Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January

Bishoy Habib (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

the reason is because this is a real rapper who many people and fans adore, and he is on the rise. a wikipedia page for this artist would only be appropriate. and besides, all of the information on there was true, and so was the reference. many people are not satisfied now that it has been removed, so please attend to this ASAP, thank you. Egyamanda 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I definatley agree with amanda, please overturn your decision and dont delete this page. as you can tell by his website, he has thousands of fans across the world (mostly through the internet), and killing his wikipedia page would leave many of those fans feeling empty about this rapper. Its best purpose is probably just to inform his fans more about his personal life than his own website provides them. i for one thought it was an excellent idea, because so many people i know wanted to find out more about this aspiring young artist. therefore i am all in favor of overturning this decision and restoring this wikipedia page. if it isnt restored, that would really suck for all the Coptic Orthodox people across the world, who are fans of his music and want to know more about him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamtheman2000 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Since the AfD link is dead, it seems this article was speedy deleted. Can you tell us how this rapper meets the notability guidelines? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• You can click 'logs' above to find the actual reason for the deletion (here it was, as you guessed, Articles-7). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I complete forgot about that link. Go figure. Anyway, will also endorse deletion unless some sort of notability of this person is proven. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, valid Articles-7, will reconsider if nominator shows notability via several reliable sources. On the other hand, this is certainly the first rapper I've heard of who was "banned from several church conventions". Rock on! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion looks like a valid A7 to me. Please come back when WP:MUSIC guidelines are met. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The objections above don't concern guidelines. Shaundakulbara 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam4Adam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article asserts notability through verifiable sources. More can easily be provided. It is neither POV nor spammy; it was Wikified and had considerable information within. This article is being confused with previous versions with which the current author has no connection. The article was Speedy Deleted desite a "hangon" that had been there less than 24 hours. The topic of this article is a website used by men to meet for sex. The subject of this article may be creating an unjust bias against the article itself. House of Scandal 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you post the sources here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As the article was brushed out of existance while I was away from my computer, I don't know exactly. I am almost sure one was The Washington Post. If given the opportunity, I could have presented an avalanche of evidence. Some guys who met through this site were robbed or assaulted and it made the news in several media markets. It is also being used to locate and discharge gays in the US military. Health official are concerned about STD spreading through its members. Finally, the Washington Blade did an article about men finding long-term partners through it and its ilk.House of Scandal 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • REUTERS
    • Boston Globe
    • Michigan HIV prevention news
    • New York Daily News
    • San Diego Gay & Lesbian Times
    • Medical News Today
    • The Post Chronicle
    • Gay & Lesbian News
    • Washington Blade 1
    • Washington Blade 2
    • and so on... House of Scandal 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems likely that it was the Washington Blade rather than Washington Post that mentioned Adam4Adam by name. I think there may have been a Post reference, but I can't know as I was given no fair opportunity to improve it. House of Scandal 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I spend alot of time in AfD debates and I know the difference between a good article and a bad one. Although I can't see the Adam4Adam article, I have never seen the author make an article that wasn't properly cited. What's going on here? Shaundakulbara 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note - I'm the most recent admin to delete the article. The assertion above is operating under a critical misconception, the speedy delete had nothing to do with it being a repost or lacking sources, it was because the website fails to meet the WP:WEB criteria used as part of Wikipedia's effort to establish standards of notability. WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 is the specific speedy delete criteria employed. Reviewing the content of the article, it should be evident that the action was proper and the article should not be restored in its current form. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The New York Times, Washington Blade and New York Daily News were referenced to show its notabiliy. These don't count as WP:WEB-required "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? As shown here, other references could have been provided if requested. Those three sources are enough so that the "hangon" should have been honored. As someone asked above, "what's going on here"? Seriously, what's really going on here and why wasn't an opportunity given to address concerns if it is true that "the speedy delete had nothing to do with it being a repost"? House of Scandal 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Are the actual mentions themselves non-trivial? I mean, for instance, the mention in the New York Daily News is ridiculously unimportant. Just mentioning the name of a site in an article (really just a side-note to the gossip column in that article) shouldn't (and I don't think does) count as much. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Several articles concern Manhunt.net, Craig's List and Adam4Adam collectively. Others mention Adam4Adam only. If given an opportunity, I would have discerned between trivial and non-trivial references. Why wasn't this article sent to AfD debate if notability was questioned? Why would someone Speedy Delete a substantial, Wikified article that has references and a "hangon" request? I'm not new here and I have seen articles with a fraction of this article's merit get a chance. The swift and unilateral deletion of this article was not per guidelines. House of Scandal 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The "hangon" tag was being abused by 71.160.33.83 (talk • contribs). I can find no abuse of process in this deletion. Whether or not it actually is notable is irrelevant here, the article as it stood when deleted did not make the claim to notability as far as I can see. If the article is notable, this can be established during a request for undeletion. Please note that I am endorsing deletion, not opposing undeletion. --Yamla 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Failure to meet WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion, and a website being used to lure a murder victim is certainly a claim of notability. Whether that claim is sufficient and whether the references adequately support it is a question for AFD. —Celithemis 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: That's not quite accurate, WP:WEB serves as guidance for CSD A7, which _is_ a valid speedy deletion criteria for non-notable websites. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  No, it is quite accurate. A7 is that the article does not assert notability, not merely that it isn't notable. -Amark moo! 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak overturn and list at AFD per this not being an A7 (it asserted notability - per A7, an assertion is enough), though I would more than likely argue to delete in an AFD, as most of the sources provided are either trivial or are multiple copies of the same Reuters story, which is not about the website itself (it just mentions it, which is not enough). --Coredesat 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - There's also an article about it at the New York Times Here's a second NYTimes article. This is obviously a notable subject. This seems to have been way too hastily deleted. Jeffpw 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn owing to numerous sources provided in this DRV. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I have not been able to review all the sources alleged here because two of them require subscriptions. However, of the sources that I have reviewed, none establish the notability of this website. [1] is not an article about the website. It mentions the website in passing as an example but provides no detail to suggest that it is anything more than an average example of such a website. [2] and [3] are reprints of the same article (and thus is not evidence of "multiple" coverage). [4] draws from the same article but isn't even a full reprint - it's a mere abstract of the Reuters article. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] are independent articles but again are mere casual mentions of the website in articles which are about completely different topics. Unless definitive sources can be presented which are actually about this website, I must endorse the speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Speedy deletion decision seems ok. Article made no claim to encyclopedic notability. I agree with Rossami on the sources. Sources provided use the website as an example of a wider category of websites - this kind of use is a trivial reference.Bwithh 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The site has also been the subject of independant reviews which concern it solely. One neutral (semi-disfavorable) review is quoted in the article. The articles in which Adam4Adam is mentioned aren't about "completely different topics". They seem to be about (A) this sort of site re:STD's, (B) this sort of site re:the US military and (C) this sort of site re:relationships. When publications like New York Times discuss these topics, Adam4Adam is often mentioned. That the esssence of notability -- to be noted repeatedly --WikiLawyering aside.Shaundakulbara 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just love how "Wikilawyering" can wheeled out to toss any beyond-superficial consideration of policy overboard. Bwithh 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per above Fotografico 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and submit to complete AfD to resolve issues. Lack of claim of notability when notability can be shown is no excuse for speedy deletion. Haiduc 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: If anyone is interested in the unusually high turnout, I did a quick check and found this post. There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article, and it has been added to a "To Do" template, {{LGBT_open_tasks}}. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you."

• Response - Chairboy, your comment above seems a red herring to me, designed to distract from the real issue, which is that the article was deleted in spite of having notability. It also seems to me (once again, from your own comments) that you have your back up about this issue, and are being defensive. Seems to me you made a mistake. Another admin made a similar mistake with this article, and retored it. I urge you to do the same. And I also take issue with your implication that the LGBT Project is being used for votestacking, and that we project members are somehow not objective enough to determine if an article subject meets WP:N. If I have misinterpreted your remarks, I apologize, but I don't think I have. Jeffpw 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your member Shaundakulbara has made personal attacks against me, implied that I'm on some sort of anti-gay crusade, called me an asshole, and so on, and your congratulatory backslapping for these actions in this edit is unfortunate. I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place, if there's higher than usual turnout in any DRV, it's customary to make a note for the closing admin to review so he/she can make that determination for themselves once the review is over. In regards to my comment above, read the exchange. I've done nothing to prevent anyone from restoring the article, but when a user immediately launches into accusations that I'm some sort of evil, power mad dictator who's conspiring against them, why should I go out of my way for them? I'm a volunteer here, like anyone else. My responsibility is to exercise good judgement, and when someone else tagged the article for speedy deletion, I reviewed it and determined that it was an A7 deletion. If I made an error, then it should have been easy to find someone to undelete it once I told HouseOfScandal that I didn't appreciate his immediate assumption of bad faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More deceit, more hypocrisy, and now paranoid histrionics too.

• Chairboy Statement: There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article
• Chairboy Counterstatement: I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place

You ignored a "hangon" and used your admin privileges to Speedy Delete an article which another admin had just restored. This was an abuse of power and when someone pointed that out (you were not called an evil power mad dictator and homophobe, that is your self-characterization) you decided to punish the author. When you volunteered to be an admin you agreed to follow guidelines and policies. Your observation of rules and policies should not be dependant on people kissing your butt. Encouraging civility doesn’t mean using the mop and keys to punish anyone who speaks to you in a manner you don’t like.

• Chairboy 3:why should I go out of my way...?

You went out of your way to kill the article. You’ve spent enormous energy trying to keep it dead. Don’t pretend like your current course of action was the path of least effort. And sir, I referred to you as an asshole indirectly, I didn’t say “Chairboy you are an asshole...I said “the editor who deleted this is an asshole.” You are one who keeps dredging up the fact that I was referring to you. Three Admins have already reminded me about civility, this was my first breech of it ever.  ::Get over it, Mary! - it is NOT relevant to this article’s notability. You are the one making this about editors not about articles. When you forced this article to go to Deletion Review you thus chose to have your admin practices scrutinized and now you don't like the results. If it seems many people are saying negative things against you, if a respected Wikipedian with many peer awards says you abuse your power, if you are described as an asshole by a (different) editor who has never been rude before, if you are being cast as a villain by an usually high turnout of editors, what could be the reason? Shaundakulbara 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed each of the issues you've brought up independently, please don't mischaracterize things. As such, I'll refrain from responding other than to ask that you not call me 'Choirboy'. I've taken great effort to carefully spell your name correctly as a sign of respect, please consider returning the favor. Let's try to keep this civil. I have, and as I mentioned above, I feel as if you haven't made the reciprocal effort. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Misspell was an error and has been corrected Shaundakulbara 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaundakulbara is not currently a member of WP:LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see her active on your project pages, both regarding this issue and having just presented new business. Jeffpw's endorsement of her smears against me on your project talk page is unfortunate. I hope you'll discourage this type of thing in the future, it hurts Wikipedia and, in the case of your group, draws attention away from the good work you've done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a member there. There was already a post about this issue there and I just followed the history trail. Speaking of which, as much as you want to play private eye and scrutinize what everyone says to one another on this issue on our talk pages and so on, it STILL doesn't affect the article's notability. How do you not know this? Shaundakulbara 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm counting four members of WP:LGBT who have voted here - how this could be considered vote-stacking I don't know. Also, if you were to check out our deletion sorting list, you would find that we do not deluge XfDs with keep votes, but consider every article on its own merits (and even vote against each other). To accuse us of votestacking, when there is no exhortation either way on our list or template, is the knee-jerk reaction of someone upset at their judgement being questioned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• overturn The reason I'm commenting is because from the description the sources seem sufficient and the deletion patently unjustified. Perhaps others are here for the same reason, not the listing on a WProject page--a completely correct listing on an appropriate wikiproject page. This is one of the purposes these pages exist--to keep DelRev and AfD accessible by those interested in a subject, not just the relatively few full-time adjudicators. CSD A7 is for no assertion of N--if it is reasonably asserted whether explicitly or by the material, it should not be SD in the first place, but go to AfD. If someone challenges it in good faith it should certainly go to AfD. Otherwise the deleting admin is setting himself above the community. . DGG 04:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Speedy Delete template says that a "hangon" may be ignored "and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria." Was that the case here? No. Shaundakulbara 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and CLOSE Enough already. It's clear that this was speedied out-of-process. Wjhonson 09:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list A bunch of stuff to wade through. Originally deleted via PROD in May, deleted after blanking by author in August, incorrect G4 in September, then salted, salting cleared in December, incorrect G4 on 29 Jan that was fixed by the deleting admin the next day, but the speedy deletion and {{hangon}} tags weren't removed. No real reason for not deleting is visible in the deleted history of the talk page, so the hangon tag should be disregarded. We are left with a discussion over whether the A7 deletion was reasonable. The only thing I see as a claim of notability is down in the Vicitimization section "In October 2006 it was the locus of a conspiracy to find gay men online to rob; a number of men in New York City used the site to lure another man to a remote area where he was robbed and murdered." Frankly, I don't see how this will survive an AFD that follows the guidelines, but with a very weak claim to notability it should escape WP:CSD#A7, so I think we need to overturn and list. GRBerry 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD - Google cached reveals an article that mostly was an advertisement for adam4adam, but it did include eight footnotes, three of which were to the New York Times, New York Daily News, and Washington Blade. Speedy delete may have been too speedy of process. Comment: For those of you interested in having this article survive AfD, you may want to create a well referenced rewrite of the article now to update the article the moment it is relisted at AfD. Include an infobox (e.g., Infobox_Company) and sections such as a history section, a service section, a culture section, a criticism section, or other section for which there is Wikipedia reference material. -- Jreferee 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (and list at AfD if you like, though I suspect it could survive that). Clearly the article ought to be recreated because it was a speed delete which was contested, if it is contested it ought to go to AfD instead. There never was an AfD thus it ought to remain in mainspace until there is one that supports its deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong - contested speedy deletes can still be speedy deleted by admins. Prods (proposed deletions) are stopped by contestation Bwithh 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The following statements are quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

• reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended
• Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.

