unanimous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I have not heard that there were any process anomalies with the second AfD, and the lack of outside sourcing is commented upon everywhere. Does anyone participating in this review know of new third-party sources that might justify a revived article? In proposing the DRV, User:AntiVan noted the difficulty of protecting the original article against vandalism. A valuable article might be worth the ongoing labor of protection; this one seems unlikely to be worth it. These are AfD-type arguments in a DRV but it's hard to keep them completely separate. EdJohnston 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Materialization (science fiction) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Materialization (science fiction) just redirects right to teleportation, but that is not always how it's used in sci-fi; there are examples of materialization of matter from energy or from nothing, for instance the replicator (Star Trek), the Grails from the Riverworld novels, in the tv series Ark II, a major plot point from one of the Tom Swift books from the '80s, and probably a lot more that I've forgotten. It deserves its own separate entry, I think. -- Noclevername 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be a deletion to review here. The old article went through Votes for Deletion but was closed with no consensus. You can simply replace the redirect with new text. —Celithemis 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Overturn Article had an AfD with a clear consensus to keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Deletion was out of process. It had survived a fairly recent AfD. JuJube 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment logs say it's an A7 speedy deletion (doesn't seem to be related to the AfD decision). The last AfD was almost two years ago; consensus may have changed so relist it. ColourBurst 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• The article had no sources and claim of notabily, the deletion wasn't really out of process as I doubt the admin who speedied knew about the AFD so JuJube please WP:AGF. The prior AFD or VFD when it was called back then also wasn't fairly recent, it was over a year and a nine months ago. AFD had much weaker standards back then, same with sourcing, so that VFD is moreorless moot. Endorse Deletion. But if any valid, reliable sources can be found for notabilty, than I would think over Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy. The article states in two lines that it is a webcomic, who writes it, when he started, and how often it's updated. In between, the entirety of the article is a description of the comic's content. No sources are given other than a link directly to the comic itself, and no claims of importance or significance are made. This is a textbook A7, and even if it had a claim to disqualify it as a speedy, I would remove the bulk of the article as original research. The vfd is ancient and the opinions given not based in any sort of policy, even as it existed then. As usual, nothing's stopping anyone from creating a new article that either meets WP:WEB, or at least contains the barest minimum hint that it might possibly. —Cryptic 10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. I'm confused, what happened between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndieTits and now? If there is a concern over notability, bring it before the community and perhaps they can address those concerns. If not, it can be deleted properly -- through consensus. (jarbarf) 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Deleting admin here, no vote. No, I didn't know about the AfD, there was no talk page tag. If I had, I'd not have deleted it. Anyway, I think the solution is simple: recreate it with some WP:WEB-compatible sources. I'd be glad to provide someone with the text in their userspace to do this. Otherwise, it'll just go straight to AfD (again) once recreated. Sandstein 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jeph Jacques if that's a valid !vote here. Otherwise overturn and relist in the hope AfD does that. the wub "?!" 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse A7 speedy, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have made it a redirect, as it seems like useful one. I have no opinion on whether it should be relisted at AfD, but since there's already some material in Jeph Jacques, I'd urge you all to leave it as a redirect and consider it done with. Chick Bowen 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. By that I mean, keep the original article deleted, but retain the redirect to Jeph Jacques per User:Chick Bowen. I would consider changing my vote if anyone in this debate can list here some 3rd-party sources that could be added to the article, for example, some press coverage. The speedy deletion based on A7 seems correct. Looking at the AfD from June, 2005, I'm puzzled that no-one in that debate complained about the total lack of outside sources. (At least, there are no sources included in the copy of the article that is currently visible at http://www.answers.com/indietits ). EdJohnston 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The answers mirror is up-to-date, yes; and for the record, I have no problem with the redirect. —Cryptic 11:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(CfD)

Category:Erdős number 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Erdős number 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Erdős number 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Erdős number 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Erdős number 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Erdős number 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"The Erdős number is a way of describing the "collaborative distance", in regard to mathematical papers, between an author and Erdős."

As per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion this needs to be deleted. This info is encyclopedic, but that does not need categorization. A list is a better alternative. They are not an effective way to navigate just like a persons favorite number.

--Cat out 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, this is not CfD round 2. Do you have information that was not in the debate? Or evidence that the people who participated acted in bad faith? If you don't, there's nothing to do. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  I dislike making accusations... --Cat out 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn closure/Delete. Trivial categories. They say absolutely nothing about the mathematicians. The categories are supposed to be used only to help finding information. These categories are going to incorporate pretty much every mathematician in the last centuries and that would make them useless. bogdan 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and speedy close, looks like a valid no consensus close to me. This isn't CFD Part II, and there's no statement disputing the CFD closure. --Coredesat 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure & speedy close.What Amarkov and Coredesat said. If Cool Cat isn't willing to give a rationale for reviewing the close, there's nothing for us to do here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure This is a sort of an in-joke. It has no mathematical content whatsoever and was never intended to. It is some indication of the relationship structure among groups of mathematicians, but not intrinsically more so than the distance from any other major figure in the field. But I ask the more experienced--Wouldnt it be simpler to just proposed them for deletion again in a while, hoping for a wider turnout at CfD?DGG 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. DRV is not XFD round 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9. Your deletion nomination failed. Get over it. --- RockMFR 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, nothing invalid about the CfD closure, and DRV is not a new CfD. BryanG^(talk) 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of cities with the most billionaires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Prodded by anonymous IP and deleted on the 17th. Almost every other article in Category:Lists of people by wealth was similarly prodded, and now the category itself is up for deletion on grounds of being a "copyvio". I was able to deprod others once I saw the CfD, but was too late to review this. See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#List of cities with the most billionaires (where I went before the user directed me here). DeLarge 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As a contested prod, this should be speedy restored. But copyright problems are a case all their own, and are never undeleted. I can't find the copyright violation, so am dubious that it was. Unless someone shows this to have actually been a copyright violation, I'll overturn it in about 24 hours. GRBerry 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

• Undelete: WP:MUSIC. He has released his EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, and the song Straight Boys is on MTV's Next. He is well known outside of MySpace. milk the cows (Talk) 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Star's MySpace page says that one of his songs was played on MTV's Next. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.209.107.26 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
  • And America's Next Top Model on The CW according to these sources: [24][25] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.209.107.26 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

  Any reliable sources that show that? Because otherwise this is heading for a speedy close due to the numerous previous endorsements. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  The MySpace page is a primary source, and one of the America's Next Top Model sources is a forum post - neither are reliable. --Coredesat 00:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional endorse once again unless a source can be found for the MTV thing. If it can be, I believe badlydrawnjeff found sources in the previous DRV, so I would end up favoring unsalting the article. --Coredesat 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete if milk the cows can provide reliable sources for his claim. (jarbarf) 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and previous reviews unless multiple non-trivial sources are provided. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - DRV is not AFD take two. No dispute in how the close was handled. – Chacor 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Jeffree star is very well known, ask most teenagers who he is and they will be able to tell you (at least i know who he is) If reliable references (not myspace) can be used to create a good article then i dont see why not.--Joebengo 04:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The major problem here is that for someone to be notable under the notability guidelines, you can't simply say they're notable for X reason, which many of Jeffree Star's fans are doing here. You actually have to provide the reliable sources that back up your claim, and failure to do so has resulted in all the deletions being endorsed. --Coredesat 06:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I asked "any teenager" (actually about five of them) and they all said "who?". Guy (Help!) 12:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Jeffrey Star is not well known at all among teenagers. I'm 20. I've never heard of him, and neither have any of my friends. And here, Joebongo, you can see the problem: without reliable references, my word is just as good as yours. Stebbins 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am in no way "endorsing" him, I was just stating that hes well known, personally i do not like him or his music and that is part of the reason I don't even care about him having an article about him or not, (i might look for sources later) but for now I have better things to do.--Joebengo 21:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, still no reliable sources, please stop trying to use us to generate marketing buzz. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There have been many, many deletion reviews. In the past the problem has always been lack of sources. Since the current nominator isn't offering any new reliable sources, I think the deletion should be upheld. EdJohnston 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Ed and Sam. Lots of claims, nothing in the way of reliable sources to back them up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The "well known" argument does not hold. It has to be within Wikipedia's criteria of notability, not an arbitrary criteria made by individuals. [Google]] gives the following list here:

A Google search for "Jeffree Star" but I can't find anything that asserts notability, and none of the sources I've found are reliable sources. There just isn't any non-trivial published third-party sources that can attest to the notability of this person. No offence to those who worked on the article, but he is just (currently) not notable for now. Also, I can see no procedural errors in the way the previous AFD's were handled either. But if you find new reliable sources, then I suggest you make a version in your userspace, e.g. User:SunStar Net/Jeffree Star which you can work on. But for now, I have to endorse the deletion. --sunstar net^talk 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• This interview, dated February 15, says, in his own words, "I don't have a record out and I don't have any music for sale until next month". Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bestiary of creatures in the Final Fantasy series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Redirect to Creatures of Final Fantasy was deleted under speedy deletion for a typo that doesn't exist. --Dookama 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It was deleted for being an incredibly unlikely search term, which it is. -Amarkov moo! 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It's really unlikely anyone would search for that name, and nothing links to it either. There's tens of thousands of ways this could be phrased, "Monsters seen in the Final Fantasy video games", "List of enemies from the Final Fantasy game series" etc etc etc. Just because redirects are cheap doesn't mean we need every even remotely plausable combination to exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reason to overturn provided. ~ trialsanderrors 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Dr. Steel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Phineas Waldolf Steel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Review Requested & Fair use complience sugestions requested Fenixasin

• Overturn and Merger. This article was written over the span on eight days, in those eight days, it was flagged for noumerous items, most of which were addressed. In the end this article was deleted because of "Fair use material" I am requesting that this be reviewed, and what should be changed to have it comply with fair use, if it is the images, why was taking the images off not suggested to comply with fair use. If there are other things, what are they?. I wish to know what information fron the page can be merged to the Phineas waldorf steel page and still comply with our standards, and to have the doctor steel page redirect to the as said page.Fenixasin 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The article showed no difference from the material at Phineas Waldolf Steel and was more of a fansite than an encyclopedia article. Most of the contributors to that AFD were single purpose accounts that had no other edits other than to the AFD. As such, they were WP:ILIKEIT votes and had no use in determining consensus. Although I initiated the AFD, I still feel that the article at the end of the AFD period was still not encyclopedic, and this article had been speedy deleted five times before hand. This article would have been WP:SALTed a while ago, and I only recently put it at WP:PTL for that reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me Ryulong, but how may the article be salvaged, Merger was proposed by the 3 non SPA's, the keeps were by SPA's I'll give you that, but I have to ask... where is your input on how to fix it... I don't care about the images, but the discography is what I wanted to salvage, I just want information available to those who might want it, that's why I love wikipedia, it has information on everything, not just a few things, and it's free to everyone in the world... maybe it's the socialist in me, but information should be free and available to everyone. Fenixasin 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ryulong for the discography, I appreciate you spending the time to locate it for me.Fenixasin 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Seven deletions at Doctor Steel, four at Dr. Steel, two at Phineas Waldolf Steel, numerous different admins involved, plus an AfD closed yesterday (what has changed since then?). Constant re-creation by brand new users without ever actually fixing the problem, plus this comment in the last deleted version of Dr. Steel: OPERATION WIKIPEDIA IS SUCCESSFUL Type "Doctor Steel" into search box. I don't think we need to be part of this viral marketing campaign. I don't know what User:Fenixasin's brief is here, but I note that their contributions to Wikipedia appear to consist mainly of adding this individual, images of this individual, and adding links to the articles to others such as Jay Leno and The Tonight Show. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reconsider Deletion Can someone please honestly tell me why they will just up and delete this article?I mean many people tried so hard to put this up.I really would hate to form such a bad opinion of many of you admins.I would just appreciate one straight answer.Or one of you could just delete and protect this section of the discussion,which was done several times before. Tyr 07:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell not many people actually. Roughly one. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• This article has been posted under multiple different titles. If you want to know what's wrong with the article, you can find the reason in the deletion log. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly though,I personally think you people are pompous,big headed egomaniacs.I sincerly hope something happens to wipe this entire website.Good day. Tyr 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. abuse of wikipedia. `'mikka 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relisting comment Was deleted from the 14th's review lof on the 16th by Tyr; not spotted and fixed until the 21st. Lost too many days to close without relisting. GRBerry 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion pretty much per what Guy said above. Apparently "Dr. Steel" has a Myspace blog post asking users to sign up and vote to keep the article. A clear case of someone confusing Wikipedia with a promotional tool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• The deletion discussion/vote is a mess, so is the article. Keep deleted, at least for now; no opinion about the person's merits, but the above comment suggests that the page should be left protected for a while. - Mike Rosoft 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted for being a copyvio, but this is a list of people who have achieved a certain threshold of caps. Per Feist vs. Rural facts themselves cannot be copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All parts were copied, not merely the facts. The selection was copied, the format was copied, and the footnotes were copied. If you want, take it up with the legal counsel or gain permission from the copyright holders, but you cannot undelete a copyright infringement. —Centrx→talk • 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that those elements can't be removed. That is a lot of work to have to do from scratch. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a cleaned-up version that just sticks to the facts at User:Howcheng/Caps. If there are no objections, I will move this to the article's location. howcheng {chat} 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion but allow User:Howcheng/Caps. it copies facts and arranges them in the most obvious way but telephone directories aren't copyrightable just because thet're in alphabetical order. It may be problematic in other ways (e.g. as trivial or unmaintainable) but it is no longer a copyvio. Note that IANAL. Eluchil404 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is now done. I suppose this DRV may be closed. howcheng {chat} 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It's a common misinterpretation that Feist vs. Rural allows us to copy whole lists with impunity. Read the article: "'information' is not copyrightable, O'Connor notes, but 'collections' of information can be". ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Super Stunt" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Admin deleted article the same day it was created despite no votes for Speedy Delete and no Speedy Delete Template. Reason given for deletion was that it was "unsourced" when in fact there was a source in the external links: a column on the site of the Minn. Star-Trib. Little time was given to address any of the other reasons for deletion. Dialogue was attempted with the admin who deleted the article but the admin stopped responding. Notmydesk 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. The point of a 5 day AfD, instead of just until consensus is reached, is to allow people time to address the concerns. Unless there's a consensus that there is no way to clean it up, it should not be deleted after only half a day. -Amarkov moo! 18:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I didn't see any convincing arguments for snowballing on the AfD, either. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Before I started the AfD on this article I very nearly speedied it myself. I only took it to AfD because someone prodded it first and the prod was contested. The early deletion seems like a reasonable application of WP:SNOW to me. —JeremyA 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• An unreferenced article about a failed prank. Possible speedy deletion candidate due to no claim of notability. Keep deleted; relisting wouldn't have changed the result, so there's no point in giving it any more undeserved fame. - Mike Rosoft 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Can't say I agree with the early close, but I see no point in relisting when the AfD was going 10-to-delete-1-to-"smerge" and there's not a chance in heck it would've been kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of my point. You don't agree with the early close but don't see the point of relisting? The early close meant I had no opportunity to address the issues brought up by the original delete votes. Might the article have had a "chance in heck" if the issues had been addressed? Might the issues have been addressed if the article hadn't been deleted the same day it was created? How am I supposed to address problems in an article if it gets deleted immediately? I apologize, sincerely, that the article didn't leap from my forehead fully-formed, like the offspring of Zeus, onto the pages of Wikipedia. It's the first article I've written for Wikipedia, and I welcome any and all input -- it would just be nice to have had a chance in heck to bring the article up to snuff. --Notmydesk 17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the things about Wikipedia is that we generally don't let a vote continue if the outcome is already clear. I personally don't think it should have been closed quite as early as it was, but I don't see any reasonable chance of any other outcome either. I see your point about how frustrating it can be to have an article deleted when it was still fairly new, but based on what the article itself was about, keeping it around another week (or year, or decade) would not have magically morphed it into something encyclopedic. Some things just don't make good encyclopedia articles, and website pranks that get ignored by the media are one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Starslip Crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AFD1|AfD2)

Article was closed as redirect to Blank Label Comics in spite of a clear lack of any rough consensus to delete per Wikipedia:Deletion policy on the part of Wikipedia editors, with only a handful even suggesting a merge. (Previously deleted, previously overturned in DRV as a textbook case of WP:POINT, as the author of the comic engaged in rampant sockpuppetry to get the article deleted.)

The AFD would make a good textbook case for a discussion on Wikipedia resulting in no consensus based on the content of discussion, a not nearly as good example of a rough consensus to keep based on the total agreement (i.e. consensus) of experienced editors invoking policy and guideline, and cannot be interpreted as a rough consensus to delete per any standard of rough consensus. Balancer 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I have sympathy for the closer, but given that exactly ONE person was advocating a redirect without merge, it seems kind of strange that he'd choose that particular outcome. If there was a consensus (and I don't think there was), that sure wasn't it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, and troutslap anyone who says to keep it without providing a good source in the next AfD. Far too many of the keeps seemed to be reflexive "a sockpuppet made it deleted before, therefore it must be kept!" -Amarkov moo! 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn or possibly relist, but the closure did not reflect community consensus. (jarbarf) 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In the short run I chose to be bold and merged the latest version's content into Kristofer Straub and changed the redirect to there. The page isn't salted or even deleted, merely redirected. Nifboy 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemite (epithet) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets (2)

Deleted without any prior discussion and does not fall under speedy deletion, i.e. the page was deleted "out of process" and not in accordance with the deletion policy. Liftarn 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've added what appears to be the related AFD, this appears to be a CSD G4 based on the material being substantially similar to that deleted through the AFD. --pgk 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is not "Recreation of deleted material", but a new article. It was a bit stubby, but I hoped to expand it. In Talk:List of political epithets it was the reccomended to expand terms into articles so that you could give more viewpoints. The deletion of every article about political epithets would also require deletion of articles such as Limousine liberal, Chickenhawk (politics), Neo-confederate and many more. // Liftarn

  The talk page indeed has a lot of talk about the very subject of this article (indeed the proposed text looks almost exactly the same as the article), with most of those who weighed in pointing out it failing the same issues for which the main AFD raised. --pgk 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Then you can't have been looking very hard. Some words may be the same (but not in the same order). The only thing in common is the list of references. // Liftarn

• Strongest Possible Overturn Obvious process failure; the AFD does not even mention this article. AFDs delete outcomes are not blank checks for the deletion of other related articles, for the very same reason that Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability says that the presence or absence of another article is not evidence for keeping or deleting one being discussed. GRBerry 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Looking further, I can see some relationship and withdraw my opinion. Someone else will have to close this when the time comes. GRBerry 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on Afd. I can't imagine how this could fall under any speedy criterion. It is not a repost of deleted material. Precedent for deletion is not a speedy criterion. --- RockMFR 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For about a year now, Liftarn has been attempting to cast the term "antisemite" as a political epithet. Creation of this article is a continuation of that battle; it's continued WP:POINT. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That is a comment for the AfD. // Liftarn
    • Thank you; I didn't know WP:POINT was limited in scope in that fashion. Oh, wait, it isn't. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion -- Seems to be more a way to "game" the wiki-system than a truly new article. -- Avi 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment For a very long time this notable epithet was kept out (partially by my own laziness, but mostly due to) some editors gaming the system to keep it out. Now that it had it's own article it would be easier to have comments from all sides. // Liftarn
    • Comment The subject does not require its own article (with or without a POV title) to maintain balance — that is perfectly achievable elsewhere. Indeed, even if the article were made perfectly balanced, devoting an entire article to the subject of whether or not 'antisemite' is an epithet might arguably devote undue weight to that viewpoint when the encyclopaedia is viewed as a whole. Jakew 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I disagree. To have it is it's own article serves two purposes. 1) It does not needlessley clutter the antisemitism article and 2) that's how it is done with other simmilar terms like for instance Fascist (epithet). But on the other hand it may be a good idea to start it in the antisemitism article and see if it grows large enough to have it's own article. // Liftarn
• Endorse deletion. Both Jpgordon's and Avi's comments are spot on. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Since it was you who deleted it it's not wonder. // Liftarn
    • Please restrict your comments to content and process. Argumentum ad hominem does not help any side of any discussion. -- Avi 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, don't strike out my comments and delete other peoples comments again; this is another example of disruptive behavior. You've been very bold recently with striking out comments of people you don't agree with (e.g. [26] , but you need to allow others to actually have opinions that differ from your own. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Please avoid such comments and comment on the content rather than the person. // Liftarn
• Endorse deletion as per Avi. Recreation of deleted content. On a side note (unrelated to DRV) has the risk of becoming a POV magnet, and cannot be separated from Antisemitism. JFW | T@lk 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Jpgordon, Avi and Jfdwolff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Please make visible both the article and the earlier AfD. How can I give an opinion about things I cannot see? DGG 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Debatable G4, but also endorsable administrative discretion. While there are a couple more sentences on this term here than there were in the article deleted by AFD, the bulk of the actual content related to the term was the eight! footnotes with quotations that were in that article to support a single sentence. All of these are replicated in the new article, and they are in fact the bulk of the content. Antisemitism is the right place for this material, where it can be whittled down to the due weight for it under WP:NPOV. GRBerry 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, could somebody pick up the list of references so we can add it to the article? // Liftarn
• Endorse deletion per Jpgordon and Avi; the material now exists in an NPOV incarnation - lets not bring it back to the way it was. Tewfik^Talk 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Jpgordon. --tickle me 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion it looks like a spiteful pov fork. Guy Montag 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Subsection of antisemitism. Gzuckier 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Jpgordon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Jpgordon, Avi and Tewfik, or at the very least, the reasoning of GRBerry regarding administrative discretion. 6SJ7 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JFW. Jakew 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, excepting an WP:AFD could result in WP:SNOW. But oh well, since Wikipedia is a democracy, it really doesn't matter. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is an ochlocracy. // Liftarn
    • Ah, from the Greek meaning "rule of the people who can come up with the most obscure words". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. From the sounds of it, there is no relevant CSD criterion. I might reconsider if someone could give us a history-only undeletion. Kla'quot 08:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and then take the debate on if it should be deleted, merged, expanded and so on. // Liftarn