Can this be any clearer? - Shaundakulbara 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How does that make my statement incorrect? I was specifically responding to Mathmo's assertion that the mere act of contesting a speedy delete tag negates the possibility of speedy deletion - that's the case for Prods, not CSD tagging. Compare Template:Hangon and Template:Prod. This seems pretty clear to me. The excerpt you select from WP:CSD does not relate directly to the point I was making (which btw, seems generally in line with what Chairboy and Ozlawyer have to say about hangon templates in the discussion on Chairboy's talk page[11]). Bwithh 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• The "hangon" tag may be ignored and the page may "still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria". This article does not unquestionably meet the speedy deletion criteria and hence the hang on should not have been disregarded. The guidelines I just pointed out make it clear that admins should not speedy delete unless its obvious an article has no notability, not does it even claim notability, and it is very likely no one would say otherwise. References to sources like the New York Times in connection to a murder in one city and a crime ring in another is certainly a "claim that might be construed as making the subject notable". Note the words "claim", "might" and "construed" -- the intent here is obviously to give every benefit of the doubt. The fact that the opinion here has been something like 14 to 3 in favour of "overturn" proves that, at the very least, the notability of this article is open for discussion. That means it should never have been speedy deleted. Even the admin who deleted this article said he would have restored it had he not been offended by the suggestion that he abused his privlidges. Would he have restored an article that DEFINATELY shouldn't have a place on Wikpedia? Of course not! Only an article that definately doesn't have a place should be speedy deleted. The rest go to AfD debates. Speedy delete exists to obliterate articles which are, in a word, worthless (spam, attack articles, hoaxes, vanity articles, and other badness). It is not for coherent articles with references to major newspapers and it sure isn't for articles that have 14 people saying it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. -Shaundakulbara 08:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said in the past, mere claims to encyclopedic notability are sufficient to merit removal of a speedy delete tag. But I don't see any sign of that in the article, and apparently Chairboy and Ozlawyer didn't either. Its a matter of opinion whether mentions in news articles are encyclopedically notable or not (whether its from a news source with local or national or international focus - the NYTimes is all 3 btw and not every article it prints is automatically esteemed knowledge for the ages), but its within reasonable bounds to see such mentions as not asserting encyclopedic notability. Crime stories in newspapers are generally not encyclopedically remarkable. In addition, apparently no argument against the speedy delete was left on the talk page to accompany the hangon. So Chairboy was left with just a hangon tag. If it was felt that the speedy deletion was too hasty or out of order - that's why deletion review exists. There's no reason here for the bad faith assumptions about Chairboy's intentions or views. I'm not here to express opinions on Chairboy's behalf, but it seems clear to me from his talk page that he was ready to restore the article as a courtesy response to HouseofScandal's first assertion that he could provide a ton of evidence to show verifiable encyclopedic notability. Chairboy chose not to do this when he saw that HouseofScandal was assuming bad faith and asked HouseofScandal to make a request to another admin. This seems reasonable and does not indicate that Chairboy was tacitly admitting he was in error as you suggest. By the way, hoax and "vanity" articles are not subject to deletion by WP:CSD while this article is within the bounds of consideration under A7. Bwithh 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• FACT: If 14 people question the speedy delete versus 3 who don't, then it didn't unquestionably meet speedy delete requirements. I can forgive Chairboy or anybody for a lapse in judgement. But at this point, your position just seems absurd. Your arguments about what constitutes notability don't belong here...that’s for AfD. All that is required to avoid quick delete is a "claim that might be construed as making the subject notable". BTW...Chairboy deleted the article the same day another admin recreated it after speedy deleting it by accident. The author apparently had no time to present a case and Chairboy was effectively vetoing another admin's decision.-Shaundakulbara 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, consensus can change even for deletion review decisions, so there's not exactly a solid "fact" to be uncovered here. No, this isn't AFD, we're discussing whether Chairboy's speedy delete decision was reasonable. I've already said that just a minimal claim of encyclopedic notability is needed. I don't see it in the article and I think Chairboy made an ok call. And I don't see why whether you "forgive" my opinion or not matters. Bwithh 11:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, not a legitimate speedy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Many things are clear as crystal in this review: 1. The page in question did not meet the utilized requirement for speedy deletion (CSD A7) 2. The article has various sources and thus stands a good chance of passing a good-faith AfD listing. 3. Some of the editors who opposed the SD could have been more civil; however, 4. Chairboy's refusal to un-delete the article because he was offended by what other editors said is petulant and childish (at best) 5. His job as admin in the situation is to consider the article, not those editors he is corresponding with, and there is no excuse for using your administrative powers (or holding them over someone's head, for that matter) because you are angry with the person. (I'll also note that, while Chairboy IS a volunteer, he should remember that his peers in the Wiki community elected him to his post). 6. Chairboy's supposition that posting this DRV on the LGBT noticeboard was vote-stacking (and that is clearly the assertion he was making) is troubling for various reasons, but for me mainly because it seems he assumed that all those who are members of the project would vote overturn simply because they are LGBT or interested in LGBT issues. This shows an enormous amount of disrespect for that project, as well as the LGBT editors of Wikipedia. Please, in the future, do not reduce us to our genders or our sexualities. That is extremely offensive. 7. Events like this one show a clear need for a serious discussion regarding Speedy-Deletion and the policies therein. CaveatLector^Talk 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel my actions were in any way improper and, as you suggest, indicative of a person who should not have the admin bit, I invite you to make use of the request for comment mechanism so we can discuss this in greater depth. I make myself available for scrutiny at any point, and I'm always looking for ways to improve. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy has been created to assist your admirable efforts at improvement. I hope it is helpful. Shaundakulbara 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I note that the reason given for deletion in the logs is: "WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization". Surely the Victimization subsection of Adam4Adam would have been enough reason by itself as claim for notability? Seems to me it should have appeared easy to see that this reason (Articles, subsection 7) for speedy deletion doesn't apply. Mathmo ^Talk 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Chairboy acted in good faith, but I disagree with the A7 speedy deletion, because the article did assert notability. Picaroon 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Was all the drama really necessary? Some people should be ashamed of themselves, and I certainly don't mean Chairboy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eur_20041214_tues3art.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|FU review)

This image was unilaterally deleted while deletion review copyright discussion was in progress and less than 24 hours after a deletion dispute tag had just been put on the image. Nardman1 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion, image was speedily deleted as replaceable fair use. There have been no previous DRVs on this image, and the link given by the nominator is to a WP:CP discussion and not a deletion debate. --Coredesat 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no free replacement, as was contended on the fair use rationale which was added only HOURS before the image was deleted. There isn't even a bio of him on the Northern Ireland Assembly page. [12]. I've looked in vain. Nardman1 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion A live politician is a definite case of a replacable fair use, assuming the use was fair to begin with. First, an image could be solicited, for guidance see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Second, politicians appear in public or semi-public settings, generally with the schedule available from their PR staff, and a Wikipedia could take a photograph at such a time and release it into the public domain or via an adequately free license. GRBerry 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful endorse deletion, you'll need to change our fair use policies before this would be allowed. However, I really don't like them in this case. -Amark moo! 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Henrietta the four-legged chicken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I wanted to add something to this article I'd read before and found it was speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as not-notable but that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria. The article was well-sourced to news events and a simple Google search [13] shows 52,000 hits, a third of that of Mike the headless chicken - seems notable enough to me in the realm of mutant chickens. An article with notability and reliably sourced shouldn't be thrown away on whim. SchmuckyTheCat 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This was the information the article gave: "Henrietta is a four-legged chicken at Brendle Farms in Somerset, Pennsylvania. She was found living normally among the rest of the chickens after 18 months. She was adopted and named by the farm owners 13 year old daughter, Ashley, who refuses to sell the chicken on the Internet. Henrietta has Congenital disorder. The second (hind) legs are fully formed but non-functional." That doesn't even begin to claim any sort of notability. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So it reads like a stub. It was sourced as well, correct? Does an article have to contain an intro sentence that says "Subject is notable because ..." in order to not be speedy deleted? SchmuckyTheCat 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AfD. The article doesn't meet any speedy-deletion criteria, it is sourced, and at least one editor objects to its deletion. Those are all good reasons to send the article to AfD, per WP:PI. If the article had no chance to survive the AfD, the deletion could be retained per WP:SNOW. However, the article has a chance, albeit probably very slim, of surviving, so it should have its day in court. Herostratus 16:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, possibly list. A good faith challenge at best, a legitimately disputable speedy at worst. Worth a good look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. Apparently the subject of an Associated Press story, definitely doesn't seem to be speedy fodder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD. as per Herostratus. Mathmo ^Talk 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states "If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum." Speedy delete is for extreme cases and may be being misused quite often. Shaundakulbara 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:PopeofPeru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I have initiated this review per the suggestion of original deleter Proto after my attempt to persuade him to reverse his decision failed. This userpage of an unbanned editor was deleted without justifiable cause as part of the reaction to the recent round of Colbert vandalism. I therefore request that the userpage be fully restored AND/OR the page be restored and the congratulatory comments be moved to the respective talk page, where they properly belong. --Hemlock Martinis 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: This is my first attempt at a deletion review, so if I breach protocol in some way I would appreciate the notification. Thanks! :D)

• An applicable thread discussing this is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PopeofPeru. The text of the deleted user page was a series of congratulatory messages (and nothing else) about how awesome the user's vandalism was. Not only should they not be restored, they shouldn't be moved to the talk page, either. PopeofPeru is lucky he has not been indefinitely blocked. Proto::► 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Of course, PopeofPeru is free to re-create any user page he wants, once he's back, as long as it doesn't contain blatantly inappropriate material. He didn't have one prior to the Colbert incident, and he hasn't expressed any wish to have this one back - in fact, he hasn't edited at all since his unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  Note, he's now created a new user page, and indicated on his talk page he himself doesn't care about the deleted content. I think this review is effectively moot. Proto::► 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. May have been a WP:USER violation, but certainly dind't meet any sort of speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Technical overturn, but I question that DRV has the power to foist a userpage someone does not want upon them. He doesn't want it, so keep deleted. -Amark moo! 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly, his having the option is worth pursuing, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Proto::► 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Do we really need a speedy criterion for pages that promote vandalism? I would have hoped that this would fall into the 'obvious' file. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I don't think it is a stretch to say that a congratulating someone for obvious and undisputed vandalism is itself vandalism, which puts this under WP:CSD#G3. GRBerry 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I fight vandalism too. But as far as I know, vandalism is vandalism and congratulating someone for vandalism in user space is free speech. Blocking/deleting are supposed to be constructive/preventative measures, not punative measures. If there are guideline to the contrary I would like to learn them for future reference. Someone musn't be treated contrary to policy because we think they are a "bad guy". Shaundakulbara 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  The user already replaced his page and doesn't seem to want the deleted one back. Is it really "free speech" to give him back a version he doesn't want in the first place? GassyGuy 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am guessing the discussion here is a rhetorical rather than a practical one; I think we're trying to hash out how this sort of thing should be handled in the future. So no, we don't force the user to have their old page back! Shaundakulbara 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dogme ELT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Dogme ELT is an internet forum for teachers of English as a second language. On November 4, 2006, the Dogme ELT article was deleted as copyvio. On November 15, 2006, the article was deleted per this AfD. The article was speedy deleted on January 30, 2007 by The JPS. A reason given for the speedy deletion was speedy deletion criteria 4 - "Recreation of deleted material". Malangthon asserts that none of the speedy deletion criteria applies and now request review of the January 30, 2007 speedy deletion by The JPS. Malangthon posted a request at ArbCom. trialsanderrors took Malangthon's request posted at ArbCom, created this deletion review request on January 31, 2007, and post the following ArbCom quote from Malangthon in support of this deletion review request: "The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy. (...) Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" This lead section was revised on February 4, 2007 by Jreferee to provide some clarification. -- Jreferee 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's my closure that's contested, so I just refer to my closing statement. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looks like the deletion that is contested is User:The JPS's speedy per WP:CSD#G4. ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The prior lead paragraph to this deletion review contained the statement "Request by Malangthon (talk • contribs), who accidentally sent it to ArbCom:", which is referenced to in the below discussion. -- Jreferee 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There are still no sources. I don't quite know why you think it was acidentally sent to Arbcom. Thinking that they didn't intend to have Arbcom rule on it and punish the people who deleted it goes past my ability to assume good faith. -Amark moo! 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction: still no reliable sources. -Amark moo! 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - OK trailsanderror. if User:The JPS's speedy was not for the article that was deleted after a discussion in 2006 then yes, this is a different matter. A stub written after the article was deleted has been deleted. I have not been able to get a reason for the deletion from the User who deleted it but I know it was in compliance with Wikipedia policy. There may have been minor formatting preferences that were lacking but that is no reason to delete. There is a User Calton who is saying that it was deleted because it was simply a replacement of previously deleted material--which it is not. This is a new stub for a whole new article. I think User:BrainyBabe can confirm this as well.
Your attention to this is welcomed. Malangthon 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Re:
Arbcom's remarks
*There are still no sources.
:Incorrect. The sources are listed
*I don't quite know why you think it was acidentally sent to Arbcom. Thinking that they didn't intend to have Arbcom rule on it and punish the people who deleted it goes past my ability to assume good faith.
:Not sure what this is meant to be. I could not find the deleter and anyone who insist that navigating the massive number of pages here and getting specific directions to adress specific problems needs to rethink this. I spent quite a bit of time looking for the deleter after it had been deleted. There was a short notice on my User page. I went to the stub and it was gone. I have been preoccupied researching a vast number (more than 100 thus far) of journal articles on autism for the Wikipedia article and this was in and out before I knew it with no one trying to justify a speedy deletion. So I went through the steps and was left only with arbitration. This is a problem with speedy deleters. They drop things because they have a strong POV about stubs or articles that are in fact hardly frivolous and then off they go--but that requires an administator so that means that an administrator was hardly giving this a good look.
Dogme ELT is as article stub justified both in content and in form. I have been in applied lingustics for more than 20 years. I heard the article had been deleted, I read what I could find. Went out and emailed applied linguists worldwide to see if there was any merit in it. They had no problem understanding that there was merit. The type of organisation that Dogme ELT represents is not at all unlike 'The Inklings' for example and who here will say Tolkein and Lewis were engaged in meaningless pastimes.
Dogme ELT may or may not signal a paradigm change in the philosophy of langauge education. That is not the point. It is a legitimate forum for professional educators from which they derive a growing body of material and support for a change in education policy in an area of profound influence--the ability of people to communicate with each other.
I have absolutely no connexion with this group. I went into the forum and read extensively and I asked a great many other people who responded via email. In addition to the forum contact address, the Guardian articles and the piece by the woman from the British Council, these serve to substantiate the existence of the forum. The comment that there are no sources is absurd.
This has merit and is Wikipedia worthy. Saying otherwise is strictly POV. I have established the existence of the entity and have correctly described what it is and what it does. Malangthon 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I just found this at the Dogme ELT site. I need to know what is going on.
Dogme ELT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:"This page was deleted from Wikipedia, either because an administrator believed a consensus was reached among editors that it is unsuitable as an encyclopedia entry, or because an administrator felt it met one or more conditions for speedy deletion. However, an appeal has been made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored and protected with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history. You may wish to contribute to the discussion at Deletion review following your inspection. If there seems likely to be a strong consensus to undelete and you wish to improve this article meanwhile, you may wish to make a request for the unprotection of this article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. "
I would like access to the appeal procedure. Which link do I follow? Malangthon 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the appeal procedure. -Amark moo! 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. To suggest that User:Malangthon "accidentally" posted at WP:RfArb doesn't Assume Good Faith, it Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, given the language on the article and user talk pages such as Calton...simply makes a mockery of the assertion and displays a destructive attitude of other editors...displays willful abuse...Please desist from further vandalsim or I will make additional requests for arbitration to protect this stub from any further arbitrary acts that may be committed [14], claims that referring him to the speedy deletion criteria constitutes [m]ustering group support by trying to marginalise this editor...an abusive and meaningless, not to say, inaccurate ploy. [15], and the odd proclamation that he was making a PDF of comments that had been deleted from his Talk Page -- comments which never appeared there to begin with [16] (go ahead, check the history).
  In any case, as to the actual issue at hand: Endorse deletion. There are NO reliable sources: the ones claimed are rubbish, as I've already pointed out to User:Malangthon on the article talk page [17]: one Guardian article that doesn't even mention the group, a Guardian message board, and the BC article only tacks on mention of the group at the end. Coverage is not non-trivial, multiple, or from reliable sources. This is a textbook repost speedy deletion. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Accidental" stricken. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Appears to be just another non-notable web forum. Article contained no assertion of popularity, wide public interest, or importance. Sole citation to a WP:RS was to an story about the general subject, not the forum that is the subject of the article. --MCB 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Web forum that doesn't even have its own domain? Give me a break. 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

REBUTTAL:
*Accidental is not nor ever was an issue. The deletion was done before I got there, I went through all the stages I could, the deletion had been done spuriously to begin with and a second deletion was being threatened and again without discussion or justification given. The last resort--since I could not find anyone to discuss it with nor anyone to take responsibility for the deletion--was simply that, the last resort. It had been done and was being threaten again. The categorisation of 'accidental' is irrelevant and moot at the same time. It is being used to detract from the issue at hand--spurious and malicious deletions.
*'Appears to be a non-notable web forum'. What it appears to be is not an issue--verify the reasons for deletion within policy guidelines. What it is, is the issue. I have many years in the business and these forums are essential in developing the philosophy and practice of a very significant part of education and learning. Having been to literally hundreds of international conferences, given papers, chaired or directed significant not-for-profit organisations, it is, in my experience, worthy of note. Opinions to the contrary--opinions drawn from 'it appears to be' are unsubstantiated. The vigour with which this 'deletion at whim' is being carried out make it clear to me that the question must be posed--what is the hidden agenda here?
Spurious and ad hoc rationale posed here--
no assertion of:
popularity and wide public interest (this is redundant),
importance (This is very POV).
Sole citation to a WP:RS was to an story about the general subject, not the forum that is the subject of the article.
Web forum that doesn't even have its own domain
These are not reasons for deletion.
*A. Popularity or wide public interest--Small articles on the ranks and duties of Roman soldiers who fought at Adrianople against the Goths or the role of the curiales in civil administration while historically significant are hardly riveting reading to the vast majority of people who can read English--ever see a poll taken on popularity in Wikipedia on this prior to deletion?
*B. Importance is entirely POV--this in itself refutes demands for deletion
*C. Sole citations (in fact neither a sole citation nor unreliable) and their focus are not the issue. The issue is that (a) it is sourced and (b) therefore its existence is verified. There are more than a few articles and stubs here with single and rather vague sources. There are in fact more than one source to the DOGME stub and the description is both accurate and verifiable so this is a fabrication.
*D. 'Fora without their own domain' is not listed as criteria for Deletion an article or stub.
Summary: The case for deletion is based on
*A. Fabrication--the inaccuracy of which is verifiable;
*B. Multiple voices--get enough people to speak out against it and that is reason enough!?—the Roman Coliseum springs to mind;
*C. Criticism that assert reasons for which the deletion is not listed as justifiable cause for deletion.
*D. Criticism that assert unfounded reasons for which the deletion is not listed as justifiable cause for deletion.
and
*E. The reasons for deletion given here above are not the original reasons for deletion--It was DELETED for REPOSTING A DELETED ARTICLE.
This is essential--the voices for deletion are literally making it up as they go along. They have no case and can not defend the original premise for deletion.
-- Malangthon 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• A word of advice? If you want people to pay attention to what you say, the best way to go about it is not to assume that the people who want it deleted are acting in bad faith. And it is a repost of deleted content, essentially. It was deleted for having no good sources, and you still have no good sources. -Amark moo! 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A. Pay attention to what is being said? User:Amarkov has not paid any attention at all. If facts are not enough--as User:Amarkov says here--then why is User:Amarkov even involved? Once again, we see that this is not about the original rationale--refuted rationale--for deletion. Staying on topic seems to be problematic for User:Amarkov.

B. Now we see the qualifier 'essentially' attached to the statement for deletion. How far do we have to go till we get to, 'sorta like' or 'looks similar to'?

C. User:Amarkov has now stated without equivocation that the reason for deletion was not the asserted reason, it is in fact a dispute over sources. Again the reasoning and the quarrel--not an objective argument--is fallacious and very POV. Malangthon 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the previous article was a lack of reliable, independent sources. Thus, any article which fails to include reliable, independent sources is a repost, regardless of if the words are different. And it doesn't matter why it was deleted, if it should not be undeleted. Which it shouldn't. -Amark moo! 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reiteration (RE: User talk:Amarkov 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)). The tedium of the serial attacks and continued failure to address the rebuttal clearly shows the deletion vote is being made by those who are not concerned with the issues at hand. This is not about the merits of the stub but about repeating again and again refuted and disproven assertions--trial by fatigue. Make your case. Show that the deletion rationale was in fact justified--that rationale stated, not the ad hoc nonsense that is being served up here. When that 'undelete' takes place we can get on with the next set of issues. Malangthon 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant Testimony Refuting Rationale for Deletion
This was posted on the Dogme ELT discussion page:
Author of the original article
:Just for the record, I am the author of the original Dogme ELT entry that was removed in November. The susbequent entry had nothing to do with me, was not sanctioned by me, and bore only a notional resemblance to my own article (in that it was about the same topic) but was otherwise completely different: its rapid deletion - on the grounds that it was an attempt to re-submit a previously rejected entry - seems hardly justified. ScottThornbury 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ScottThornbury
:See WP:Wikilawyering. Read WP:Wikilawyering. Come back with something resembling an actual argument. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
:This simply demonstrates User Calton's failure to stick to the original rationale for deletion. The deletion was categorically for reposting a deleted article. The writer of the first article has stated, without equivocation, that the stub deleted was NOT, I repeat, NOT the original article. The sole reason for deletion is thereby refuted and that categorically. Malangthon 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is or should be, the end of it and the article left in peace. Malangthon 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. If it were undeleted on the technicality that the text is not the same, it would be promptly AfDed again, and redeleted for still having no reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't follow process for the sake of having it followed. -Amark moo! 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

REBUTTAL

Again, another of those voting for deletion state that in fact the reason for deletion is not the real reason. It was deleted for reposting deleted text. This is very simple, undelete and leave it be.

This is process for the sake of serving the mission of Wikipedia. The assertion that this is about process for the sake of process is misdirection. We have here a glimpse into the mind of User:Amarkov and not the substance of this discussion. Malangthon 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring me, and I don't like it. It's not going to be let alone if it's undeleted, it's going to be run through an entirely pointless AfD discussion which will reach the result that there are still no sources. -Amark moo! 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is just so clear. It is now a personal attack: it has been internalised and rendered by at least one person to a very unprofessional level. It is simply a threat of continued attempts to delete a stub which is in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Undeleted, this stub can continue to be developed over time into an article as would normally happen to a stub in compliance with Wikipedia policies. This is how articles begin and User:Amarkov has stated here that that will not be allowed to happen. Is there a clearer proof that this deletion is supported by someone that is way outside the Pale? Malangthon 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion beneath all the puffery, this is really just yet another of the thousands of unremarkable web-forum article deletions that happen all the time. In this case the forum is actually a Yahoo group with 2 messages in the past 7 days. The "accidental" ArbCom request (which was apparently sticken without even being voted upon) makes it a little bit tougher than usual to assume good faith, but otherwise it's just more of the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How much of this forum discussion and its significance are not limited to the site itself? The assertion marks the writer as unbelievably naive for some who professes to have an informed opinion in this matter. I have been on the web since the early 90s and these are now the norm for discussion amongst groups of professionals in almost every field. How many entries does it take before a entity like H-Net which publishes citable reviews would make it to the pages of Wikipedia? Amazing. Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be civil and assume good faith.

This is the version deleted by AFD. This is the version deleted under the speedy deletion criteria for recreation of deleted material. The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.

The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.

Reading the AFD, the reason for deletion was a lack of independently published reliable sources primarily about the group. So the question is whether the new article addresses this reason for deletion. The sources offered in the new article are 1) the forum itself (obviously not independent), 2) a 2004 item in the Guardian that mentions the educational theory but not the group (so is totally useless for an article on the forum) 3) a forum at the Guardian (obviously not meeting our standards for a reliable source), and 4) the personal writings of a single teacher on a site published by the BBC and British council that does not claim any authorship or fact checking of the articles by teachers (see the about page), so it also does not meet our standards for a reliable source. There is no source that addresses the concerns of the AFD about a lack of good sources. With no good source for our notability standards (WP:WEB as a forum), this doesn't have as much chance of surviving another AFD as a naturally occurring snowball being found underground in liquid magma, so there is no reason to list it at AFD. The discovery of multiple sources that are independent and meet our standards for reliable sources would give an AFD a chance, so might lead me to change my opinion to relisting. I have no opinion on whether an article on the educational theory would be possible, but it is clear these are not the sources to support such an article. GRBerry 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:GRBerry, 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) REBUTTAL Re: "I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be civil and assume good faith.

This name calling and deprecation is civil and in good faith? Yea right. Hoist on thine own.

Re: “The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.”

Point One: Substantially different –how substantial? An analogy if you will.

Act One: Someone one writes an article about a Martian who comes to earth and poses extraordinary theories in relativity and quantum mechanics —and oh by the way his name is Albert Einstein. It gets deleted;

Act Two: Next there is a legitimate article on Albert Einstein and we have about 95% of the same content and the same title and . . . oh well. This line of reasoning is stating clearly that if a topic is dealt with in a manner that is unacceptable and then deleted that the topic is forever out of bounds. You see how this could create problems. If not please recuse yourself.

Point Two:

The original article deleted in 2006 was, amongst other things, deleted because the founder of the group had written it and it was considered self-promoting. This assertion of irrelevance in the matter of authorship displays a marked lack of familiarity with the case. Since it is clearly the case that this is not self-promoting by a vested interest, this stub has now rendered an original deletion rationale moot.

“The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.”

ONE: Make the argument. If you want to refer to policy, then do it here and not make broad sweeping strokes by referring obtusely to other Wikipedia documents on the web.

TWO: An established forum in cyberspace is now reason for deletion—where is that written in policy

THREE: A loose collection—what is that? A established forum to discuss philosophy and practice in a recognised field by professionals is a whole new level. If you see a similarity there you really have to want it.

With regard to the section beginning, "The sources offered in the new article are"

1. Irrelevant. This is obviously crucial in actually establishing the EXISTENCE of the forum.
2. Incorrect & Contradictory (at the same time). This establishes the interest and the significance of the topic of the stub as published in a reliable source. Important Point: This statement is a contradiction with other assertions here saying this should be deleted because it had no interest (I believe one word used was 'popularity'). The reasons given for deletion are in conflict.
3. The Guardian does not meet the criteria for a reliable source? The vote for deletion is now saying the Guardian is what?
4. -

• (A) We are now eliminating all personal writing from the list of eligible sources? Where in the policy is that written? All autobigraphies are personal. How many articles here cite autobiographies? What about biographies with the endorsement of the subject? Are those citations now to be removed and their associated articles judged on 'Keep' or 'Delete' accordingly? How many noted authors are cited here from articles in the media--op ed pieces are now for the chop?
• (B)Who do writers have to be to qualify as a source? We have a rating scale?
• (C)British Council or, say, Oxford faculty? CNN or BBC? We are now engaged in a disparagement of well known and respected governmental agencies in the UK--this is support for deletion? The voter does not consider the British Council or the BBC to be reliable sources? How many sources here in Wikipedia are from media but WITHOUT by-lines? This well-regarded media source has published an essay WITH a by-line. This is Wikipedia policy--saying the BBC and The British Council are not legitimate fora for opinions by professionals writing about issues in their field of endeavour?