2007 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• Undelete: This one wasn't included in the nominations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and should have been undeleted with the rest of the lists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

speedy deletion where a {{sources}} tag would have sufficed. 32,000 hits. This organisation has many chapters worldwidem, and has been mentioned in many U.S. govt documents. John Vandenberg 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy is only appropriate for uncontestable cases. This sounds like it should never have been speedied in the first place, but I'm going by John's account of the organization. DGG 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore assuming John's account to be correct. Actuallly, as a WP:DM member, I may try and research this later. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, rewrite: It was uncontestable. Remember that we're not talking about the subject of an article, but the article itself. This particular one didn't even say what nation it was "the National" organization of, much less how we know these things. I.e. it wasn't a case of a "cite tag," but an article so fundamentally poorly executed that a reader was left with no context. If I say, "The club is the major organization of players," it's meaningless. I should not then come back and say, "You should have known that I was talking about the Major League Player's Association of the Major League Baseball organization of the United States, and you should never have deleted it." This is like that. Geogre 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, deletion review is whether the deletion was appropriate. The deletion log shows that neither Geogre or Jimfbleak bothered to state which criteria for speedy deletion was used. The article had seven incoming links, which should have been enough reason to not use speedy deletion twice. I noticed this article was missing because it became a red link on Leo A. Soriano. In regards to the article not stating which nation it represented, you could have been bold and clicked the external link to their homepage to find out.
• The most recent deletion was probably semi-justified because the article would have only just been created after a previous speedy deletion. If the article is restored, please undelete the better of the two articles. John Vandenberg 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and the central fact that the article (the better of them) did not give context to indicate which nation this was the "national of," that qualifies under speedy deletion, "no context." It's no different in that regard from "Thundra is the leader of the good faction" in an article. You have to establish the context. Geogre 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Evidence of notability. "National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster" site:gov returns 536 hits. National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster" returns 41 scholar hits. John Vandenberg 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's evidence of Google hits for a name, not evidence that the article had context. The deletion was of an article not of a subject. If anyone had bothered to read the article critically and supply the missing information, this would never have occurred. Geogre 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is google hits specifically on American government sites. I did briefly look at the article whilst working on Leo A. Soriano; it was a reasonable stub, and I had other things to do at the time. Unless you believe that it had little or no context, there are no grounds for the speedy deleted ... and "this would never have occurred". John Vandenberg 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, you already knew what it was, where it was, and what it did, when you looked at it. I didn't. I wanted to. The authors didn't take the time and trouble to help out by writing an article that explained the topic. I'm all for an article on the subject, but how about one with context? Again, an article on "Malfoy" that never tells you that he's a fictional character in a series of novels will be fine for people who read the novels and utterly useless for anyone else. Geogre 16:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, that is completely incorrect. I had no idea about NVOAD until I ran across them while looking for sources about Leo A. Soriano. I wanted to gauge the reliability of this organisation as a source; having the article on NVOAD was extremely useful for that, as it did provide plenty of context (maybe not which nation but it wasnt hard to guess), esp. with the existing incoming wikilinks. It should have been tagged with {{context}}. John Vandenberg 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, lack of context. Write a proper article, rather than waste time arguing about this. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I didnt write this article, so dont shoot the messenger; I'm just doing my bit by reporting the loss of an article about a notable subject, and that its speedy deletion was done inappropriately as far as I can tell. This process can wield the magic button to restore other peoples work; OTOH I would need to spend a number of hours or days to write a stub that I am happy with, precisely because I do write proper articles and this article is not in an area I am familiar with. The loss of this article is no more my responsibility than it is yours or anyone other wikipedian. John Vandenberg 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But the fact that a good article could be written about a subject doesn't stop this from being a valid "no context" speedy. If an article provides no useful information about a subject, no matter how notable, undeleting it doesn't do anyone any good. It will confuse rather than enlighten any reader who finds it and perspective authors would be served just as well by starting from scratch. Eluchil404 07:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I have contested the speedy's grounds based on my recollections of the article; evidence that a good article could be written is merely auxiliary information, that I already knew of, in order that people had reason to give this deletion review the time of day. If someone with admin permission, in addition to JzG's opinion, looks at both versions and believes that Wikipedia is better off without the best of them, then I'll bow out, and put it on my todo list. John Vandenberg 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think it offered a useful basis for writing a proper article. You can have it in userspace if you think it will help you write one. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Why my user space? Why not yours? or Blood red sandmans? Or pick someone at random and ask them to rewrite it? Or just restore it and tag it. John Vandenberg 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Because 1) you evidence caring and 2) you are the most prominent advocate that the old text is useful. Thus you are the individual most likely to actually do something. GRBerry 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
              • My only relation to this article is that its loss breaks the web and I remembered the article well enough to feel confident that it should not have been vanished under G1. Anyway, as you have given your opinion further down that the article wasnt a suitable stub, I'll let the matter rest. This review request can be closed (as NHJ :-). John Vandenberg 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I could easily restore and say which country, but then I'd be redeleting under A7/G11, and that would be pointless. Better to rewrite from scratch. GRBerry 00:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment I've just come back from a holiday, and reviewed my deletion. It still reads like promotional material for an organisation in an unspecified nation. Whether the organisation is notable is not an issue - This article about it is poorly written unsourced and NPOV. I'd still delete. jimfbleak 13:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (I used the wrong word) delete I forget to say this explicitly before, & the subsequent discussion confirms my view--it is an article in need of improvement.DGG 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)DGG

• Restatement: I haven't changed my view. Since the topic is fine, I wish all the energy devoted to outraged protest at the DRV went into writing a well-sourced and well written (Lord, please!) article. There is not a previous AfD, so the name could be used for a good article without a G4 problem. Geogre 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthony John Bailey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

UNDELETE_No way could you attribute the "Keep" votes to the same person!! Certainly not any of the following: Kyaa the Catlord (see his/her other contributions - way beyond just this issue), nor TheQuandry who is too obviously an American wikipedian; nor RebSkii who clearly has an Asian focus, nor myself, a mother of five to whom I guarantee you Bailey is unknown let alone unrelated! Give me a break! I'm from Northumberland, now in London, but have never met Bailey, and have no connection with him. However, I do think that someone like him has already demonstrated his notability to several heads of states, Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, media, and heads of companies and royal houses, as well as major religious leaders has demonstrated his notability far more than the wiki-skeptics can understand. It's is a sign of the weakness of the wiki-world that his PR background is now held against him to refute his notability. I bet you none of the wiki-skeptics on this issue have ever come near to that kind of access, notability, honours, nor impact on good causes!! Shame on you all!!!Tricky 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, we're all street scum. The closing admin was likely referring to the large amount of text (and repeated bold 'keep' comments - not votes) inserted by User:Seisal to the AFD, not the overall number of editors opining keep. (I believe Seisal contributed five total "votes", four of which were stricken, and the above nominator three, one of which was stricken.) Looking through the AFD, I see a lot of claims that appear to be backed up by sources too closely related to the subject to be truly reliable. Endorse deletion and suggest that interested editors create a new well-sourced article in userspace, then get opinions on it prior to reposting in mainspace. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, probably not the most tactful DRV I've ever seen, but the real issue here is that reviewing the AfD, there were a few keep opinions from various established editors, but when you distilled out the multiple opinions that some editors made as well as the IP opinions that appeared to be from someone who was also adding opinions with a username, the consensus was pretty clearly slanted towards deletion. I agree with Tony as well, the article as it stood was fundamentally flawed by a lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing; I don't think that version was even worth pulling out of deletion. As he suggested, starting an article in your sandbox and making sure it is adequately sourced before having it moved to the mainspace would be a good next step.--Isotope23 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion I supported deletion in the AfD for lack of sources, in a situation where good sourcing seemed to be possible. That article was so badly flawed and so PR-like that it would be better to start over. DGG 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Undelete and Keep new version. Most of the comments above are no longer valid as the first article has been deleted and completely rewritten with all independent sources quoted. As I said before, I accepted fully all the views expressed previously and rewrote the article. Sadly this has also been deleted even though some of the previous critics considered it considerably neutral and meeting the requirements of wikipedia. Bailey also meets the requirements for notability on at least three points and I verified all the information I have sourced about him from non eligo sources. Could you therefore be a little more explicit as to your current issues as this would be more helpful instead of a blanket removal on the new article based above on the valid comments relating to the deletion of the first article. --Seisal

"I verified all the information I have sourced about him from non eligo sources." - apart from the ones that were from the private club that he runs or the ones from the various "charitable organisations" that he set up. Based on what I read while that article was still up (which was nothing more than a promotional piece with no objectivity at all), and messages like this (the IP address was intermittently contributing to the new article at the same times as Seisal), I think it pretty likely you either are AJB, or are an employee of his PR firm - on that assumption you should make sure you are well aware of the wikipedia guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. I am 100% certain that this should be kept binned. Endorse deletion. SFC9394 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The page was deleted for the subject not being notable. However Wikipedia's policy for an Musician is this:

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

Medicine Show have been featured in i-D Magazine, Wig Magazine and Ny2Lon online fanzine. These are all independant, national and international publications and therefore qualify as non-trivial works under Wikipedia's guidelines. The article itself is independant and objective simply stating facts and information surrounding the band. Again I see no reason for this page to have been deleted and hope to see in reinstated Xchilde haroldx 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment:- My original deletion reason was non-notable band/musician. I gave the reason csd g4 because it was recreated after speedy deletion.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. G4 explicitly does not apply to previous speedy deletions. It asserts notability, so it needs to go to AFD. --Coredesat 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list. The correct step would have been to take it to AfD, which is where it should now go. DGG 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete since speedy deletion was misapplied due to the assertion of notability. (jarbarf) 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (2nd nomination)

Deleted in 2005 because it was a "message board that has one thread" and "a possible hoax". Suspicions were probably well-founded at the time, but now it is a well-known website frequently listed next to Wikitruth as a forum for criticism of Wikipedia [27], [28]. Second link is especially important because it comes from a government agency. I think both websites are equally deserving of an article. Ashibaka (tock) 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. With a year and a half between the original discussion and now, and some evidence that it's more than what it was then, it's worth another look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted A non-notable message board with a relatively very small number of regulars who spend there whole time disparaging wikipedia, attempting to violate the privacy of wikipedians, and engaging in tittle tattle about the personal lives and sexuality of our users. No thanks. Worse that Encyclopedia Dramatica - and we don't do that. Non-notable, and self-referential.--Doc^g 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm, it seems you are making a judgement about the website itself rather than an argument about why the previous AfD should be upheld, what's wrong with my current sources, etc. Ashibaka (tock) 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I am, but still not notable. Would we even be discussing the inclusion of this if it wern't about us? No, we'd have speedied it and forgotten it.--Doc^g 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Neither cited article is primarily about Wikipedia Review. Both are about criticism of Wikipedia and simply name the site as a place where that happens. Please cite multiple non-trivial independent coverage of which Wikipedia Review is primary subject. Also plainly fails WP:WEB: 21,638 posts, 383 registered members, most users online was 174, on Fri 20th October 2006. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Per Guy above, is just an aspect of criticism of wikipedia, and not notable in its own right. Our own article on Criticism of Wikipedia only gives it a passing mention. --Gmaxwell 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete I think this is a question of COI--our COI as a group, in deciding which articles about boards/publications about WP are N. As we all know, the general line of the board is extremely critical of WP, and this gives the best of reasons to support an article about them--assuming that we can do one with NPOV--I haven't been able to find the earlier article. The site is actively discussed on slashdot & elsewhere, and the only way I now of to avoid my potential bias is to keep the article. Given th potential bias, that it isnt mentioned on other articles here is not relevant. DGG 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion way, way, way below WP:WEB standards. Our policies regarding self-reference mean we can't give this extra points just because it's about Wikipedia and most of us are aware of it at least in passing. We'd certainly delete a forum about woodworking, cross-stitch, or Sonic the Hedgehog given the same member count, Alexa rank, and availability of sources. Therefore, keep deleted per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The major thing about my sources is that they list Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review equally, i.e., they are both equally notable. Ashibaka (tock) 00:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think the sources listed are all that compelling. The most important things to mention about WR (such as the fact that there are several forums calling themselves WR, the people who founded for them and the reasons for the splits, the other people involved with WR) would impossible to verifiably cover, at least based on the two sources given in the DRV nom, which are passing mentions that contain no details about the forum(s). I wouldn't be terribly opposed to an AfD or anything that would drum up better sources or otherwise show that a proper article could be written here, but from the sources listed so far it looks like that would be a waste of time. But to recreate the article when the only verifiable information is "Wikipedia review is a site critical of Wikipedia" seems like a bad idea. A redirect to the Wikipedia criticism article would probably be a good thing. --W.marsh 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per JzG, wouldn't object to a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. The sources mentioned by the nominator are little more than passing mentions, which are not enough for notability per WP:WEB. --Coredesat 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete I wish we could routinely view articles for DRV. I haven't seen article but Slashdot activity alone could support notability and verifiability 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I refuse to overturn deletions when nobody can find even one reliable source about the thing, which this includes. We are in no way obligated to lower our standards for sites that criticize us. -Amarkov moo! 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Fails web; the only reason this is of interest to us at all is vanity. Odd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The sources provided by Ashibaka are sufficient to put a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia, but do not provide any real information that we could use to write an article. Kusma (討論) 10:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Puppy - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming endorsement of the previous AfD, perhaps we should just end this debate at this point, redirect the page to Criticism of Wikipedia, and add the sources I found there. Ashibaka (tock) 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers

Asia Paranormal Investigators (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Initial reason for deletion is references linked back to their website. Although Article was improved with independent sources for notability, there was no further review by the admin and article was deleted. Firet 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I started finding reliable sources for this while the AFD was on but I got sidetracked. Okay, primary subject, lots of content and evidence for notability cache, decent coverage, would contribute to an article cache, moderate coverage, small coverage. They were covered in newpaper.asia1.com.sg, the full article is no longer online but some excerpts still are. Moderage coverage in German. The Singapore media seems to like them; it's apparently something of a novelty to have a group of sceptics running around. Anyway, there it is, multiple non-trivial reliable sources independent of the organization itself. WP:N is fulfilled, even if this was not made clear during the AFD. I think there may have been some WP:COI issues previously, but that can be monitored and prevented in the future. — coelacan talk — 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or rewrite from sources above. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn since sources demonstrate clear notability and there was also a process issue. JoshuaZ 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

As already recently discussed in its talk page, the topic seems to regard a real, current and notable concept. Please read the discussion in the talk page before saying anything. Angelo 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What follows are a list of sources that define the term in various ways that are consistent with the definitions on the former article's talk page. I'll note that the term is used to denote a collection of "things to come" rather then a single entity and thus the definitions are necessarily provisional. 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

web based news journal http://web2journal.com/read/236036.htm

New york Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12web.html?ex=1320987600&en=254d697964cedc62&ei=5088

Tim Berners Lee http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/23/business/web.php

St Petersberg times http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=20365

Japenses english language new site http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/culture/20070123TDY18004.htm

Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3i49998ef2b580e2b5461e3dfb1faedb43?imw=Y

Academic essay http://lee.webcoder.be/papers/sesa.pdf

Numskll 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. --- RockMFR 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  If the speculation isn't our own we certainly can; for example, we have articles on cars that haven't come out yet but have been speculated on by experts in automotive magazines. Tim Berners-Lee is a significant expert and others have voiced similar opinions. Multiple, nontrivial sources means this is some notable speculation. With NPOV, we can avoid defining it ourselves while specifying which definitions have been made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. The concept and roadmap is now defined congruently across several good references . This is what should be included in the article , not speculation or original research. There is no harm in referring to existing definition and descriptions. There is also significant interest in and demand for the article --Peter Campbell 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  There is harm, as Wikipedia is the de facto source for this type of information. If we were to not have an article, the definition of Web 3.0 might change or transform. Once we define it by selectively choosing sources which match the POV of the article's editors, that definition will strengthen and all other existing definitions will weaken. --- RockMFR 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree. Many editors would ensure POV is corrected for and all definitions are included. Following your logic, Wikipedia would not have any article on terms classified as emerging or those argued about, such as Web 2.0 or Service-oriented architecture -- Peter Campbell 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Seven sources, come on. —MichaelLinnear 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it seems to pretty definitively be tied to the Semantic Web; some of the sources are hazy, but none of them dispute that. change to a redirect, perhaps? Or just a stubby disambig with links to the specific concepts? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My issue there is that as I understand it the semantic web is one of the technologies that will comprise Web 3.0, the terms are not synomynous. The solution would be to have a section in the semantic web article that describes this context - which seems backwards. Numskll 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Here are are a series of articles that illustrate the point. [29] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Undelete. With sources like that, we should have an article. It may end up being too short for it's own article, but that's not our concern. -Amarkov moo! 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete It may possibly be on the short side now, but it can be expected to increase. It is already N enough to include.DGG 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. If there isn't enough to say, we can always merge it to Web 2.0, but the current status (a useless self-reference at a point where we could at least have a useful redirect) is not good. Kusma (討論) 06:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. As somebody in the industry, I hate buzz-o-licious terms like "Web 3.0". And like "Web 2.0" people are using it to mean a couple of different things. But they aren't using it to mean anything at all, and I regret to say that people are using it. I think Night Gyr's stubby disambiguation page is all we need for now. William Pietri 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete: This is me, with apologies, parsing out RockMFR's objections.

  It's a real phrase and real concept, yes. A well-defined concept? No. It is a braodly defined concept but relatively well articulated. Just because some term is conflicted or slippery doesn't make it non-notable or unencyclopedic.

  Could anything in this article be useful to readers in the future? No. This, to me, is ridiculous on its face. An NPOV article on the topic certianly could be useful to those who stumbled across the term. In point of fact I'm advocating for its inclusion primarily because I directed someone to wikipedia to find out more about the term and found it locked down. I found its omission and wiki-forboden disapointing to say the least. Is no information really better then provisional informartion.

  Is having an article about speculation regarding the Web better than normal speculation? No. Except this speculation isn't pure specualtion as it is embedded in on-going and real world projects that surround building the web out for the future. We're not talkng flying cars here.

  Could we actually cause harm in creating this article by attempting to define a concept that is not defined? Yes. Once Wikipedia attempts to define it, our definition will become the status quo, and it will ultimately lead to us citing sources that were based on our own definition. Isn't that simply [somewhat self important] speculation? You don't want to allow us to publish a discussion of the term because of the possible harm it might cause to the Web? I'm not sure where to go with that other than to note that if the article is NPOV and accurate any definition we float will be necessarily accurate, thus obviating your f wikipedia dominating the term. Numskll 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• undelete - the argument that we shouldn't have an article is so completely specious that taken to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't have an article on _anything_ because wikipedia might be used as a source and cite sources that used it. --Random832(tc) 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep deleted article would still fail WP:NEO, and still be basically be a laundry list of all the times people have taken Web 2.0 and added one to it. Artw 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just read WP:NEO. The qualifiers offered by the policy seem to allow the the use of Web 3.0 by exception. The actual limiting policies then are WP:NOR and whatever the wiki code for the verifiable policy is. The article clearly passes on those accounts. I wonder if you're not getting caught up in the negative conotations of web x.x and buzz words in general? Numskll 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• undelete TBL and NYT as cites. The notion that WP can define a term in an industry with rigorous process of developing a standard is precious. Edivorce 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The TBL quote is, frankly, rather selective quoting and utterly disengenuous. The man doesn't even like the term Web 2.0. Artw 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I missed the WP that said a given auther had to like the term. Seriously, even if he used it with distain (which is indeed obvious from the source), he used it with the expectation that everyone would know what he was talking about. Numskll 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete a buzzword, but a notable buzzword. Seems like this could be turned into a decent enough article, given the sources above especially. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Meets verifiability standards. Abeg92contribs 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)!
• Undelete. If it's something feel a need to look up, Wikipedia should contain an article on it - even if all it does is explain the ambiguities and problems associated with the phrase. I fail to understand where this protectionism came from. Nossac 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: When it exists as a stable concept, then it can be defined in Wiktionary. When it exists as a stable thing, it can be described in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a proper home for lexical matters, and shifting concepts are linguistic counters rather than realities, and Wikipedia is not a proper home for vague musings about what might be. Even describing the contexts in which the term is employed is properly lexical and not encyclopedic. The fact that this is the contemporary Land of Cockagne is interesting, but it is sufficient to note, in the article on WWW2, that people are using the term "3" to describe what might one day be. There is no need for a separate article of speculation. Geogre 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is a speculative article on World War III, so being a stable concept is not a valid criterion for exclusion. A subject doesn't need to be locked down in concrete before a Wikipedia article can exist - there is still debate about what Web 2.0 is. Web 3.0 exists as a term. The important article criteria are that Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are followed, viz WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:What Wikipedia is not. The article can comply with all these. The references will address the WP:NEO concern about the Web 3.0 neologism being verifiable --Peter Campbell 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the applicable policy is the deletion guideline. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Your business is lexical, not encyclopedic, until there is more than a linguistic phenomenon to report. The article on Cloud Cuckoo Land should not say what it means but what it is. This is important. Concepts are not all that is needed for an encyclopedia: activity within culture and the world is what is needed. If there are disparate referents for the sign, you're in dictionary world. Geogre 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • The term applies to a set of concepts that might be thought of as the specific scope and nature of near term innovation and augmentation of the web. There are a number of features, identifed in the various sources, that make Web 3.0 a relatively coherent concept. It is not a simply a synonym for whatever comes after web 2.0. This, in my view, makes it fair game for wikipedia. Plus, I'm not certian "not in my backyard" is a productive posture for the enterprise before us. Numskll 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I've just reread the deletion policy and other then wikipedia is not a dictionary or a crystal ball( both of which are in my view inapplicable for reasons given here) there deosn't seem to be a criteria that fits. Are those your basis for excluding this topic? Numskll 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete We know the concept exists. We know the term exists. We know the term is used for the concept. The concept will change, but that doesnt prevent an article. WP manages to keep up with change quite well, especially on this sort of topic. Trying not to have the article now, when we know there will be one in a few weeks or months is irrational--any reasonable person would expect to find an article on this here.DGG 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your distinction of term vs. concept is an important one and perhaps part of the hang up folks are having with the article. Numskll 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete per the commenters above, the concept is notable. Yamaguchi先生 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Frieden academic paper Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions to the Network Neutrality Debate Feb 2007 (Internet rather than Web, and I'm having no joy opening the pdf, but I thought I'd throw it in) Wwwhatsup 09:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete I read most of the arguments above and it seems logical to undelete the article. Although it might not have a definite definition, it satisfies WP:NEO in that it's mentioned in various reputable sources. Only a definition on Wiktionary is too shallow for the entire subject. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. It's a notable concept, with plenty of external source material, and deserves its own page. --Careax 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. It's hard to see many 'Web technologies' as a holistic system, and even harder to define it and give it versioning numbers. But people are using the term and that by itself should justify a Wikipedia entry. At least we would then have an informative page where it says "Web 3.0 is hard to define because people are referring to the integration of various web-related technologies, however ....". -hthth 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete I came on Wikipedia to read about Web 3.0 tonight. Was surprised to find it locked. Would favor unlocking and at least describing why it's hard to define, etc. InvictaHOG 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Badges (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

1) Better Badges was a vital/unique part of UK punk culture & a pioneer in viral promotion. 2) Deleter asked for reference and one was given but ignored. Wwwhatsup 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and re-run (or re-open) AfD. The one reference quoted looks good (here it is) and the AfD had an extremely low vote count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Did a little research, found a New York Times mention from 2001, and a brief mention in a book called "Post Punk Diary". Both of these are just mentions, but I'm inclined to think that a good article on Better Badges in possible. If it gets undeleted, I'll try to find even more sources for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking, Andrew. There are two more pages to that referenced article in The Face - ([30] and [31]).
    • The Post Punk Diary mention [32] refers to the Better Badges 'Top Ten' which was printed weekly in the back of the NME, and a recognized indicator of buzz.
    • Simon Reynolds' book Rip It Up and Start Again: Post Punk 1978-1984,P.213 [33], refers to BB's symbiotic relationship with Rough Trade, his source was likely Tom Vague's Pop History Of Notting Hill [34]
    • Tony Fletcher in a history of his fanzine Jamming! describes how he came to get it printed at BB [35]
    • Marc Johnson's book An Ideal For Living notes that one of Rob Gretton's first acts as Joy Division's manager in 1979 was to order badges from BB [36].