SUMMARY:

• The arguments are not serving the purpose of the review and they are often based on vague references to other web pages here in Wikipedia--e.g. referring to an opponent's argumentation as 'Wikilawyering'. Make the argument from the source if you can--Your opponent is not required to make your argument for you, for Pete's sake. And do try and stay on topic. Little of this last posting is on topic with regard to the deletion under review.
• If it is a question of votes, then any Republican can get his party members to join and vote to delete all reference to Clinton, any politician in Turkey could get as many of his compatriots to join Wikipedia and vote to delete all references to the Armenian massacres and any right-winger in Japan could do the same for the Nanking Massacre--hell for WWII.

Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relevance of Dogme ELT

An issue, evidently, for the first article, deleted in 2006, and one posted here in various versions is the significance of the topic. Once a week I do a google and a vivisimo and an alta vista search of the topic and the list grows. I post to applied linguists monthly to get an idea about what changes are taking place in the field and Dogme is noted from time to time--out of the vast number of ideas out there: It merits note by professionals in the field. Dogme ELT is now being discussed and written about in language and education sources and publications on an increasingly wider international scale and this is significant. The ELT field has a major impact worldwide. When you consider that English is not just a language but an international language that is increasingly used in commerce, government & international relations and transportation (e.g. Japanese airline pilots speak English to Pakistani traffic controllers), the importance of this field of endeavour becomes clear. As I stated before, the ELT field also accomodates a massive industry for commercial interests (e.g. major publishers and universities) which philosophies like Dogme ELT has already effected (e.g. Edlearn Consortium, a joint venture of Wash. State U. & City University-Seattle is now charging some 2,500 Euros for a business course it teaches in English in Bulgaria--that is about twice the yearly salary of an ELT teacher in Bulgaria). The topic under discussion will have a signficant effect on the associated industries since it is advocating a mover counter to the glut of materials that ELT teachers deal with. Testing, especially testing English competence, is a very large industry that Dogme ELT may impact to increasing degrees (e.g. Edlearn Consortium have 'graciously' eliminated the TOEFL requirement). The interest in Dogme ELT is definitely there and its signficance is also being marked and discussed.

On the other hand, articles about pumpkin-headed deer are hardly of global signficance nor a topic impacting billion dollar industries although I certainly welcome the reading of trivial and slightly bizzare phenomena. Even though such articles are usually the domain of "UrbanMyth.com", I have no doubt that it fits Wikipedia's mission as does Dogme ELT which is significant on many levels.

• Sources for Dogme ELT

I have been going over the beginnings of many of these articles and note that it has been common here in Wikipedia to start small--sometimes, very small. The Autism article, for instance, was recently a Feature Article and with our efforts may soon be again. However, when it started in 2001 in December, for two weeks it was a single web link. Others then pitched in and the rest is history. The attitude conveyed here in the votes for deletion--and I think it would be instructional to analyse the voters primary work loads here on Wikipedia to reveal what their real emphasis is--is a sharp departure from the evidence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, informative and collaborative rather than denigrating and combative. Malangthon 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Process of AFD

I note that User GRBerry states on his talk page:

"Despite some appearances to the contrary, AFD is not a vote. It is a discussion, where we try to explain why an article should or should not be deleted. Then a closing admin comes along, and decides, in light of the discussion, whether the article meets Wikipedias policies and guidelines for having an article. Usually, because most AFD contributors are basing their comments on the policies and guidelines, the close looks like it is reading the comments as a vote. But if there is an overriding policy issue raised (a demonstrated copyright violation is the classic example), then policy will be followed. One of the boldest closes that I've seen, but absolutely one that followed policy, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of probability, which was closed as keep in a discussion with two keep opinions, eight delete opinions, and two userfy opinions (which are normally read as delete). "

Malangthon 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry also states: I have rescued 6 articles for deletion by improving them, some of them with significant help from other editors. The best possible outcome of an AfD discussion is an improved article. How many have you rescued?"

Malangthon 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlada Frey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Why have you deleted Vlada frey? I saw many people getting in his defense on article discussion page. All you "wikipedians" had in your defense is bunch of dumb rules YOU made up. You people act like you have all the knowledge of the world and if there's someone you actually haven't heard of, then that person is not worthy of your precious wikipedia. So what if Vlada doesn't have a web page? Is the internet only thing deserving merit to you? I have read a lot of magazines and newspaper articles mentioning Vlada. But, hey, they are all Eastern European, you haven't heard of them, right? And, ofcourse, that means they are not worthy. For crying out loud, man, get a little more flexible, will you? I ask for detailed answer, as why are you people so stubborn about your rules, the article didn't stated anything bizarre, sick or offending? P.S. Since the article was in process of debate, and your "rules" state that the page in this process should remain intact for seven days, why has the page been deleted two days earlier? Shmeket (misfiled at Content review, moved by GRBerry

What magazines and newspapers? They aren't online? Why don't you get an article on the Wikipedia that is in the same language as the magazines? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the reasoning here. While I myself know nothing of Vlada Frey, the fact that there isn't much online in English about him might actually make for a good reason to include him. Are we so narrow as to think that people are only interested in subjects from their own language groups or cultures? So long as references are cited, whether online or not and whether in English or not, and so long as the subject himself/itself is otherwise worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, an article should surely be permitted. As an example, I am myself hugely interested in Japanese music and culture, but speak hardly a word of Japanese. English Wikipedia thus is a major source for me, and I rely on contributors who are able to draw on Japanese sources to write good articles in English. Doesn't this make sense in our global, internationalist world? --Ishel99 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While we do suffer from recentism and CSB here (and Chris Griswold is wrong here; WP:V allows for non-English sources), that doesn't necessarily mean that someone who isn't online deserves an article if they're not mentioned in online sources. The problem is that the author mentioned "many magazines" but didn't specify which ones, so it's a lot harder to verify the articles or magazines, whether the content matches or there is even enough content to write an article from. ColourBurst 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus at AfD; closed per consensus; not too happy about the closing remark. "Jamnezdin Kurtovic-Piton" gets one ghit: the deleted article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The "dumb rules [we] made up" were reached through consensus, and if you have a huge problem with them, go to another site. JuJube 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD consensus was clear, and nominator's reasoning (more or less that we shouldn't bother to enforce our rules) is extremely weak. As noted above, if you have such disdain for WP's rules, try another site, there's plenty out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Your argument is, in effect, "Instead of the dumb rules you made up, use the dumb rules I made up". It's not too late to provide valid sources, however. --UsaSatsui 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List of tall men (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4)

The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus.

Note: For the sake of consistency, I am also nominating List of tall women for deletion review (the result of the AfD debate was a consensus keep).

The administrator's justification for the decision is that:

The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.

However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":

NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.

The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article).

At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men (per the suggestion by User:Penwhale, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page). Black Falcon 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This article has undergone an AfD three more times (as copied from the most recent AfD): Black Falcon 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men, Oct 2005 (no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men (2nd nomination), Sep 2006 (bundled nomination, all closed no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall women, 5 Dec 2006 (bundled nomination, all closed no consensus)

• Comment - At the risk of rehashing my comments on the AFD, I do reject Proto's notion that there being "no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means" is a reason for deletion. The obvious consequences of that logic are distasteful, particularly the deletion of many valuable, high-quality lists simply because they cover a group which has no definitive parameters. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with C. Parham. On my talk page, I've listed links to many lists that are now in danger because they contain subjective adjectives like "early," "black," "unusual" and "large." Consensus building is hard work, but many good-faith editors were striving to come to agreement as to what criteria should be used to build the deleted list. To cut that work short by deleting the article (rather than assisting the editors in achieveing consensus) is rather like cutting the proverbial baby in half to solve a parentage dispute.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The lost was improved a lot and the reason for deletion was refuted, with 'tall' parametres set by official authorities.Halbared 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've noticed that at least two featured lists (and many more high-quality ones) are threatened: Largest suspension bridges and List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region. Black Falcon 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Closing admin made sound policy and guideline based conclusion, no real basis to overturn his call on it. Despite what is said, it appears that the main reason to overturn in !vote counting more than anything. Agent 86 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - something I didn't note in the close, which perhaps I should have, is that reaching an agreed consensus on what "tall" means "through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article" would be just splendid. Is it therefore churlish to point out that the article had existed since October 11 2005 (over fifteen months) without managing to arrive upon an agreed consensus on what "tall" means, and no sign of it ever being attained? Proto::► 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was primarily due to fears of the list getting too lengthy. Also it included some on the other side who wanted "their tall guy" included for whatever reason so pushed for a lower standard. That "tall" exists, and can be measured to some degree, I don't think was the point. In retrospect I wish the higher standard of 201 centimetres, the standard used at the Italian one, had been kept as this is almost certainly in the highest percentile of human height in any society. As for another issue, it is incorrect that a variable physical commonality is arbitrary or verboten for lists. There is a Category:Lists of people by physical attribute and many things in Category:Lists of people with disabilities could also apply. In addition Tall Men are a subject of scholarly study. I concede that the disdain for lists is powerful so perhaps an article on Tall men or Tallest men would be better, but because of this deletion I'm not sure such an article can be created.--T. Anthony 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also note I do stand by my closing judgement - the issue wasn't no original research (although an argument could be made for an arbvitrary cutoff point being just that, it wasn't a prevailing discussion in the AFD), it was Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - arbitrary and subjective lists are just that. Isn't that what the main thrust of the deletion arguments were about? Proto::► 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The nominator made a very strong case, and all the people who voted delete either also made a good case, or mentioned several policies. The people who voted keep didn't have much to say, some didn't say anything at all. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The majority of the keep votes were more well-reasoned than that. In addition there were several delete votes that were "delete per nom" or essentially said "it's stupid", but were not stricken. In addition we have several lists like List of buildings with 100 floors or more. Isn't "a 100 floors" also essentially arbitrary? If this had been called List of men over two metres tall would it have been more acceptable because it admits it chose an arbitrary number? Anyway back to the main point, even if you go by what wasn't stricken you had an almost equal number of keeps and deletes each with their own considered arguments. I am perplexed how this means a concensus to delete and I still fail to see how a fair reading of the discussion could lead one to think that. Most of those endorsing closure here have not given a satisfactory answer to that, I feel, and some of them voted delete at the discussion. (I am not an administrator and I have not voted, or whatever you call it, here at all. Still I voted keep there, but I would refrain here even if I could endorse/oppose) Maybe I strayed as well, but the discussion is what mattered. Did the discussion have a concensus to delete and if so can you show how. That's all.--T. Anthony 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What value is it to mention several policies if they are inapplicable? True, those who voted delete linked to more policies, but this means nothing by itself. In addition, those voting keep linked to policies such as WP:NOR (in that the article doesn't violate it) and WP:POINT and referenced other policies in various threads or comments. Black Falcon 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• It is disturbing that the AFDs for the "tall women" and "tall men" discussions reached contradictory conclusions even though they were run at about the same time. Nevertheless, I can find no fault with the reasoning put forth by the closer of this discussion. I must endorse the closure and continue to struggle to accept that Wikipedia is often inconsistent. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  The tall women one was closed early, quite possibly incorrectly as the pattern of argument was not unanimous, through WP:SNOW. That discussion could easily be repopened - is that within the aegis of this DRV discussion? Proto::► 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by DRV nominator: I apologize for the lengthy DRV nomination and this lengthy comment, but there are two other points that I believe deserve consideration and were not explicitly mentioned in the AfD.

1. Any relational adjective (such as tall, short, large, big, wide, deep, etc.) can be interpreted in different ways. The lower limit of such adjectives can be disputed, but this does not mean that they are hopelessly subjective. Following that logic, every list of the biggest, greatest, largest, longest, tallest, etc. should be deleted (e.g., every list noted in List of "largest" articles). The same logic applies for the opposite: smallest, shortest, cheapest, etc. Lists based on relational adjectives can be encyclopedic, even if they cannot be defined so as to be free of any controversy (to reject any cutoff point, even say 2.5 meters, approaches WP:POINT).
2. Although I do understand the frustration of those who supported deletion that the article hasn't reached resolution so far, it seems like they are giving up on the article. The criticism of the subjectivity of relational adjectives is, as noted in the AfD, "a fruitless semantic exercise, inimical to the subjective nature of language itself". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion. This is just as unsalvagely biased as a List of smart men would be. We can't decide how tall someone must be to be "tall", and there is no agreed on definition, so what are we going to use? If we had a [[List of tallest men]], that might be okay, but that isn't it. -Amark moo! 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on this debate, mostly because I never saw the list. But I seriously doubt "list of tall men" could be as biased as "list of smart men", for the simple reason that a person's height can be accurately and objectively measured, while their intelligence cannot. If we wanted to ensure the maintainability of the list we could choose a minimum height and make it a "list of men over 7 ft. tall" which would also meet or exceed any reasonable person's definition of "tall". In that situation it would be easy to determine who qualifies to be listed, because it's all based on raw height, rather than demographic-based comparisons. If we were dealing with intelligence rather than height, none of these statements would be indisputably true. — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right. A better comparison would be something like List of men with high IQ. -Amark moo! 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well there's no list, but we have a Category:Members of Mensa. Going beyond IQ we have List of young people in history, List of famous people who died young, List of physically disabled politicians etc. Is "young", "dying young", or physical disability inarguably defined? Perhaps not, but absolute exactness in all things is neither necessary nor plausible. If it were we'd have to get into debates about the definition of science fiction every time there's a List of science fiction authors or editors or what not.--T. Anthony 04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Allow me to present a list of the words that would become off-limits for WP articles: tall/short, young/old, dark/light, long/short, large/small, big/small, great/small, costly/cheap, high/low, hot/cold, warm/cool, deep/shallow, unusual, and so forth. Essentially every article or statement that uses a relational adjective would need to be deleted. Such adjectives are a normal part of every-day speech and everyone has a general understanding of what they mean. Their specification is a matter of attaining WP:Consensus through discussion (supported by published sources) on article talk pages. The article has received 4 AfD nominations -- maybe some of that effort should have gone into discussing these issues on the article's talk page (I can't check to be sure (as the page is deleted now, but as I recall, none of the issues brought up in this last AfD were really even noted on the talk page). Black Falcon 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Um... No. A consensus that something not biased does not make it unbiased. No matter how many sources you can get, it is a POV to say how tall someone "tall" is. And the word "tall" is not banned; if you are writing an article on, say, Yao Ming, you can say "He is considered tall by many people". You would probably be able to just describe him as tall, since so many sources would agree on that. The issue with a list is that a list must have a cutoff point, which will be either biased or set so high that the list is useless. And either way, it will be arbitrary, with people an inch under not being included as tall for no good reason.-Amark moo! 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Much of what you say would still apply to young/old, etc lists. Why is dying at 39 "dying young" and dying at 40 not "dying young?" Is the nineteenth century death of Frédéric Chopin's, at 39, truly a "younger death" than say Caron Keating's? Numerically yes as he died two years younger than she, but she lived into the 21st century with modern medicine.--T. Anthony 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all the arguments, not to mention the article was at many times simply a vandalism target. JuJube 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The arguments for deletion were strong, they were not suffiently answered, so the admin called it as delete. That's what's supposed to happen. So the AFD was closed correctly. I see a lot of talk above by the DRV nominator about what "tall" is supposed to mean, but remember, this is not AFD part 2. Some such discussion may be necessary, but please stick to what is relevent to the actual closing. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, relist or delete list of tall women. I was not aware that this list was on AFD at the time, but all of the arguments that brought down list of tall men apply equally to this article, so it should be deleted for the very same reasons. It appears that this article simply received fewer votes because it was lower-profile. If relisting is the necessary route, then so be it, but I think that it's obvious that one can simply apply the same arguments in this case, so deletion would be warranted. — coelacan talk — 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Did someone mention my name? ... Oh yeah, BF did. Per AfD, my suggestion on this issue is thus: Rename to tallest men thereby bypassing the necessity to define the line between "tall" and "not-tall". - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as AfD nominator. This could arguably be salvaged by making it a list of men who were known in their time and genre for being unusually tall, based on assessments by reliable secondary sources, but even that would fail the test of arbitrariness. Consensus is not a few dozen people !voting on a single AfD, consensus is the broad measure of support for policy, in this case WP:NOT. The main attempts to address subjectivity seemed to me to be in terms of changing the value of the subjective criterion for height, and that ain't going to fly. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - 'Largest' and 'tall' are different superlatives ... the equivalent would be 'largest' and 'tallest'. List of tallest men would probably be ok. A simple, non-controversial cut off, such as '20 tallest men alive', '20 tallest men ever', and 5 tallest notable people in certain professions where height is noteworthy and relevant (e.g. NBA) could then be created. Proto::► 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Subjectivity and Überwikipedia - I do agree that List of tall men was inappropriate, but I think it should have been renamed (moved) to List of tallest men (or List of tallest people--merging the men and women articles) and edited to fit to its new purpose rather than deleted. Following the logic of the AfD with regard to your proposed List of tallest men, wouldn't 20 also be a "subjective" number? Or 10? Or 50? Or any other number? Essentially any list that is not naturally bound (e.g., a list of countries, a list of capital cities) would be "subjective" as any cut-off point is "arbitrary". I believe it is a useless exercise to try to impose a level of rigidity on WP that is not present in the English language itself, and that may indeed diminish the quality of the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Black Falcon 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe I'm going to have to quote you later, Black Falcon, as you've said this much more concisely than I've yet managed. It really is misleading to think that we can somehow make this list objective by slightly altering the title. There's nothing "non-controversial" about 20. Someone will come along and want their favorite person on the list, and insist that "oh, 30 is simple and non-controversial too". And there would be no good argument for why they're wrong, any more than there'd be a good argument that they're right. The AFD closer noted this, correctly. — coelacan talk — 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You are right. 30 is no better or worse than 20. And that is why I have suggested (repeatedly) that the specific number be left to the WP:Consensus on an article's talk page. According to your arguments, any list that is not naturally bound (e.g., a list of countries, a list of capital cities) should be deleted (including at least 2 featured lists). You demand a level of objectivity which does not exist in any human language. Black Falcon 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Considering how strong the feelings are of people against lists I keep thinking we should just create some kind of Wiki-Almanac or separate space for them. I've suggested this several times, but nothing's ever really been discussed on it. It seems an almost random policy of selective deletion is preferred. Shrug, whatever.--T. Anthony 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry Black Falcon, I misread and thought you actually were agreeing with me. I didn't mean to twist your argument to my own. Putting that aside, a list of countries and a list of capital cities are both bound lists. There are a finite number of them, that can be counted by objective processes. So if a list lists all of them, then there's no subjective cutoff point for POV pushers to push around. I disagree with your suggestion that we can arrive at a number for this list by consensus. How would a consensus even begin to develop, if everyone has their own ideas about what a "good" number is, and there's no measure for who's got a better idea? For consensus to form, some people have to be able to convince at least a few others that one choice is better. If I were set on 25, who could ever make a coherent argument that I should reconsider that and go with 20 or 30? If there's no coherent argument, where is the consensus going to come from? — coelacan talk — 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No apology necessary. The consensus will come from discussion and (hopefully) some common sense. Yes, if someone is completely set on 25, neither man nor God nor a snarling pitbull (well, maybe that one) could move them. By applying this principle, think of how much encyclopedic content will be deleted: extremes of elevation, size, length, depth, temperature, density, price, longevity, etc. If we can get consensus on religious and political articles, I believe we can get it for a list of height. Also note that I favor the existence of a "List of tallest men/women/people" rather than just plain "tall". However, according to the "subjectivity" argument, the "tallest" article would also be deleted. Black Falcon 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • This already was a list of tallest men. What's the difference besides three letters? Is this just a different adjective to battle the meaning of? — coelacan talk — 20:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse correct interpretation of the debate. I stronly agree with Proto above that "tall" is much more problematic than "tallest". Eluchil404 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist both, possibly bundle with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short men. The fact that these discussions produce different results implies more informed and structured arguments should take place at some centralized location with all the points laid out. Wikipedia may be inconsistent, but that doesn't mean we can't take a further look. It could be argued that consensus will never be reached, but that's no reason to ignore the problem altogether by deleting it. The main closing reason - the subjectivity concerning the adjective - is convincing because it's an ideal, but it asks for way too much. It's ideal to be as non-discriminatory as possible, but that's simply impossible. No one denies that the cut-off point would be arbitary the same way Wikipedia arbitarily exists. But even if the cut-off point fluctuates from time to time, at least we would have an encyclopaedic article about the world's tallest men, a topic of genuine interest. Practically, the cut-off point isn't a big deal; what is of main interest is who appears at the top of the list, not the bottom. I agree that "tall" should be "tallest", because that is what the article did list. "Tallest" would clarify the scope to refute the point that the list neglects people who, although not the tallest of all time, were considered tall in their specific era. If you feel they should be included, great, but that was not what the article set out to do, until the people working on the article were pressured to put the basketball players into their own section. Even if other articles are not supposed to be brought into question here, the consequence should seriously be considered: that a lot of other lists with adjectives fall under the same scrutiny - they are just not debated as much to the point of AfDs. Pomte 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that these discussions gave different results implies only that list of tall men gets more traffic and so got more attention in AFD. Systemic gendered bias? Perhaps. Coincidence? Perhaps. Neither prevents list of tall women from going back on AFD and getting sufficient attention this time, when it's not competing with list of tall men. Other such articles should be AFD'd as well; I've no disagreement there. Practically, the cutoff point has been a huge deal, the subject of constant, and I mean constant, daily, even hourly, edit warring. The article can never be salvagable because everybody wants their own interpretation of "tall" to be enforced, and this is perfectly reasonable for everyone to edit war over because the cutoff point is arbitrary. There was never a compromise or consensus settled upon, and that's why AFD happened over and over, and when it became apparent that no consensus would ever form, that's why the last AFD finally came down as close. It's encyclopedia information, sure. Include that information in the articles of the people themselves. They should have their heights in their articles. Thus no information need be lost. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• It seems pretty ridiculous for someone to look for "tallest people" only to find that the list has been deleted due to debates concerning the bottom of the list. So the topic itself is not fundamentally flawed, but the article got deleted just because of certain Wikipedians' attitude? Then the argument that the list is arbitrary is only secondary to the fact that people have taken advantage of said arbitrariness. If arbitrariness were the real core issue, then why haven't the delete proponents pushed other such lists for AfD in order to be consistent and to benefit Wikipedia as a whole? It wouldn't be making a WP:POINT because the argument is supposedly strong. Pomte 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - given the subjectivity inherent in the title, the closer made a good call.--Doc^g 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First rate close showing full understanding of the debate. The article was inherently subjective and generally pointless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which is exactly this list was. WJBscribe 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse recreating. For reasons mentioned above. Also that deleting this article opens up a big can of worms for deleting other articles. Yet another reason is that clearer consensus ought to have been sought than the non-consensus that was reached before deleting an article that has already gone through numberious AfD's. Mathmo ^Talk 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The arguments to keep did not answer the arguments to delete. So consensus was there, even if several people said "keep!", they did not provide sufficient counterargument. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Recreate see List of the most obese humans, so recreate as List of the tallest humans. Wjhonson 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is not AFD part 2. The discussion here is whether the AFD was properly closed. That is all. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore history The arguments that this is not notable or subjective are facetious. We already have world's records in all sorts of things. Perhaps there are too many entries here, but that can be addressed by undue weight. There is no need to delete the entire entry. Wjhonson 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see [{WP:DRV]] and see what the purpose of this discussion is. It's not to debate the merits of the article. — coelacan talk — 20:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the closing admin's reason for deletion was essentially that criticism of the article is not addressed, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss the merit of such criticisms. Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would have voted for deletion, but the closing admin seems to have acted improperly as there was no consensus. I would suggest that this admin should lose his or her deletion privileges. Pinoakcourt 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That might be a tad drastic. I agree there was no concensus to delete at the discussion and this is the main reason I requested this be placed here. However if it was an honest mistake or misinterpretation I don't think Proto needs to lose privileges. A warning of "don't do it again" should suffice, unless this becomes some kind of pattern.--T. Anthony 03:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for even a warning. Consensus was followed. Just because some people show up and yell "keep!" doesn't mean they are providing arguments, so their !votes don't count. There were strong arguments for deletion. Those arguments were not sufficiently answered. How much clearer can it get? — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think many of us disagree that concensus was followed. You seem to be saying that concensus happens when keep voters fail to outargue the deleters thoroughly enough. I don't think that's what it means at all as this would make "delete" the default position. There was a great deal of valid arguments and counterarguments with neither side predominating really. This means "no concensus" as far as I know. That you dismissed or disliked keep arguments is your prerogative, but it doesn't create a concensus. (And yes I said I'm done with you, but this is as much for others as your benefit).--T. Anthony 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Coelacan, please refrain from such derogatory comments that portray a significant number of users as nothing more than whiny, hysterical people who do nothing but repeat the same exclamation without providing rational arguments. You do not have a monopoly on the truth! Black Falcon 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and consider the two articles together Though WP may be inconsistent, it shouldn't be making opposite formal decisions on two almost identical cases on the same day. This is the sort of thing appeal procedures are for, and the only fair thing is to do it over. DGG 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The other article only passed because it didn't receive as much attention. When this DRV is over, list of tall women can be relisted and get sufficient attention this time. There's no reason to restore this article just to delete the other one. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is your opinion. If you're so confident that the consensus is delete, why not restore this article and relist both together (as should have probably been done in the first place)? Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion and agree with closing admins statement. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, subjectivity of the bottom end cutoff is one thing, but this is not a fundamentally flawed topic. There are world records, scholarly studies, and scores of news reports all devoted to the subject of unusually tall people. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is not AFD part 2. The discussion here is whether the AFD was properly closed. That is all. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the reason behind the deletion was inappropriate or unjustified by WP policy/guidelines/convention, then that means the discussion was inappropriately closed. "AfD part 2" is irrelevant here. Black Falcon 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• But Night Gyr is not arguing any policy that I can see. — coelacan talk — 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The admin closed it as delete instead of no consensus because he felt the list fundamentally violated policy. The list doesn't fundamentally violate policy through excessive subjectivity, as the subject has obviously been studied extensively, and some form of the list would be valid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proto cites, above, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If "tall" is subjective, then the list is inherently indiscriminate. That's a policy it violates, in addition to WP:NOR regarding what "tall" is supposed to be, which I argued in the AFD. Also, from Proto's AFD closing rationale: "The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion"; that's WP:CONSENSUS. There were a number of !votes for keep, but they didn't answer the problems raised, problems founded in NOT and NOR and since AFD is not a vote, the arguments are what decide it. — coelacan talk — 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List of tall men does not directly fall under any classes of articles listed under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and the bottom of the list being subjective does not mean the list as a whole is indiscriminate. Pomte 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The admin closed the debate because, according to him, the arguments for delete were not addressed by other editors. To disagree with that claim is to disagree with the closing admin's interpretation of "consensus" and is therefore very relevant here. Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Text of the GNU Free Documentation License (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|RfD)