I realize that the page as it stands is not up to much, but I think it could be built on.Wwwhatsup 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Yes, this is enough new evidence to justify further discussion. I would suggest that the article be given to Wwwhatsup in userspace now, so that there's a little time for the new cites can be woven into the article, and then relist in a couple of days. — coelacan talk — 08:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Copy userfied at User:Wwwhatsup/Sandbox. GRBerry 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by closing administrator. I am okay with a relist but the evidence produced by Wwwhatsup includes sources of no good notability, some amateur sites, a weblog etc. I am not sure about the pinstand.com website though, and that still fails multiple. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closer acted within bounds of reasonable discretion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and whack into more acceptable shape by early next week. Excuse me for being a bit green. What I guess is best is to keep it brief and put the unsourced or dodgy sourced info on the talk page? I have the copy of The Face in question. I could rescan it, but where to post, or how best to refer? Wwwhatsup 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • One more source. 2003 Village Voice article Bootlegger's Banquet [37] Wwwhatsup 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Company is Notable Virgil06 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Article was discovered to be "missing" and resubmitted. Resubmission was flagged for speedy delete. After more research it seems it was ORIGINALLY deleted because it was said to be non-notable and read like an ad. As a network marketing company, the company does not employ traditional advertising and companies in the industry can therefore achieve higher levels of success and still not draw mainstream media converage. The article is not spam and was written with strict adherence to the journalistic neutral point of view policy. Per the Wikipedia Notability requirements (WP:CORP), "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

The compnay has introduced close to 30,000 representatives in 15 months of operation which IS notable in the network marketing industry and has received a public endorsement by Dr. Charles King, internationally recognized expert on network marketing and professor of marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Editing the article to remove questionable content is one thing, but it is no more a candidate for deletion than Sibu (company), Vemma, or Tahitian Noni, just to name a few.

• Endorse deletion valid G4 deletion, as the thing was validly deleted at AfD just last week Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorldVentures. As for the 're-write' ALL the sources are from the company's own website, press releases, or that of the founder. Take it away.--Doc^g 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: I did the deletion. It wasn't "missing": it was deleted. The article fails to establish notability (A7) and then is a repost (G4). When the world notices (3rd parties) and comments, then it will be time for a Wikipedia article that digests those reports into a succinct explanation. None of that is the case now. Geogre 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, still no sources. It doesn't matter if there's a good reason for that, we still need them. WP:V is not negotiable. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion I remember this one--I think I noticed it on CatCSD on its way out.DGG 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

NOTABLE 207.82.44.3 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nihonjoe#MoPo

• Endorse deletion as admin who deleted the page. All of the link provided as references in the article were either directly tied to the subject of the article, or very closely related. There were zero reliable sources as far as I could tell. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn As the creator of the articla in question I would have appreciated an opportunity to justify its existence. Instead, I feel the article was a victim to an impulsive admin - policy specifically implies speedy deletion was not really indicated here. There are numerous memorabilia groups today, 2007, but in 1995 there was ONLY MoPo, and nothing else until the last few years - the founders of this group are some of the most renowned individuls in our community. The following resources either reference and link to MoPo directly, or are other third party support/references as requested. 1) One of the busiest reference sites on the topic of movie posters - http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com; 2) The ONLY print magazine devoted to the topic and was the ONLY on-topic resource prior to the internet - http://www.mcwonline.com; 3) The Internet Movie Data Base references MoPo in their movie poster section - http://www.imdb.com; 4) One of the founders of MoPo and main contributor to The Antiques Roafdshow, Rudy Franchi - http://www.nostalgia.com; 5) John Warren, one of the original contributors to MoPo and widely known for his price guides on the topic - http://www.icollectmovieposters.com/start-movieposters; 6) The auction site dedicated ONLY to the topic of movie memorabilia, and respected in community - http://www.movieposterbid.com; 7) Resource for beginning film makers and not necessarily hobby enthusiasts - http://www.film-makers.com; 8) The current price guide used by most in the community - http://www.posterprice.com/home; 9) The advertising aspect of movie posters also references MoPo - http://onesheetdesign.com; and, finally 10) The following independent dealer/community sites also reference MoPo as a main resource for the comminity: classicmovies.org, filmposters.com, passini.com, posteritati.com, emovieposter.com, cinemasterpieces.com, polishposter.com, vintageposterart.com, hollywoodposterframes.com, movieposter.com, and many others.

I really hope this privides enough validity to a resource that most in the community find invaluable. I also believe a discussion to help me make it right would have been helpful, instead of just deleting. [user:phishman]] 207.82.44.3 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In addition to the above, I want to include references to articles in the print media about our community, such as: FORBES Magazine at http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2005/07/13/collecting-vintageposters-lifestyle_cz_ms_0713conn_ls.html?partner=rss; BBC chimes in at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/dot_life/2631273.stm; Educational resources such as http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/literacy/bear.htm; and other Countries as well: http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/7474/recreation_and_sports/movie_poster_collecting.html - I can find more pretty easily, this was just a cursory glance on Google. user:phishman 207.82.44.3 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Sources above are about movie poster collecting, not about the MoPo mailing list. The article positively asserted non-notability. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The sources are SUPPOSED to be about Movie Poster Collecting because that is why the MoPo group exists in the first place. The artical did not "positively assert" anything but how important MoPo is to the rather large community of collectors and investors out there that are indeed interested in the topic of movie posters. Instead of just saying something is/is not notable, please be more specific - why are the resorces outlined above "non-notable," if that is your opinion. Afterall, this is about the opinion of a majority - and that majority would be any person interested in movie posters and/or collecting movie posters, and that majority should not include those that have NO interest in the subject. user:phishman 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: In order to be valid sources for an article about MoPo, they need to discuss MoPo itself as a main part of the article. Just discussing movie poster collection in general, with passing mention of MoPo, does not qualify the sources as a reliable source, and it therefore can not be used for a reference to help establish notability. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: The people that participate in MoPo span the globe and are all interested in movie posters, whether for collecting or investing, or design, etc.. I ask you, with an obviously small population (in comparison to the Earth), what do you do when there are no "articles about MoPo" but there are dozens of references from various resources that are ALL on-topic? And, the population of collectors holds the MoPo group in high regard and recognize it as the first of its kind. While I can find multiple articles documenting the importance and value of movie posters, and movie poster collecting/investment, as well as multiple resources that cite MoPo as important to the community, the criticism here seems to be that the community itself is not notable enough? Well, that is subjective, don't ya think? And, there are plenty of groups on Wiki that have little/no articles about them, but are still notable, such as americablog and other blogs - the references listed on these are passing references, as the ones I listed were described above, rather than "about americablog." I can find other Wiki examples as needed. user:phishman 207.82.44.3 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The evidence provided so far is mostly about movie poster collecting in general, which should be covered in Film memorabilia and Film poster#Collecting, not an article about a particular Internet resource. For MoPo itself to warrant an article, it would have to satisfy WP:WEB. --Metropolitan90 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: There is no establishing of this particular thing's notability. That it was the first one (1995 is the first one?) would be significant, but if it's the first one and didn't catch on, then it's still not really notability. What puts this aside from the stack of others? What makes this more than a fan's article? What makes this something that explains a phenomenon in the wider world? The article doesn't serve its primary function as an encyclopedia entry. Geogre 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: MoPo was the FIRST discussion group and on-line resource for collectors of movie memorabilia (not "film" memorabilia), and is widely recognized within the community as the "first" and most notable. It is not a "fan's" artical as there are no "fans" to movie posters, duh. I think that NOBODY is reading my comments or my position and just feel that if MoPo is insignificant to them, than it does not matter. Guess what? There are many more people in the world than the editors at Wiki, and there are thousands that utilize MoPo on a regular basis for research, investment, and collecting. As far as the article goes - an Admin decided to DELETE it without discussion or giving the creating editor (me) an opportunity to address the concerns - instead ity was just deleted - THAT IS NOT COOL PER WIKI POLICY, yet this has not been addressed either. I would have been happy to change it as necessary, but was NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE to do so. Why is that OK? Furthermore, just because you know nothing about the topic does NOT mean it is not notable. And, I see NOBODY has addressed the fact that other articles clearly are in the same situation as MoPo (see americablog), but are not deleted? What the hell is "Fair" on Wiki anymore? user:phishman 207.82.44.3 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Americablog very clearly meets WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N, so a comparison does nothing to support your claim of notability in this particular case. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See all comments above. user:phishman 207.82.44.3 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There was no procedural defect in the speedy deletion, and User:phishman appears not to grasp the need for reliable third-party commentary on MoPo. Millions and millions of people can be on the mailing list, but if no-one outside has written about the MoPo list by name, it's not for us. If anyone who joins this debate can provide a true source of 3rd-party notability, I'd reconsider my vote. EdJohnston 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Arguments for deletion TOO weak. 68.197.108.232 18:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I AM the individual in question. I did not write the article about myself. I do not appreciate having this article detailing political accusations towards me deleted (it makes it look like I did it myself and several of my opponents have accused me of this). My involvment in local politics, the extreme controversy and complication of the election (with respect to historical precedent), and the accusations leveled against me were fully cited in the form of newspaper articles. It appears from the comments that the article was deleted based upon lack of results in a Google search and bias towards self-published authors. If you'd like to remove the information about my status as a self-published author (WHICH I did not add) feel free to do that, rather than delete a good article. Also, I strongly question the idea that a Google search alone can bestow or revoke the notable status of an individual, I'm pretty sure that's history's job and you guys are just guessing. The short of it: ALL information in the article was verifiable, it was just deemed non-notable, which again I say was on the basis of a Google search with little consideration to the actual situation. Try reading the news articles.

P.S. I had a Wikipedia account at some point and have no idea how to access it now (or how to use it really) (full disclosure). Also, I can be reached at clotito@gmail.com for comment. I will be going back and deleting my email address from these discussions at a later date, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

EDIT: HERE is a far better basis for notability, at least in this case: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Christopher+Lotito%22+pequannock&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

EDIT: In response to commenters supporting deletion, questioning notability, and in general requesting more information:

Ok, once more, my argument for notability, as the defining factor in one of the most unique elections in the history of Pequannock Township NJ. NOT an argument for notability as an author, business person, or any other hat I may tend to wear. This argument is based off of the definitions presented in your article about "notability" on Wikipedia: "Multiple" "Independent" and "Reliable" "Published Works" have established "Non-Trivial" information detailing my roll as one of the two factors which caused on of the most disputed elections in my town, drawing public comment from newspapers, politicians, regular citizens, and even state officials. In non-Wikipedia-speak, that is, multiple articles were published in regional (not local) newspapers explaining that because of my youth and legal accusations made against me, that there were a much higher than usual number of write-ins in the school board election and that my legal status as a viable candidate was also in question. This article is not directory information. It is information about a person of historical significance. It would most likely be of interest only to residents of Pequannock, Pequannock historians, and those studying law or politics in New Jersey, however this point is of no concern as notability is NOT subjective. In fact, notability has already been permanently and expertly bestowed by several journalists (Rob Ratish, Gene Myers, etc) who decided that this topic was important enough to write articles about for their respective newspapers: The Star Ledger, The Record, and The Argus (to name a couple). That is pretty much the basis of my argument. I've already stated why I want this less than flattering article about myself preserved, however I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Hit Bull Win Steakfor making a good point about ways I can prove to my opponents that I didn't have this article deleted. If these efforst are futile, I will probably use that, so thanks. Before commenting, please be sure to read both the original Wikipedia article AS WELL AS the link to newspaper archives that I have provided as a much better and more objective method of verifying notability than a Google search. Also of note is the Wikipedia article on notability, which has been paraphrased in my general direction despite the fact that many of the commenters here seem not to be familiar with it.

• Endorse deletion. None of the articles are primarly about you. Just a mention here and there that you were a candidate once. Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. For non-admins, there is a copy of the article here. — coelacan talk — 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The people commenting on the AFD raised valid points, and I don't think that a few articles about a school board election are enough to dispel their concerns about notability (per WP:BIO). If people are accusing you of having the article deleted yourself, you might want to direct them to this page or the AFD, to set the record straight. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD, no credible reason advanced for overturning. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The consensus was that you are non-notable, and arguing that you are is not a good enough reason to overturn the consensus, if you don't have any new information that was not present in the debate. -Amarkov moo! 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if it's okay for me to comment here since I commented at the original AfD and I have to run to class so I don't have time to find out. But the subject of the article posted on my talk suggesting I reconsider. I endorse deletion as this still fails WP:BIO. Having political opponents accuse you of having an article deleted is not a valid reason to restore that article. If I'm not supposed to "vote" twice (yes, yes, I know this isn't a vote) then this is just a general comment. Natalie 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, commenting in an AfD and the DRV is fine. --W.marsh 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion for unknown reasons. The article I wrote on the software company Audiokinetic Inc. was deleted, but I do not know who deleted it or for what reasons. I am willing to rewrite the article to correct any faults and suit Wikipedia's standards. I would like to contact the administrator who deleted it via his or her talk page, but I don't know how to figure out which one did it. I'd be grateful for any advice. Kitsune Raynard 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment it looks like User:Teke deleted it as WP:CSD#G11, which means the article is essentially corporate advertising. If you work at the company, it would be advisable to read the policies/guidelines at WP:COI and WP:CORP. The first one is the policy regarding "conflict of interest" and the other is the notability guideline for corporations. ColourBurst 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I'll try to resolve this. Kitsune Raynard 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the merge of {{Infobox British television}} to {{Infobox Television}}, a whole slew of images became unlinked and were subsequently automatically deleted by bots after seven days. I request this is reverted. I'm starting with these, I'm sure i'll find more later, and will add them here as well. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]

TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment deletion review isn't really the best first instance approach to this. Bots don't delete the images, bots tag them, admins then delete them. Have you explained the situation to the deleting admin and asked for them to be restored? What was their response? --pgk 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List seems to be complete now. Images linked again, Involved admins alerted TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, the involved admins seem to be really quiet. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. {{Infobox British television}} was redirected to {{Infobox television}}. Because they used different formats for image links this unlinked all the British television images. So in essence a template conversion unintentionally orphaned many images, and then admins deleted the orphans. That's not the admins' fault, but isn't the way things should work either. Things should be restored to the status quo before the conversion accident. Dragons flight 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Probably should have been taken to the deleting admin(s) but we're already here now. — coelacan talk — 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I needed to go trough almost 700 articles to track all this, where to take it wasn't my first priority :D. If you type undeletion in the searchbox, you end up here, so that's where I made my list. I don't really care how it gets solved TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple undeletion request Im moving to WP:AN to have other admins undelete I dont have time at the moment to do so my self. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Actors by series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

All the categories under this have been tagged to be listified and deleted, howvere there was no consensus to delete and this should be overturned. There were more people in support of keeping than there were of deleteing or listing. Roughly 41 to 33 but I may have lost count, there are so many on both sides! Mr. Stabs 13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• My closing was as follows: "Rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." Converting a category to a list is not a removal of information. Endorse. >Radiant< 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and applaud closer. Let's begin with the blindingly obvious: XfD is not a vote. My eyes began to glaze over as I read through the 100K+ of repetitive arguments. The rationale for deleting these was much more convincing than the arguments against. No information is lost by creating lists, and navigation is easier (13+ categories for Ed Begley Jr?). These were an example of extreme over-categorisation in action. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This was a sensible response to the discussion. No information need be lost. No worries, then. — coelacan talk — 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. CFD is not a vote but a discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but deprecate the idea that voting is not a part of the process; that line of thought is just an excuse for the closing admin to do what he wants even if there is no consensus for it. Osomec 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Radiant! was bold to step in and close this at all, and his closure seems eminently sensible. the wub "?!" 20:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Wikipedia:Category deletion policy, there was no "clear consensus to delete", and "if there is no consensus to delete one week after posting on CfD, the decision shall be keep." Tim! 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Good call, and no information is lost. Garion96 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and furthermore stick to the original wording, which was to rename to "cast", not "cast members" which resulted in several categories being renamed twice within a month. --BlueSquadronRaven 09:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Peruvian Jews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

There was a clear majority for retention of the main list. I appreciate that this is not a vote, but a good reason is needed to ignore a majority. The claim that it was because many supporters agreed with IZAK is odd; IZAK's reasoning was so sound that further argumentation would be of scant value. It may be that the closing admin was confused because there were a number of subsidiary lists also up for deletion, and many people supported the retention of the main list but not the subsidiaries. Newport 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - IZAK's argument (keep main list, remove all redlinks) was concise but appropriate. --Dweller 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, suggest recreation as redirect -- May I just note here please that out of 100+ names on the list, only 8 were blue-links. And for 5 of these 8, there is no indication (either a source or a statement in the article) that the individuals listed are in fact of Jewish background. I agree List of Peruvian Jews should exist, but (for now) only as a redirect. It can be recreated when there is more content. The full list is still available in this version of List of Latin American Jews and the the "Peru" section of that article contains all of the blue-linked names. -- Black Falcon 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep this ONE list only because it is part of series that can be seen at Lists of Jews and at Category:Lists of Jews. If this list remains vulnerable then all the lists at Category:Lists of people by nationality can become the targets for deletion. I generally do not favor the notion of "lists of Jews" but since they do exist and have been accepted multiple times by the Wikipedia community (see: Talk:Lists of Jews; Category talk:Lists of Jews; Talk:Lists of American Jews) and multiple efforts over many years to delete them always fail by an overwhelming consensus to keep them, as examples, see these votes that always resulted in "KEEP" results, often even after two nominations: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews; Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish historians 2; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Jewish-Americans; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination). Therefore, as things stand, and to be consistent with Wikipedia's standards for these lists, this list should be reinstated. By the way, I do not believe that we need all those lists of Peruvian Jews that consisted of mostly red links, but at least one main list like this one should certainly have been allowed to exist (and obsorbed any notable existing names of notable Peruvian Jews onto it) and it should not have been deleted. Thank you, IZAK 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think Doc's reasoning in closing with delete lies within the administrator's discretion. While it's logical to have "List of Peruvian Jews" alongside "List of Canadian Jews," the ad hoc solution of moving the Peruvians to "List of Latin American Jews" was meant to deal with that (see in the AFD). Recreation as a redirect is not out of the question. Disclosure: I participated in the initial debate, and voted to delete. YechielMan 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Admin's reasoning: Please remember that this was a list of redlinks and utterly unsourced. And 'List of x who happen to be y' is always a poor start. The central comment in the case for keeping was IZAK's rationale that it should be kept as it was 'part of a series'. But that's not a reason at all. We regularly dismiss !votes on afd that say "you must keep my article because you kept article y which is similar". Articles stand or fall on their own merits. There were no merits indicated in the debate. I say again, this was unsourced redlinks, and I did say that the deletion as without prejudice to the possibility of it being "recreated as a sourced article" at a later stage. So, I've no idea why this is on DRV. If anyone wants the edit history in their userspace for reference, I'll be happy to oblige.--Doc^g 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It is not the quality of an article that matters - articles can always be edited. By Doc's reasoning, we should have to delete hundreds of lists, such as List of Asian American Writers (which has plenty of red links).--Runcorn 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the list you cite is manly blue - whereas this one was not. But once again, arguments based on 'we'd have to do x if we do y' are spurious. When you lay that aside, all the arguments articulated in the AfD were for deletion.--Doc^g 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of over 100 names on the list (I don't remember the exact number), only 8 were blue-links. Where blue-links exist, they can be used as a sort of "soft" reference. However, this was not the case for the Peruvian Jews article. I don't think this should set any kind of precedent for other articles. It's just that a separate article was not warranted when the content could easily go into List of Latin American Jews. -- Black Falcon 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If a Norwegian Jew doesn't merit a separate list, no reason a Peruvian Jew should. Usedup 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse I'm glad the arguments came across as they did. This deletion was perfectly valid. Noting also that it is possible somebody was contacting users who they knew would want to keep this list and telling them to vote "keep" on the article. Thats the only way I could see so many "keeps" creeping in at the end. Usedup 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Newport Mad Jack 23:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Having a lot of red links is no grounds for deletion. I have created several articles as a result of seeing such red links. How does anyone know if Norwegian Jews merit a separate list? Nobody's created one yet, but is there any reason to suppose that such a list would get an AfD against it? Anyway, there are more Jews in Peru than in Norway.--R613vlu 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How many more? A few thousand? It really isn't a big difference. Usedup 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be this user's POV that a few thousand Jews don't matter much, but Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV.--Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be the standard POV of wikipedia. That's why we have Category:Peruvian Australians, Category:Peruvian Germans, Category:Peruvian Swedes, and not list of Peruvian Australians, List of Peruvian Germans, and List of Peruvian Swedes. Usedup 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• No comment on the Afd decision, but due to GFDL requirements, the page should be undeleted and redirected to List of Latin American Jews because content was merged from the deleted article during the Afd. --- RockMFR 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the GFDL requirements would be satisfied even better if the page was just undeleted; a redirect means that people looking just at the Latin America page would not see the history of the Peruvian one.--Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: Oh, heavens above! Are we still going through these? List of X Jews is a delete. Delete for "Hollywood," for "New York," for "Russian," for anything you'd like. The reasoning is ancient, ancient, ancient. We have precedent after precedent here. No hitlist articles about "ethnicity" or religion. No "list of people," either, as any such "list" is infinite and without definite include/exclude criteria. Further, they are all inherently POV. No, a thousand times. Geogre 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I endorsed deletion of this article like you, but I wen't nowhere near as far as you did. You want to delete all "list of people" articles? Why in heavens, hell, and anything in between would you want to do that? Your comment that "they are all inherently POV" just floors me. How so? Lastly, they do have definite include/exclude criteria: being a member of X group and being notable. -- Black Falcon 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, to explain, lists of people have to have a good reason for including/excluding, and we're always at the mercy of "suspected vs. technically vs. self-identified" when we go to identity markers. "List of Happy People" and "List of sad people" and "List of half-German and half-Sammi people" are all problematic because the author of an article like that is always inserting POV to assert that one type of identification is superior to another. Aside from that, such lists are far better done in categories. Aside from that, the actual utility of the designation is low, and it is an assertion of point of view that my identity as .02 Creek Indian, for example, is an important identifier instead of my identity as a Wikipedian or lion tamer. The existence of such a "list of people" article is asserting priority in identity and asserting the utility of identification by such a tag. To me, that's fishy at best and outrageous in general. Geogre 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• One of the problems here, is the subjectivity of the list. Define 'Jewish Peruvian'?--Doc^g 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The term "Peruvian Jew" shows up on 8 pages of google. 8!! [101]. There is no reason why this list should be so sternly argued for, especially when I've already proven numerous time that most, if not all, of the people mentioned, will never have articles written for them on the English encyclopedia. Usedup 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Doc makes a strange argument: it's a list of Jews born in Peru or who have emigrated there. How and where has Usedup proven that a single one of these redlinks will never have an article written about him or her? --Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When I randomly selected several of the names and showed how nothing written in English could be found about them? In fact, for most, nothing even written in Spanish !Usedup 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this prove? It may prove no more than that you were unable to search very thoroughly. Even if there really is nothing now, stuff may appear at some time in the future. Anyway, this says nothing at all about those not selected - for whatever reason, you may happen to have selected the least notable.--Brownlee 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I assure you, we can all check as "thoroughly" as internet search pages, document databases, and book preview search pages allow us to. We can even search foreign language web-pages, but the statement still holds that if these people only have minimal pages in Spanish written about them, then they are not English wikipedia material. Ok, fate may have had it that I did choose the least notables, but the argument that there are PLENTY of red links with absolutely no evidence of notability is still strong even with that possibility. WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're not going to have lists of people who "could" become notable in the future laying around. Nobody has yet to explain WHY the few Peruvian Jewish nota bles need to be on a separate article. Usedup 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So by Usedup's own evidence, there is something written about some of them in Spanish; thus it is unlikely that nothing could ever be written about all of them. It will just take some time.--Osidge 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"All" was an exaggeration. For a majority, there could be no "good" articles written for them. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that statement just by taking a quick analysis. Usedup 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The biggest reason, historically, for not allowing "X Jews" articles is that their actual use for their authors and readers is as a hitlist. They're used as blacklists and anti-semitism, and not as boasts of the achievements of the people on the list. We don't need to be hosting the National Front's enemies lists. In this case, it's just a question of whether a notable physicist wakes up and the morning and says, "I must go be a Jew today" or "I must go do physics today." We have categories for Peruvians, for physicists, for authors. Geogre 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I disagree with you on these points. If anything, these are anti-anti-semitic lists, in others words, for most cases of questionable lists on Jews, they are ethnic-pride-and-awareness lists, not lists for neo-Hitlers as you are implying. There is really no other reason people would be so bothered by the lack of a "List of Peruvian Jews." If this was a "List of Chinese Peruvian," of whom there is a much greater population in Peru and of much greater historical signifance, there probably wouldn't be such a controversy over it being deleted. But because it is a list of Peruvian Jews, and anything Jewish has always been controversial in some way, similarly as anything "African-American" has, there is much more of an uproar. You calling these lists "hitlists" suggests that the people who make these lists are naive. Usedup 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion per all above. As stated although afd is not a vote, there has to be a b****y good reason to ignore an overwhelming majority Jcuk (I forgot to sign in sorry) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.107.154.53 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