The arguments for and against this redirect were laid out in the RfD discussion. Those arguments boil down to an assertion that this redirect meets criterion 4 of the "avoid deleting such redirects" section of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? Reviewing the discussion, I do not see any reasonable way that the discussion can be interpreted as having had consensus for deletion.
The closer added the comment that "Per Google, there are no links outside of Wikipedia to this redirect" and appears to have given it considerable weight in the decision. Had this comment been added during the discussion period, I would strongly have disputed it. Google is fundamentally unable to make such an assertion about inbound links. Google does not return hits based on the hidden html of a page. But even if you could run such a search, it would still miss any links that are 1) archived offline, 2) on academic or other pages excluded from spidering or 3) on internal websites which Google can't index. Rossami (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin. This redirect meets criteria 5 of the deletion reasons of the page Rossami references. The objection that Rossami raised during the debate was the risk of breaking existing links. Despite Rossami's statement above, Google is able to detect links in the HTML of a page and has a specified search operator (see link: help) for that purpose. The link is not used outside of Wikipedia and RockMFR fixed all the Wikipedia links. I weighed the objections that Rossami raised and decided the risk was extremely low and did not overcome the standard practice of deleting cross-namespace redirects. If we are to accept Rossami's argument about the risk of archived, offline, non-spidered, & internal website links, then no redirect could ever be deleted. We will never be able to prove that a bookmark to a page does not exist. We can, however, extrapolate that if there are no public links, then the odds of significant private links are extremely, extremely small. Furthermore, I stand by "The text is original source material and, per WP:NOT, doesn't belong in article space or masquerading as an article." -- JLaTondre 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I misspoke above. I should have said that "Google does not reliably return hits based on the hidden html of a page." While it is theoretically feasible to search for a link, that is a highly fallible process. For example, I just attempted to use google to find links to several sites which I know to be linked from pages which I know to have been indexed. (Targets containing link: [18], [19]. Search: [20]) Google is returning no hits even though I am looking at the source code in another window and can see the link right there. I am unconvinced that this aspect of the google test is sufficiently reliable to conclude that there are no inbound links. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like http://www.queenrightcolonies.com is a page without any content. I'm not sure that represents a valid example as it's possible Google may discard it. I'm willing to concede, though, that any Google search (text, link, or otherwise) is not going to be perfect. I do believe, however, that a lack of results gives a pretty good indication of somethings relative use. -- JLaTondre 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Odd... That's a small business site that worked recently. I wonder if he knows that his server is down. Regardless, here's another test, this time from a Wikipedia page. (Google cache of our Beekeeping page demonstrating that the page was indexed [21], Google search for the first in the list of external links [22], Search for the second link (59 hits but not the Wikipedia article) [23]). Finding things via the google link-search can be evidence. Not finding things is, unfortunately, not reliable evidence. Rossami (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The link was a cross space redirect to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not allow cross space redirects for very good reasons. If we have this as a redirect, it is (as JLaTondre states) masquerading as an article. Such a text dump is not an encyclopaedic article. A link from GNU Free Documentation License might be appropriate. Proto::► 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The established procedure for cross-namespace redirects is to find an appropriate target within article space and add a {{selfref}}. ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikilobbying is a practice which has been known to occur, and while the word may be relatively unknown, it is at least debatable whether it is deserving of its own entry. To summarily delete it as it was without allowing any time for discussion seems very arbitrary. At the very least, it should've been allowed some time for discussion before being deleted. TV4Fun 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Wikilobbying is clearly a real practice that impacts the integrity of this encyclopedia. All the endorse votes below that talk about this not being a real phenomenon yet just underscore the need for an article about it-- so they can look it up. The fact that the page hasn't yet had real content to this effect has been made irrelevant since nobody can create real content due to the protection. Furthermore, I'd encourage everyone here to stop sounding so sanctimonious about being administrators on wikipedia and get a sense of humor. nwesfd 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually there is a place for you to edit: User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying. You can improve the article, make it a good article, add sources and when it is deemed worthy it could be moved to the mainspace. There's nothing stopping you. The mainspace though has to abide to the rules and this article fails WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. And to defend us "sanctimonious" people, I see that none of the overturners have cited any policy and most are new users likely unfamiliar with these policies. Gdo01
    • Comment This is a stretch. The cited TV4Fun page clearly satisfies WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL; The sources listed are reliable and most certainly not speculation. The guidelines for avoiding WP:NEO ("Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research...") do not apply since the phenomenon has been laid out in pretty unambiguous terms. Lastly, the claim of WP:N is redundant given that it cites WP:NEO as a guideline; Furthermore, it is clear there is something notable here, as evidenced by the vigorousness of this debate. I appreciate you pointing me to these guidelines, but find it condescending to dismiss my comment based on my account's date of registration. nwesfd 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion truthyjunk. JuJube 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This may have come from Colbert and I understand that he isn't a great friend of Wikipedia and that administrators have likely been very busy tonight because of him and will likely be very busy in the next few days because of him. But Wikilobbying is a real practice, from notable individuals brushing up their own articles to Microsoft paying people to make them look better. It's a remarkably unusual type of information lobbying because people who look up information get it from Wikipedia--even if it was Joe Shmoe pushing position x for company y who wrote the informaiton that they're getting. Colbert may have caused a stir with naming this, but the practice exists and needs an article and Colbert has little to do with it, though he does a fair amount of Wikilobbying himself. TStein 10:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The contents were, successively, "here it is.", "first.", "Save the elephants!" and "Save the elephants! YEA!". Of course it was correct to delete these articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse — Neologism. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse — Let's wait until this actually makes news like truthiness did. Not everything Colbert says is magic. Wikiality never became popular and had hardly any media presence. This word may follow the same path to oblivion. If this does become popular, there can always be another deletion review. Gdo01 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - per WP:NEO dposse 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid deletions under criteria G1-3. If someone wants to create an actual article in their userspace, we can discuss unsalting so that it can be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable at AfD, but since we're discussing the deleted article not the neologism itself, that's not necessary yet. Eluchil404 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion per previous endorsement arguments. Absolutely no evidence this "word" is notable, and just because Stephen Colbert says it's a word does not make it so. --Coredesat 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I personally feel that it should be included on the Show's page, unless there are enough examples and discussion to warrant a full, fleshed-out page, and not just another stub. However, the term should not be ignored. Perhaps something like "On the 29 January 2007 show, Colbert invented the term Wikilobbying which he defined as 'The act of paying people to edit Wikipedia in order to be more favorable for their cause'." That kind of thing.須藤 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, as per user:Gdo01. -- Zanimum 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Non-notable neologism not made any more notable by Colbert's antics. No evidence of use of the word elsewhere, or that the practice is widespread. WJBscribe 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now. At this point this is patent nonsense at worst, unverifiable original research at best. If and when there's a substantial body of verifiable secondary literature (beyond the Blog Of The Day), this issue can be revisited. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse User:Suto and User:Gdo01 have the right idea; mention it on the show's article, recreate if this ever makes national headlines. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse. This was closed correctly. Besides, Stephen Colbert makes up words almost every week at this point. With the exception of truthiness, they've all proved non-notable outside of the very narrow context of the Report. Even if Wikipedia was a crystal ball, (which it isn't) precident would not be on this article's side. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Whether we like it or not, this is now a legitimate term. It should be closely monitored; but it must be allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.138.213 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
• Overturn I believe this is a real term and should not be deleted, I don't see how creating a page for a real term is vandalism. If anything, lock the page to new and anonymous users.Preeeemo 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WJD. --Gwern (contribs) 19:52 30 January 2007 (GMT)
• Overturn and protect. This term, although edited by childish individuals, deserves its wiki page as mush as any other page here. Rsween7 User has no edits outside of this discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, process was followed appropriately, given that the topic is just a neologism. No valid reason for overturning was given by the nominator nor by the four Overturn !votes so far. Being "a real term", "a legitimate term" is no claim to belonging in Wikipedia. At most, these are arguments for inclusion in Wiktionary; and multiple independent reliable sources would be needed for the Wiktionary editors to consider it. No new sources have been suggested beyond those considered in the AfD. Barno 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and a big welcome to Wikipedia! for all those who wish to see this kept. Proto::► 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. As Jitse Niesen points out, there have been no substantive versions of this page. The deleted versions were all clear vandalism or user tests. {{Deletedpage}} protection seems a bit premature but based on the definitions offered above I believe that if the page were created in good faith, it would fail an AFD discussion as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious endorse. The article never contained any content about Wikilobbying, so nothing about Wikilobbying was deleted. The article only ever contained nonsense, and nonsense can obviously be speedied. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn protection. While it is true that in the few seconds before the page was protected, no one had yet put up any actual content, that does not mean that given a chance, other editors would not have put up a meaningful definition. Granted, the page may have warranted speedy deletion, but protecting it from being recreated seems rather unfair. In so doing you have prevented any debate on the topic by ensuring no one could put up any content which might at least warrant some discussion before deleting it. TV4Fun 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's always the case with protection. I see no reason why this particular article is any different from all the other protected articles. You are free to write an article in your userspace, at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying, and come back here when you feel that it's good enough to be in an article. Until then there's no reason to unprotect this article. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS. I have struck your bolded !vote, since your nom already counts as a vote. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• overturn the protection of the page It's the truth. Wikilobbying is now and will continue to be a widely used and legitimate term. This is the true nature of language; words are created, and words are forgotten and lost. Languages evolve and die, dialects come from out of nowhere. Language is constantly in a state of flux and is constantly updated as Wikipedia should be, considering how many people access and use it, and how much it deals with terminology among other things. Overturning the protection of this page would be giving people a chance to explore and define a new term that has significant meaning. Nothing will be hurt by this, it's just provision of information. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) User has very few edits outside of this discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the beautiful prose. A small note: nothing comes out of nowhere, not even dialects. But on-topic again: if you are confident that a worthwhile article can be written about the subject, you are free to do so in your userspace and come back here when you're confident that it is encyclopedic. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Come on, you know what I meant. Yeah, I'll work on it, but one of the points in the beautiful prose was that people need to contribute to the meaning of the term, thus the whole point and beauty of using an open source tool in the first place. That's the whole reason why people are fighting for this, that's the whole reason why people want to use Wikipedia, that's the whole reason why people come here and don't just use Encarta. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not the point. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable, and as I said, Stephen Colbert using this word in his show does not make it a word, nor does it make the word appear in a dictionary (which Wikipedia also is not). --Coredesat 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question for "Overturners": What this discussion any different from this one? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, protologism. -- Vary | Talk 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• overturn Yes, I'd say this discussion is different, this term carries quite a bit of significance and should really be considered. I agree with Igtgtfgtgmc 100%, great argument and every point is valid. Wikipedia says it's open source, but it's more like some parents taking a bunch of kids to a park and not letting them leave the sandbox. Js8669 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) User's first contribution. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's content is totally free: you can reprint it anywhere you'd like, whether it's modified or intact, without paying a royalty. You can even sell it if you want to. This is not the same as saying anyone can do anything they want on this particular website, which does in fact have rules, despite offering users a relatively large degree of freedom. See the difference? To the new users involved in this discussion, I recommend checking out What Wikipedia is Not, which will get you caught up pretty quickly on what Wikipedia aims to cover and what's outside of our scope. If you want a place to define terms which have not yet caught on, you can try Uncyclopedia, Urbandictionary, or even the Colbert-themed Wikiality.com. -- Bailey^(talk) 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I want the article on wikipedia. It would be informative and useful.Dapoloplayer 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, if only because there isn't any useful content to restore, and per WP:NEO it probably wouldn't pass AfD right now anyway. Personally I'd rather have this as a protected redirect to The Colbert Report than a {{deletedpage}}, though. BryanG^(talk) 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Colbert saying something does not make it notable. And Wikipedia is not a place for everything which is true. -Amark moo! 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious endorse. The article never contained any content about Wikilobbying, so nothing about Wikilobbying was deleted. The article only ever contained nonsense, and nonsense can obviously be speedied. Agreed with: "Aecis^Brievenbus 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" Mike wiki 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• For those who have argued that the wikilobbying article had no meaningful content to delete, I have put up a more meaningful article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying. I would've put something similar on the main page, but I could not type fast enough to do so before it was protected TV4Fun 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Neither source in this article mentions the "word" in question. I still endorse the deletion. --Coredesat 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and ban the socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but use the link for wikilobbying to redirect to the reliability of Wikipedia page. While the word itself does not seem to meet Wikipedia article standards, the phenomenon it purportedly denotes is real enough to warrant attention. Colbert did cite a Washington Post article about Microsoft's attempt to pay for their entry to be whitewashed, for example. --Zenswashbuckler 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That actually sounds like a good idea. TV4Fun 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Hasn't had any media coverage yet. Not every word said on TV needs an article - just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't make it anything special. Wickethewok 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, but redirect to List of neologisms on The Colbert Report unless the word itself does actually take off, thus deserving of a page of its own. --Mysterioususer 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris thompson(business) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

this is a bio relating to the company cmtd. this article is an essential part of that other page Ccthompson

• Endorse my deletion, article made no assertion of notability - being "the cofounder of real estate company CMTDEnterprises" does not even go anywhere near fufilling WP:BIO. The company is also non-notable, and was deleted as an A7, making Thompson's "notability" for being co-founder basically zero, by logic... Oh, and the article is at Chris Thompson (business), where both Teke and I A7-ed it. If this info was to be included on Wikipedia, it should be in the main corporation article (which is currently deleted per WP:CORP). Daniel.Bryant 11:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Apparant autobiography. MER-C 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (lets hope 232 other people don't as well!). Agree that is not an assertion of notabilty, clearly appropriate for speedy deletion. WJBscribe 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid speedy. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Just because he owns a company doesn't mean he should have an article, the article/person must pass WP:BIO. Also, deletion endorsed as per WP:AUTO and since the company also fails WP:CORP. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no assertion of notability. Sarah 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Flashes Before Your Eyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted and locked because no verifiable info was available - that info has now become available so the article may be created: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=012907_17. -- Wikipedical 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's a valid speedy in the bunch, especially since the first was for "crystal ball." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. I'd like to think this has no chance of passing an AfD, even with that dinky little source, but we have far too many people who are willing to keep one sentence stubs because there will be more sources later. -Amark moo! 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Unsalt but not Overturn' - point of deletion and protection is to hold the article (which had been repeatedly deleted) until article is verifiable per the policy;no need for the beauraucracy of a deletion review once information has come to light. Article has been unprotected and is ready for creation --Robdurbar 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, requiring a review for an article that was deleted (justifiably) because it was about a future event with no verifiable info seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. The reason for deletion has gone away, should be a no brainer. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, allow creation. Don't immediately send it to AFD with a mindless 'procedural nomination'. Give the creators some chance to create the article, and then its existence can be assessed (through AFD, if necessary). A quick look at newly available sources suggests that it would survive an AFD discussion now, as long as the article uses the available references. Proto::► 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I ever spent more than 30 minutes starting an article, and I've never had one tagged for deletion. This about the time you need to make sure an article meets our notability guideline. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The first speedy-deletion (on 31 Dec 06) was in error. Crystal-ballery is not a speedy-deletion criterion. The second speedy (15 Jan) was also in error. The "re-post" criterion may not be used when the only prior deletions were speedy or prod. I see that a stub has now been created in place of the {{deletedpage}} notice. The stub does still appear to fall afoul of WP:NOT. List to AFD. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of Nine Angles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Overturn please? The vote count was in favour of keep (4-2 with 1 other person commenting), and the AfD was started by a sockpuppet. Notability is not an issue as there are several third-party references to ONA, and the article itself had references at the bottom of the article (check the Wayback Machine) - although the article was, perhaps, not very thoroughly referenced. This sockpuppet seems to have been used to delete a few articles similar to the ONA article, perhaps for religious reasons.