By overwhelming majority you mean 9 (if you count my nomination) to 11? Not counting a username that seemed to register on that very day. Usedup 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion The closing admin did not give due weight to the keep arguments, and was not within reasonable discretion to argue that the argument was for delete rather than undecided.--Holdenhurst 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the admin was giving more weight to WP:V, Wikipedia:Notability, and WP:BLP, which are all of greater importance than how people "feel" about a list. Usedup 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: Admin discretion was within line Feydakin 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It was improper to delete a member of a well established set of categories without consensus. The article should exist, and the fact that it was not better was just a result of systemic bias. We will get a better article sooner by having an article than by not having one. Sumahoy 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It seems that the closing admin may have been influenced by his own views, rather than making a dispassionate judgment on the basis of the discussion.--Brownlee 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There is no reason of principle why such a list should be deleted; any defects in the list should be fixed, and cannot be if the list does not exist.--Osidge 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think people are confusing a deletion review with a second afd. Repeating the same arguments used in the afd on this deletion review does not help. Doc Glasgow already made it clear in his closing that the "this list is part of series" argument is not holding water. This is everyone's opportunity to give new better arguments for restoring the list, not just a place to point fingers and relay your same reason as on the afd. Usedup 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn We have similar articles to this one, and they all contain notable people. The list violates no wikipedia policy that I am aware of, and it makes sense to have an article on this.--Sefringle 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm not convinced by the arguments that there were errors in the original AfD. It makes no sense to have a list consisting mainly of red links. It appears that the closing administrator may have given weight to WP:V, which is OK in my view. A list of red links is by definition a list of people without WP articles. In other words, Wikipedia has not been able to research them properly. If it's hard for us to document them, then I argue that we should be able to get along without the list. Lowering our quality standards is not the solution to the problem. It's like saying, 'Here is a possible list of Peruvian Jews, and we're sorry we don't know if it's correct or not, but there's probably somebody in the world who thinks it's correct.' I note that interesting lists made up entirely of blue links DO exist, for example List of Cubans. EdJohnston 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Buck the World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|Mass AfD)

I feel the admin acted against the consensus of the Wikipedians when it was deleted. It clearly passes a google test for reliable sources. However, if you want, I can remove some of the unsourced tracks and only put in the released singles (until a sourced tracklist is released). Tom Danson 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep redirected. Young Buck already contains all the info. When there are verifiable things to write about it, other than WP:NOT material like the track listing, then the redirect could be changed into an article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Mass AfD where everything was deleted is relinked. The first AfD was keep, however all the arguments are from WP:AADD and didn't explain why they should be kept according to policy. ColourBurst 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have a reliable source-an album review. It's right here. Now would you look better on it? Tom Danson 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and keep redirected, but recreate when sufficient reliable sources become available. Yamaguchi先生 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The link cited up above is not an album review, not even close. It is a promotional advertisement ran by Aftermath which fails to present any new information that isn't already covered in the Young Buck article, sans the hype. (jarbarf) 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in 1989 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|UCfD)

Following the close of the WP:DRV on Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, 1ne deleted Category:Wikipedians born in 1989, apparently against concensus. Ryulong undeleted the category and 1ne deleted it again. The summaries in the log were:

• 22:51, February 20, 2007 Jaranda (talk • contribs) restored "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (9 revisions restored) (Further undeletion following start of this DRV)
• 03:47, February 17, 2007 1ne (talk • contribs) deleted "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (nah, some people in here are younger than 18)
• 00:50, February 17, 2007 Ryulong (talk • contribs) restored "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (9 revisions restored: This is a bit much, it passed CFD not five days ago)
• 23:32, February 16, 2007 1ne (talk • contribs) deleted "Category:Wikipedians born in 1989" (content was: 'Wikipedians who were born in 1989.Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s')

Given that everyone in that category is 17 or 18 years old, the WP:CHILD based arguments that lead to the deletion of the 1993 category don't appear to apply. 1ne expressly says his reason for deleting the category was WP:IAR in this post.

Although I'm not a huge fan of the "Wikipedians born in" categories, there does not seem to be a concensus to delete all of them. WjBscribe 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the category has since been undeleted by Jaranda. WjBscribe 04:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strange – [102]. The same admin was wheel-warring to keep a similar category that listed much younger users. I'll endorse it, in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Partially explained by the fact that 1ne listed himself in the 1993 category, see [103]. WjBscribe 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• 1ne is asking for trouble. This looks very much like WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can see no valid reason for deletion. Tim 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, let's be consistent and get rid of all these "born in 0000" categories. >Radiant< 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and seriously question the no consensus close of the recent UCfD which was (a) apparently closed as a vote (the closer notes the number of editors "voting" for each option in his closing remarks), (b) closed by an editor who gave an opinion at the UCfD, and (c) closed in line with the opinion that the closer had given (no consensus == keep). Regarding Xevious's question, I would think that the rationale for deletion was that the consensus at the UCfD was for deletion, whether outright or by upmerging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In Mike Selinker's defense, he was more or less the only person ever willing to close UCFD's back then. If you look at the current UCFD page, I have particpated in and closed almost every single discussion due to lack of other admins willing to close them. VegaDark 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, that's true, and I apologise to Mike for the rather harsh tone of my comments, but I'm not minded to change my recommendation, or my view of the consensus of the debate. I don't feel that UCFD is a great idea: it simply doesn't get the attention that CFD gets, and CFD in turn isn't exactly popular compared to AFD. Anybody who wants to can close an AFD (MFD, RFD) easily enough, but closing a CFD or UCFD is rather arcane, which doesn't help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as it's been decided multiple times that categories with people under 18 are supposed to be deleted. But really, stop wheel warring. -Amarkov moo! 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion, list on CFD, send all wheel warring admins to Arbcom, do not pass go, do not collect $200. --- RockMFR 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion. Can be used to identify users under 18; JzG, I already said I had a change of heart on WP:AN. How about you stop baiting? 1ne 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it can't be used to identify users under 18, because even if a user in this category _is_ under 18 there's no way to know that from inclusion in the category. --Random832 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse 1ne's deletion because frankly, I don't care about it, and I don't need to be dragged into a frivolous ArbCom as RockMFR states.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• There is a place for this; that place is not here. Overturn and relist. - I would support any CfD listing for all by-year articles, but that has to be done rather than out-of-process ad-hockery. --Random832 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC). See also Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians born in (YEAR). --Random832 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. Either delete all of these born by year categories or delete none.--Grace E. Dougle 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Most of these people are minors, and that is enough to rule this out as a good idea for me, using my own judgement about who needs protection, rather than following legal technicalities. Sumahoy 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This category is self-referential within Wikipedia, one of the things generally discouraged. Our business is to report topics that are verifiable outside of Wikipedia. ... Kenosis 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 among other age-categories existence are not worthy of wikipedia. Consistensy should be applied and they should all be deleted. What subjective irrational argument can there be for one to exists while not the other? Lord Metroid 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I added what I believe to be the relevant UCfD. If that's the one it would the basis for this review, and all changes to it would be a de-facto nomination for review. ~ trialsanderrors 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with unsourced statements (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am asking for review of my own actions. I restored this in August under special circumstances and in just the last few days, several people (including a couple other admins) have jumped on me saying that doing so was horrible and asking that it be immediately re-deleted.

This category, and its dated subcategories, are collectively used on slightly less than 50,000 articles, primarily through association with {{fact}}. The category is very similar to, but distinct from, Category:Articles lacking sources which is associated to {{unreferenced}}. (In case it is unclear, "fact" is applied to solitary unsourced statements in otherwise healthy articles, while "unreferenced" is a banner applied to articles that are generically without sources.)

Timeline:

• On July 19th, WP:CFD deleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements with 10 deletes and 4 keeps (log, closed by Syrthiss). The primary arguments of the nominator were that the category was too large to be workable and that the existence of such categories interfered with the user experience.
• After this was deleted, all references to it were replaced with Category:Articles lacking sources.
• On July 31st, CFD deleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 21 deletes and 8 keeps (log, closed by Kbdank71). Essentially the same reasons were advanced, i.e. that it was unworkable large and unhelpful to readers.
• On August 19th, DRV unanimously undeleted Category:Articles lacking sources with 23 undeletes and 0 endorse deletions (log, closed by Xoloz). Essentially the argument was that large meta-categories are a necessary evil and an accepted part of Wikipedia. I participated in this DRV, but did not close it. I had not participated in the prior CFDs.
• Later on August 19th, I undeleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements and restored it to {{fact}} rather than having it merged into "Category:Articles lacking sources". I cited the DRV reasons for Category:Articles lacking sources as justifying the undeletion, even though this second category with not explicitly mentioned in the DRV. For the record, I only became aware of the progenitor category well after the DRV had started. I explicitly asked ANI to review my actions, and no one directly complained about this undeletion, though there was discussion of the radical conflict between the CFD and DRV results mentioned above.
• On September 11th, Category:Articles with unsourced statements was again taken to CFD. This time it was closed speedy keep (after 2 days) with 8 keeps and 4 deletes (log, closed by JzG).
• On February 5th, Rich Farmbrough started the task of breaking this category into dated subgroups. Doing so seems to have provoked new complaints about how horrible and unusable this category is.
• Starting on February 18th, people began complaining that this category should not even exist because my undeletion was improper, including calls from admins that it be deleted without any further process.

Congratulations if you followed all that. So in summary, the category was deleted 8 months ago at CFD and unilaterally restored 7 months ago following a closely related DRV (all the same arguments applied in my opinion). This restoration was discussed at ANI at the time and unchallenged. Subsequently the category survived another CFD (6 months ago). And now there are calls that it should be "immediately deleted" because despite the ANI discussion and subsequent CFD, the appropriate "process" was not followed to justify undeletion several steps ago.

Frankly, I am bringing this here because I want to wash my hands of it. I'd ask people Endorse the undeletion, and oppose the kind of process obsession that led to these much delayed calls for deletion. At the absolute worst there ought to be a fresh deletion discussion given both that the last CFD was closed keep and that the dated subcategories didn't even exist at the time of prior discussions. Though I have said as much, several individuals have persisted in calling for immediate deletion. Dragons flight 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse status quo (with the category undeleted) If anyone wants this deleted on merit, rather than because the process wasn't perfect, I suggest a new CfD. There have been too many deletions/undeletions for any final state to truly have followed process, and the most recent CfDs and ANI discussions were to keep it. --ais523 11:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. First off, this is something of a "backwards DRV", in that it was deleted in July 2006, but unilaterally reinstated in August 2006 ([104] ,[105] , [106]), and a new_CfD was truncated when, after only two days of discussion by the community and votes on both sides of the issue, it was administratively terminated in a "speedy keep".

The category consists of articles with one or more "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual clauses, statements, sentences. It is a quagmire that constantly changes as these templates are added or removed by users throughout the wiki, and currently consists of over 40,000 articles (double the size of several months ago). It is easily conceivable that the vast majority of articles on the wiki could be in this category at some point in the future, given the rapidly increasing demand for citations on minutia throughout the wiki. Some of the relevant issues related to this DRV can be found in a recent exchange at Category_talk:Articles_with_unsourced_statements#This_category_should_not_even_be_here,_AFAICS.

Please note carefully that this category is a sub-category of the more basic category "Category:Articles_lacking_sources" (articles with the large "unreferenced" templates placed at the head of articles). This subcategory ("Articles with unsourced statements", involving "citation-needed" or "fact" templates on individual statements) currently makes up the overwhelming majority of the backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources, involving tens of thousands of articles and still rapidly expanding. Category:Articles lacking sources, the more basic category, pertains directly to articles asserted to be not-in-keeping with the core WP policies of WP:Verifiability and/or WP:No original research. This category, on the other hand, deals with the same issues on a completely different level of operation, that is, little clauses, phrases and sentences within articles that users assert need citations for a specific statement. As most of us know already, that constitutes, and will likely continue to constitute, most of the entire wiki. And so the category continues to grow rapidly as more and more users put up "citation-needed" on one or more statements in tens of thousands of articles.

Here is the current orientation of categories relevant to this discussion: As of February 20, 2007, Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month includes both Articles_lacking_sources and Articles_with_unsourced_statements. As of February 20, 2007, Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements currently includes a monthly list, many of which are obsolete and in need of maintenance, and all of which were top-level categorized as "Wikipedia:Maintenance categories sorted by month", a circular event from which there is no escape. The reason that there is no escape from this circular event, currently involving over 40,000 articles, is the increasing demand for sourcing of statements made on the wiki. Indeed the category foreseeably could ultimately involve virtually every article on Wikipedia. In other words, it's a real mess, beoming more and more of a mess as time passes, with no end to the mess in sight.

Among the reasons this category should be deleted are:

1) it is by far too overly inclusive, rapidly heading towards 50,000 articles and involving a growing mass of individual "citation-needed" or "fact" templates;

2) the category constantly changes in response to minor issues in individual articles (such as when fact templates are added and removed throughout the wiki);

3) it is impossible to ever "fix" the issue this category represents, involving such a massive list, as new fact templates are placed and removed throughout the wiki constantly on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, and hour-by-hour basis, with the net number continually growing fast on the average and creating an ever-increasing backlog that is impossible to properly maintain;

4) the arbitrary nature of citation-needed templates throughout the wiki--there are an absolutely massive number of facts on the wiki in need of citing, and such a category only accounts for those that have been actually noted as a template;

5) the previous CfD for this category was administratively truncated or short-circuited. The community process with "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" was bypassed and it was reinstated along with the higher-level category "Articles without sourcing" with no community review. Then a new CfD was truncated with a "speedy keep" after two days, well prior to seven days normally allotted. This development was interesting because the "vote" was tied between "keep" and "delete" after a little more than a day, then within a matter of about four hours several votes to keep were lodged and the discussion was administraively terminated. Since then, the talk page for this category, "Articles with unsourced statements" has had the appearance that the community had decided to keep this category, when in fact it was a virtually unilateral administrative decision.

6) the related widespread use of User:SmackBot, which under an initial broad grant to use the bot for "various categories" has now managed to tag many tens of thousands of fact templates throughout the wiki as "February 2007", thereby letting us all know nothing more than that the bot was active in February 2007. ... Kenosis 11:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with fire and brimstone. No possible use for this category and its child categories. Completely agree with all of Kenosis' statements, with the additional issue that editors of an article are the best equipped to judge whether a statement is correctly sourced or not; hence adding this "backlog" (which it will be now and forever amen) solves nothing and diverts attention from the very real issue of articles with no sources whatsoever. Incredibly bad idea which results in reverse-productive allocation of editor time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll side with the nominating admin that he did nothing wrong in restoring the category. Honestly, I find the category a little annoying, but it works much the same way as the "cleanup" and "wikify" categories, which are also very large and could theoretically be much larger still. Having a note at the bottom that says "Articles with unsourced statements" is just a useful caveat that's worthwhile to know if you're looking there. YechielMan 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting, and appreciated. Unlike the article templates placed at the top of the article page, though, these are just all over the place, and thousands of articles come and go and quite readily return again in an instant or two--Put up a "citation-needed" request and "poof" the article is in the cat; provide a citation and "poof" it's gone a couple hours later, perhaps to return shortly when another editor catches another little clause, etc.. In the meantime virtually no one looks for the category note, or lack thereof, at the bottom of the article, but instead the editors tend to be responding to the particular point of interest within an article rather than the article as a whole. Moreover, sometimes there's just a few citation-needed templates in an otherwise well-sourced article and editors not uncommonly decide to leave it(or them) in place for any of a very wide variety of editorial reasons, depending on the article, how many participants, how controversial the topic, etc. Again (speaking as just another user of WP whos's already invested a number of hours researching this particular matter) I genuinely appreciate this additional perspective into the complexities of perceptions of the issues involved here. ... Kenosis 02:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Kenosis and KC. Horrendous category with no positives. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, relisting on CfD optional. WP:IAR, after 6 months of (relatively) peaceful existence this should really go to a new CfD if you want deletion. BryanG^(talk) 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse undeletion. The "delete maintenance cats because they are too large and scary" reasoning is laughable. These categories will eventually become useful when the community develops a plan to tackle the problem of unreferenced information. Until that happens, there should be MANY distracting categories on the bottom of tagged articles. If you don't like the categories, then you should provide references for the questionable content. If these categories are annoying and distracting enough to cause editors to complain, then the system is working. --- RockMFR 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• May as well begin discussing the merits of the likely upcoming CfD so it can be as informed as possible on both sides of the debate. "Large and scary", in my estimation, is not a problem because merely "large and scary" categories can easily be automated. Here, though, a constantly shifting, quantum particle-like category where fact requests dodge in and out of the cat is genuinely questionable. Keeping track of large quantities is doable, no question about it. I question the utility, on balance, of having a massive category where if there happens to be one little clause in the article that someone requests a citation for it, now the article's in the category; provide the citation, an instant later it's out of the category. For the moment, use the imagination to see the other implications of this. More importantly, each placement of a "citation-needed" on some little clause, sentence, or paragraph is an individual editorial decision by an editor somewhere on the wiki. I've only been here for a year now, and I have numerous "fact" templates in place, several of them having remained in place for the majority of that time on topics I'm quite familiar with. In some cases they're there as a courtesy to the editor who placed the clause or sentence. In several cases I myself placed the template on something I inserted, anticipating a day when I would get around to citing it (etc., etc., etc., etc., depending on the editorial decision-- and I'm just one editor among perhaps millions). Is the expectation here that every statement on the wiki will be expectied to have a citation attached to it??? And that the WP policy (one of three, we recall from the mouth of Jimbo) will ultimately not be "verifiable" but "verified and cited in writing for each and every statement on the wiki"? There's more to this potentially important analysis of course, but I just wanted to give these additional thoughts for the moment. ... Kenosis 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not of the opinion that every statement should or can have a citation attached to it. However, when a citation is requested, this request should be taken seriously. The "lacking sources from DATE" categories at least provide encouragement to editors. They will also become informative of the article's reliability in years to come. When it is 2008 and I see an article with a "lacking sources from September 2006" category, I'm going to seriously question whether anything in the article is valid at all. --- RockMFR 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• In other words, now the category exists for purposes of futher tagging the tags with a date? ... Kenosis 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. An update: Dragons flight left a note for me that the orientation of the categories has just been changed somewhat. [[:Category:Articles_lacking_sources (articles with the large unreferenced" templates) and Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements (articles with the little "citation-needed" tags on one or more particular statements in an article) are now separate categories. Previously the latter had been a subcategory of "Articles lacking sources". Leaving aside potential naming issues involved in the phrase "Articles lacking sources" in reference to "unreferenced" templates, this new orientation of categories makes better sense in my estimation. And possibly it allows the existence of a category involving the little "fact" templates within articles to be debated on the merits with slightly less confusion between the two categories that was previously the case. Dragons_flight, this was a very sensible change in my opinion-- more importantly here, the change is duly noted for purposes of this DRV. ... Kenosis 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse undeletion. Category:Articles with unsourced statements may not be useful to readers, but it is useful to editors. Not all editors enjoy going from article to article to source entire sections. Some (like myself), however, don't mind going through and sourcing (or performing other cleanup on) a couple of articles which have only 1 or 2 unsourced statements. Just like we have multiple {{cleanup}} and {{stub}} templates, we should also differentiate between articles which lack sources completely (and may thus be subject to deletion) and articles that lack sources for a few statements (which can be sourced or removed). For those who find the category "too large" or "unworkable" I have this to say: don't use it. But leave it available for others who do wish to utilize it. I extend my thanks to Dragons flight for the undeletion. -- Black Falcon 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to Kenosis. I would like to reply to the 6 points you bring up (especially as I get the feeling this article will be going to CFD if it kept).