72.12.133.163 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Definite overturn. Sources appear to be legit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. I mean, please overturn the deletion. Or, undelete article, reinstate article, etc.; sorry, I'm new to this process. The point is, it was a vote to keep, but the article got deleted anyway.72.12.133.163 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Caution over sources The first two books listed in the google books search above are self-published/vanity press works: [24] (Lulu.com) [25] (Xlibris). The third book is from a reputable publisher, but only has a couple of passing mentions of the group. Checking other books listed too. Bwithh 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Recommend overturnrelist overturn and stubify If the deleted version was like the Answers mirrored version, it would seem to be a gross violation of WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX (adding a bibliography at the end of an article is often a misleading and flimsy figleaf for a mass of unsourced content). However, there seem to be at least some ok sources available. If the decision is overturned and article is kept, recommend stubification in order to purge the OR/SOAPBOX material and the reliance on an unreliable website (Yes, a book from "Thormynd Press" by Anton Long is referenced to support the website - but a google for "Thormynd Press" suggests that it is a small underground publisher dedicated to texts promoting Satanism and Neo-Nazism which are not generally available to the public e.g.[26][27][28]. The reliability of this source and Anton Long is questionable at best). Bwithh 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your attention. The answers.com page is indeed a mirror of the ONA article that was here, and I'm amazed it was that long. Please note, the vote was 4-2 against deletion, and the instigating comment was from a sockpuppet, yet the article was deleted. That's my point in all this. As for WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX, I have only glossed over the content right now, but the old article does actually summarize some points from the ONA writings - but also, yes, has large sections worthy of snippage. To me, that would suggest editing was required and not deletion via sockpuppet. Maybe 25% of the original article was good. 72.12.133.163 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, debate about whether or not sources are good should occur at AfD, not here. It really should have been relisted in the first place instead of closed. -Amark moo! 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree about relisting (changing vote). Disagree strongly about discussion about source quality evaluation not taking place at DRV - yes DRV is primarily about process (and introduction of new sources which should be evaluated too), but considering sources already introduced is an integral but often undervalued part of the process. Not considering sources here suggests decisions or endorsed should be overturned on the basis of "look, the article has so many in-line references (but don't look at them)", "there are a bunch of google hits (but don't look at them)", "there's a nicely typed bibliography (but don't look at the books listed)" etc. Arguments about encyclopedic notability and interpretation of guidelines, I agree, should be left to afd. Whether afds under review considered sources reasonably and whether sources are substantive and reliable is a valid topic for discussion here. Bwithh 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On third thought, going back to my original !vote Bwithh 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot of thought for one little article.72.12.133.163 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Relisting as per Amarkov. Mathmo ^Talk 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not objecting to a relist Nomination was about a vote count, which is irrelevant. Additionally, this the AFD discussion was severly affected by accounts with few edits, so it is tough to gauge consensus of established editors that understand our policies and guidelines from the dicussion. Admins are authorized to discount the opinions of new editors, and are expected to follow guidelines and policy as illustrated by the discussion, so this is an endorsable close. But with more established users here opining relist than opining at all in the original AFD, I won't object to relisting. GRBerry 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The evidence offered in the AfD by new users should have still been considered, no? Davidicke 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted for a legitamate Pro Wrestling Company that provided a history and ability to find out the current historical information of wrestling in the Central New York Region. The suggestion that only one person contributed context is false. People seeking this information no longer have a place to go. Rock345 22:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(Maintenance note: - I fixed the spelling in the header and the above links; the article listed here was a redirect to Squared Circle Wrestling, for which I've linked the AFD above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - no new information presented to indicate there's any notability as compared to the article that was discussed at the AFD. Year-old small feds don't seem to have much in the way of notability, and the arguments in the AFD didn't hinge on providing notability, but instead suggested those !voting to delete were the competition. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Unsourced articles don't annoy me. People who assume and claim delete voters (that have explained their arguments in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, no less) hate the subject of an AfD drive me insane. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yes they do, it's called the Square Circled Wrestling website. Don't have one? It's simple to create, and there are many free webhosts. Wikipedia is not one of them. ColourBurst 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If people who want the information no longer have a place to go, it's unverifiable original research. -Amark moo! 02:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me that having the NWA/TNA Championship defended twice in a federation makes it not noteable. In fact, that's what I was going on their to update. If you're going to let other originizations in the area run wiki sites with less information just becasue they are a year older that's fine. Just letting you know I disagree with it. Rock345

Which organizations might those be? If they don't have verifiable non-trivial reliable sources we might certainly consider those for deletion as well. Existing articles don't guarantee immediate inclusion of other articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mind showing some coverage of these title defenses in a published, reputable source? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Stepanavan Youth Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The AFD (here) was improperly closed. The sources to satisfy WP:N were provided. The closer noted this but deleted anyway, saying "the same can be said of a large number of youth centers". That may be true, but we do have over 1,600,000 articles. It's not like we're going to be overwhelmed by a couple hundred youth center articles (even assuming anyone actually bothers to write all those articles that might potentially pass WP:ORG). The fact is that WP:N was fulfilled, and there is no reason to selectively enforce the notability policy just because of the type of organization. Specifically, WP:ORG states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." And those reliable third party sources were provided, both in the article and in the AFD. So the fact that this might let other youth centers in means very little; notability was clear, and selective enforcement is detrimental to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. Based on Coelacan's comments above and after further review, I believe I may have made a mistake in closing this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. This could be interesting... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn In the heady Bwikipedia(tm) of my daydream fantasies, this article wouldn't pass muster with current sources and claims to notability. Under the current, actual regime, an overturn appears to be in order. Bwithh 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, possible merge and redirect. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore I wont know if it would pass muster until I see it, so the only fair way is to overturn, and then it will presumably be listed for AfD again). Anyway, possibly a speedy overturn if there is such a thing, based on the closer's comment above. DGG 05:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I think it really should go through AfD again, this time without a bad closure. The fact that there are many similar things does not mean that something can't be notable. -Amark moo! 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, do not relist. If the closure was bad (and the closer himself accepts this), so it should have been closed as a 'keep', what's the point of putting it through AFD again? Proto::► 13:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of BitTorrent sites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was AfD'd in september, under the grounds that it was little more than a web directory, and not much of a comparison. I userfied a version of it before its deletion and worked on it for several months, until I had grown satisfied that the arguments made at the AfD were no longer valid. I then recreated the page, leaving a message on the talk page about why I had chosen to recreate it.

This page was speedily deleted by Proto a few days later, with the summary "CSD G4 - Receaation [sic] of deleted content". As I stated above, it is correct that the article had been deleted before - however, the old version was substantially different from the new version (diff) to not qualify under CSD G4. I contacted proto informing him about his error, and asked him to either recreate it or, if he thought that that was not possible, to userfy it so I could have a backup version (I naturally didn't want to lose several months' work). He chose to userfy it. I contacted him again, a week ago, reminding him that it didn't qualify under G4, and asked him again to restore it to the mainspace. He still hasn't answered, so I chose to take it here, to DRV.

As you've now probably gathered by now, I think that this page should be recreated because the new version is an actual comparison, as opposed to a web directory, that it is sourced, and that it is substantially different from the original deleted version to not satisfy CSD G4. Even though it's a weaker argument, I'd also like to point out the high traffic it used to get, and the messages asking why it was deleted (1, 2, 3). Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• These comments are asking for you restore it on another site outside of Wikipedia. I think that's a good idea. Proto::► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, only one of those comments is asking me to restore it on another site. The other ones (including one on that very page) want it to be restored to the mainspace. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• What relaible sources is this comparitive table built on? How many articles on torrent clients do we have? There isa fair bit of precedent for excluding form such comparisons those for which we do not have articles, else they rapidly pass the spam event horizon. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I was going to conjecture that the addition of two extra columns would not change the AfD participants' minds, but then I saw that I don't need to conjecture. Ultra-Loser said in the AfD "New columns have been proposed, which will make it more encyclopedic." to which TheFarix replied "Neither of the proposed columns will make the article encyclopedic, nor are they particularly useful." No-one contradicted him. The AfD still applies in full and this was a valid General-4 deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The columns proposed were different from the columns that are there now - I don't remember the exact two, but I remember that google pagerank was one of them (I later decided that alexa ranks would be more useful). Plus, there are more than two extra columns - scroll down to the private trackers section, for example.
    Also, I forgot to mention that at one point there was a criteria for inclusion to stop the article from turning it into a spamhole, but proto removed it. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, this was a line - in the actual article - that informed people of the rules for how to add things to the list. Proto::► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (my) deletion, G4 applied. It also remains an annotated list of external links, so could have just as easily been deleted for other reasons. Proto::► 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD. I'm not sure about the G4 at all, honestly. Looks like a lot of new material to make it pretty different from what was originally there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not an identical unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links, but it is a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links. Fails WP:NOT a link farm, and also fails the same criteria which got it deleted last time. Of course we could waste some more time, or we could simply accept that lists of weblinks with subjective and unsourced additional data are not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Seeing as WP:NOT isn't a speedy criteria, and "similar" isn't "substantially identical," and discussion is rarely a "waste"... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That would be relevant if there weren't an AfD. There is. G4 is a speedy deletion criterion, and the mian part of G4 is failing to fix the things that led to deletion. Thise things are not fixed, and the deletion debate specifically indicates that cosmetic changes will not fix those problems. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • G4 has nothing to do with fixing things that lead to deletion, but only the recreation of a substantially identical version of something previously AfD'd. I have no clue where you came up with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Jeff, we deleted a list of weblinks with no secondary sources. This is a list of the same weblinks still without secondary sources and based on the original content userfied. That's a G4, in my book. Waste of time AfDing again, since the last AfD specifically said these changes would not sort ther fundamental problem. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Your book needs some fixing, then. Check the diff, there's a major content difference between the two. They are not substantially identical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • So you say. Me, I don't see the point in allowing the re-creation of an article which will immediately be AfDed and, because the previous AfD already addressed the issues "fixed" here, deleted for failing exactly the same policies as it failed before. It's a quirk of mine. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Whether you see the point is not relevant. G4 doesn't allow speedy deletion of a previously deleted article simply because it'll be deleted again. The language is very clear and direct for a reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • The common sense application of General-4 is clearly to articles that were validly deleted where the same reason for deletion still applies. Interpreting 'substantially different' any other way means that reversing the order of the list from Z to A, or grabbing a thesaurus and replacing all possible words with different words while keeping entirely the same content, merits wasting editors' time with another AfD. Do you plan on giving any argument as to why this article was not suitable before, but is now?
                    "Check the diff" indeed. General-4 is not about "if you diff the new and old version and more than 15% of the words are in red, the article needs another AfD". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a very similar unsourced list of weblinks with no internal links - it's a sourced, highly expanded comparison of websites, complete with internal links. The arguments made at the AfD were to the effect that it was a simple repository of weblinks, and now it's not a simple repository of weblinks. Therefore the AfD no longer applies, and neither does G4. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not one single one of the clients listed is a Wikilink, every single one is a weblink. Wikipedia is not a link farm, but this article is a link farm. So: how many torrent cleints do we have articles on, and what are the relibale secondary sources on which this comparison is founded? It looks to me very much like a synthesis of data from primary sources, what with the Alexa rank baing sourced from Alexa and the number of torrents being sourced in each case from the website of the client itself. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • None of which fit the speedy criteria, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • G4, as stated. The original AfD also applies to this content. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • That's the process wonk answer. Me, I'm more inclined to a Clue-based approach. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • The clue-based approach tells me that you don't abuse the system that tends to benefit your position, but hey... --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Actualy, nine of those sites (not clients, those would be the programs in Comparison of BitTorrent software) have wikipedia articles and are wikilinked appropriately. What's more, the NOR policy only applies if the facts are synthesized "in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". Here, the facts are just presented, so it isn't OR. The new page has twice as much information on it as the original, and more than was covered in the AfD. Plus, this isn't the place to discuss whether or not it's a linkfarm (which it is not, hence the criteria for entry proto removed), this is the place to discuss whether or not the G4 applied. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 00:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, a lot of BT sites host files that are licensed in the US, thus creating a copyright problem. Let someone else have this list. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: that has nothing to do with anything. There is no copyright problem. There is no potential for a copyright problem. Go try to AFD The Pirate Bay and you'll see what I mean. There is substantial media coverage on most of the large bittorrent sites. That is not a legal problem for the media, and it's not a problem for us. (Just a clarification. No vote from me.) — coelacan talk — 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Sam Blanning. The original article as AfD'd and the recreated one are identical in substance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Guy. It's a reposting with the same problems, and running the AFD again for the same result for the same reasons is processwanking at its finest. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist The new site appears different, gives different information, and gives quantitative information. I do not see how the old discussion is applicable. It would furthermore seem the obvious course to do this discussion as an AfD---at least by the criteria of common sense. It will be much more straightforward to discuss the new site simply as a site, without the minutia of whether it was not validly reconstructed, or validly deleted by speedy, or which rule applied. WP:LAWYER is only an essay, and was in fact written to stem unfair tricks to keep an article, but it makes just as much sense the other way round. DGG 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid G4. >Radiant< 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-redeletion. I've compared the latest version with the version as it stood during the AFD discussion. I am not finding the kind of substantive changes which would indicate that the concerns raised in the AFD discussion have been successfully addressed. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. The point of G4 is to prevent people from recreating the article in a form that does not solve the problems raised in the AFD. If the new article has the same problems as the one that was AFDed, it doesn't really much matter if it's identical, "substantially similar", or just similar; Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, after all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, as per badlydrawnjeff "The "common sense application" of G4 is to read it as written. Period. I'm not going to re-run the AfD here, the G4 was improper and DRV is allegedly about process". (once it has been recreated then those who oppose can slap an AfD tag on it and get it deleted, this however is not the place to run through a new AfD on a new article). Mathmo ^Talk 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The point of G4 is to make it easy to delete things where it is obvious that the concerns were not addressed. It is not at all obvious that the concerns were not addressed. -Amark moo! 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

T.H.E. Fox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

For the purpose of review, I have made a copy of the comic strips under debate. It will be removed after the conclusion of this debate. The comics have been altered from their original file format, but other than that they should be undisturbed, including the non-extension portion of the file name that dates them. GreenReaper 05:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally come to deletion review, but I'm surprised at this one as there was no consensus to delete. Five votes for keep, two (or possibly three) for delete. One previous vote had been converted to keep on the basis of arguments establishing the comic's notability (namely, that it appears to be the first comic distributed online, dating to 1986 and onwards). WP:WEB is an inappropriate metric to apply to content that appeared several years before the web itself existed, and being the first "webcomic" that we know of in the world seems a clear claim to notability. In response to the closing administrator's comment, I disagree that an interview conducted with the author by the Commodore Roundtable group does not count as a source. Indeed, I would have thought them rather well-placed to determine the comic's provenance and to challenge any inaccuracies. Moreover, several facts from the interview were independently verifiable, as noted in the AfD discussion. GreenReaper 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I too am surprised, albeit for the opposite reason: While I have my work ruminated here almost daily, I had thought this a totally un-controversial deletion. Primary sources (like interviews with the author) are only applicable where not self-serving; this is a firmly established practice. In the absence of any other supporting sources, deletion was the only tenable outcome. I suppose that I could have used the woeful caveat "without prejudice to a properly sourced article being written." However, to my knowledge there is never such a prejudice, so I didn't. Use the caveat, I mean.
  brenneman 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how "stating the truth" comes out as "self-serving". As far as I can see none of the claims made by the author regarding such things as the number of comics made, the time and places in which they were distributed or even the future distribution of the comic are unreasonable. In many cases they are backed up by other sources, such as the newgroup post covering the relatively minor matter of the print publication. There is actually an archive of the strips, uploaded by another person, as mentioned by him in the interview. It contains the strips described by the author, as well as almost two hundred others. Exactly how much more evidence do you need that this comic existed and that it took place at the time described? GreenReaper 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Except that's not the assertion. The specific assertion is that it was the very first comic published on the internet. Providing a date for the comic doesn't actually prove it was the first (and any attempt to infer it was the first by taking other comics into account would be original research), and that means the only fallback is the author's own statement. ColourBurst 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Then change the statement in the article. But let's use common sense here: If we have a comic for which we have no reasonable doubt that, say, it was posted in 1987 - a full year after he claims, but it's a year I have several dated files from - and we have no record of any other comics until Where The Buffalo Roam in 1992, then maybe, just maybe, it's worth keeping around on the theory that it is quite likely to be the first online comic - and certainly the first that we've found any sources for? Five years margin is a long time. GreenReaper 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree, the sourcing for this article may be dubious but this deletion is even more so. The original deletion proposition was for a "lack of notability" which has been clearly disproved. Yes, this article requires better sourcing... can this article be resourced and improved while deleted, no. -- DeVandalizer 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Content_review - brenneman 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is my view that although further sources are, as always, desirable, an extensive interview with the author that contains several points that are verifiable through other sources is sufficient to establish a basis for the article, particularly given that the only "special" claim is the age of the comic. Nobody else who took part in the interview disagreed with his statements regarding this age, and as fellow users who had followed the comic, they would be the ones who would be in the best position to know. GreenReaper 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy Some of GreenReaper's claims are overblown, so it should not go back into article space without sorcing from independent reliable sources. I recommend ignoring the userfied version and applying the Wikipedia:Amnesia test. If that comes out as a complete article, then merge in the userfied content. If not, go back to the drawing board and look for more sources. GRBerry 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly what claims are in doubt here? I don't see how there is any reasonable doubt that the comic was published on the dates mentioned in the interview. Several of the images which have been preserved in the archive actually have the dates imprinted into them, quite aside from the filenames. That may not mean that it is the first comic distributed online - as someone said, it's perfectly possible that someone used the ARPAnet to send out something - but it does mean that it is the first one that we have a record of - and that, in my view, makes it notable enough for a main namespace article. I'm not entirely sure what sources you expect me to be able to find, given the surprising lack of official online-comic monitoring bodies in 1986 . . . or why you're discounting the words of the author when there's no indication that they're lying and several statements that can be independently verified as true. GreenReaper 05:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Joseph Ekaitis would be a more viable target for this information. - brenneman 05:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't understand - if you don't believe his word about his works as a source, why would you believe it when it's on an article about him? (which doesn't exist, and rightly so, because he in general does not yet appear to be a notable person - he just happened to do this single notable thing) GreenReaper 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My apologies to you, I should have said "some of" (now added) and said what in my first opining. The "several years before the web" bit stuck in my craw the most. The web was up and running by 1991 (and I'd created my first two web pages that year also - ah the joys of handcoding html, and the days before http: was the default prefix for browsers). And it isn't a webcomic until it is primarily published on the web. Online comic in 86/87, yes. Webcomic, no. The other is making the claim to first on the basis that we don't know of anything contemporaneous - that claim is canonical original research, and we can't use it - either in the article or to evaluate notability. GRBerry 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's why I put "webcomic" in quotes. Would online comic suit you better? :-) The point is that being online several years before the web is the very bit that makes it notable, and I feel that failing to consider that as notable does violate common sense. Wikipedians make notability decisions all the time, and they are based on the facts and sources available (because otherwise new facts could not change notability decisions). Notability criteria are our criteria, not determined by an external body. Here, the facts and sources available show that this comic was published in the mid-1980s and the next one that we know of was published in the 1990s. Do you have reasonable doubt that this is the case? If not, then why is it not a factor for notability? GreenReaper 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Brenneman's closure, which reflects the widespread consensus that we can't have an article if no sources exist. Userfy? May be a bad idea - if there is no chance of it becoming encyclopaedic in the near future due to lack of sources, userfying may violate WP:NOT a free web host. Of course we should provide the content for use off Wikipedia if licensing at both ends permits. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Unless we can verify the reliability of the Commodore roundtable interview, it's not really an acceptable source. And then its still unclear how pioneering this comic strip was. Also, I'm concerned that in his own book bio[29] for essentially a kid's furry book Joe Ekaitis thinks its worthwhile to mention his stint as a local college radio "personality", his appearance as a 6 foot giant singing raccoon on The Gong Show, the occupations of his Mom and Dad, his local church choir role, plus the earnest overstatement/hope "With the publication of Collinsfort Village, he joins the ranks of American storytellers, a fellowship that includes such notables as L. Frank Baum, E. B. White, and Frank Stockton. He looks forward to the day when his writing and storytelling will stand beside theirs." - but doesn't mention T.H.E. F.O.X. at all (I assume it wasn't an "adult-orientated" furry comic?). Stronger references are needed to bring this article back. Bwithh 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so the first few random T.H.E. F.O.X. pics I looked at seemed to a bit suggestive but after further research, I give T.H.E.F.O.X. a "PG" rating. Bwithh 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's not a mature comic. There's some jokes that adults might get an extra laugh out of, but most of the comedy is wordplay, species-related or classic comic violence. GreenReaper 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• overthrow and restore Coming at this as an outsider to this material who is in the terribly embarrassing position of never having seen this comic until right now, the evidence of a dated file is conclusive unless fraud is asserted. We therefore know the date this appeared. Saying the obvious is not OR. Saying that a comic that appeared before the web is earlier than any web comic is obvious. First is hard to prove for anything. Someone may always find an earlier--the online world at that time is not adequately archived, & there is no telling what someone might find in a backup tape. But this would appear to be a subject of wide interest, and it appears reasonable that if --given all this discussion--nothing can be produced, that it was the first, and the files itself are the RS for V. That the first such files would be N is equally obvious, or we wouldn't all be discussing it. Using the wording of various practices to deny N and V when they may not quite apply to this situation is quibbling. DGG 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're suggesting that sources should be "assumed true unless proven false" but the burden of proof is on the creator of article content as per WP:V - not on the doubters. I don't understand how a dated computer file can be considered "conclusive" evidence. Bwithh 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Dated computer files which actually have the date stamped into the artwork, and which is in an archive that is not controlled by the original author? Many of which were distributed in a Commodore C64-specific format? Without anything that specifically cast doubt upon the claims about dates of publication made in the interview, I would consider that a reasonable level of evidence. GreenReaper 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse in the absense of third-party support for the claim. There is a fundamental difference between someone comparing the dates of this comic with other online comics and concluding that it "appears to be the first" and Wikipedia editors comparing the dates of this comic with other online comics and concluding that it "appears to be the first". That is novel synthesis and the essence of WP:OR. Serpent's Choice 07:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So don't put the claim in the article. But to say that we shouldn't consider it as a reason to have the article seems . . . well, very silly to me, and to others. This isn't some kook saying "hey, maybe we can make nuclear fission by cracking rocks together." It's a comic that still appears to be discussed by Commodore user groups years later. Given that online services for the Commodore were well-established and mostly active prior to the formation of the web, it is not unreasonable to claim that a comic made using a C64 for the amusement of other Commodore users was published during that time. GreenReaper 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• overthrow and restore also. This deletion is another example of wikipedia being pointlessly pedantic at the expense of people who come here for information. Some editors won't believe it's raining unless they can find a weatherman to say so.
  Sys Hax 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:V Bwithh 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure without prejudice to a properly sourced article being written. The requirements that our articles and their claims be verifiable is a non-negotiable requirement for the project. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overthrow and Restore also. There was only one other delete vote other than the nominator, and even that one merely came in at the very end before closure and just said "per nom". While there were numerous keeps and even one person who got convinced to change from keep after intially voting delete. Maybe the discussion should have been allowed to run a little longer to get more support for deletion, if it was worthy of deletion it would have got it. Then again it didn't get even close to enough support from a purely percentages point of view for deletion, and to leave it open longer to try and get deletion could be viewed as trying to influence the outcome. Anyway... getting away from my main point in that is should not have been deleted, thus must be restored. Mathmo ^Talk 01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave Wills (wrestling) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

On the AFD discussion of the page, there was no clear consensus of how editors felt about the article and not enough editors participating to make any consensus. 4 editors wanted to delete the article (2 of which are questionable/non-prolific editors), and 5 wanted to keep it. One of the editors found a link to a message board about the deletion of the article. Despite valid reasons given on both sides, it was deleted early under WP:SNOW. There was no barrage of keep/delete votes, and the editors did not give enough time to others to find reliable sources (although the article did list some) and just deleted it. Booshakla 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from deleting admin: None of the "keep"ers provided anything that would qualify under the "non-trivial reliable secondary sources" clause of WP:BIO. I "snowballed" the debate ahead of schedule because things were getting out of control. Looking back, citing WP:IAR might have been a better choice. On an additional note, the forum that was mentioned has had a history of disruptive activity on wikipedia. However, I'll happily endorse the undelete if some kind of non-trivial reliable secondary sources turn up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  Next time, think about semi-protecting, with a note directing new Wikipedians to the talk page and inviting established Wikipedians to copy legit arguments to the AFD page. Sometimes this works. GRBerry 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a grand idea, I'll try it next time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse deletion. early close of the AFD is troubling. Among the established editors, deletion was clearly considered correct. If he meets WP:BIO, where are the independently published reliable sources that are about this guy? They aren't in the article, they aren't in the AFD, and they aren't here. GRBerry 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't had a chance to look for sources yet, but I am fairly sure that some can be found. And it can be confirmed that his clip was used on Jimmy Kimmel Live, for sure. But with the 4 that voted to deleted the article, one was a vandal account (and was blocked for removing comments on the AFD), one was a single purpose account with around 100-200 edits, two others were established, but didn't real give any real reasons to why it should be deleted, just made jokes. That is not convincing to me. And I am also an experienced editor and I voted to keep the article and gave valid reasoning. I hope that this can be overturned or reconsidered. Booshakla 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion with keep arguments of the quality of ""dave wills" wrestling gets 1,800 ghits. The clip is one of the most famous clips on the internet" - 1,800 Googles is tiny and way way below the hits that really popular videos get. Star Wars Kid gets over 400,000, for example. 1,800 ghits is less that I get and I am not notable at all. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn as an out of process closure, and trout-slap closing admin for doing so. Perhaps if the AfD ran the full five days, the independently published reliable sources could have been found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or perhaps we'd be treated to even more puppet theatre. Nothing stopping people creating a new, sourced article right now. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Troute slap? Excuse me? That is highly incivil. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Probably not. But if the AfD was closed properly the first time, we wouldn't even be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Closing articles early has precedence. The article was created by a forum who has had a history of vandalism on wikipedia and the AFD was getting out of control by the same people. Badlydrawnjeff, I'm highly disappointed about your insulting and incivil additude here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - after a little Google searching I found this and this that might be able to be considered reliable sources. VegaDark 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  If we can accept those as reliable sources I'll happy endorse overturning. Whats everyone else's thoughts? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, citing an essay as reason to close an afd early is setting bad precedent, additionally the 'snowball clause' cited wouldn't seem to apply in this case anyhow, since it had significant opposition and investigation appears to turn up the possible sources require. Early closure should really happen with caution. --Barberio 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Closing out of control AFDs already has precedent. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, but not subsequently making a decision based on the unfinished discussion... -Amark moo! 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  "Closing" by it's very nature is the act of making a decision. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, would have been a valid A7. Fifteen minutes of fame is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of articles here about people with "15 minutes of fame", that's a pretty sharp comment to make. And also, for some more sources, look for some wrestling shows that he's been involved with as a ring announcer. He's done this on a lot of major shows and I'm sure they could be found, since he is a popular wrestling draw in the mid-south, and is probably more notable than most of the independent wrestlers featured on this site, that have got no national TV time, where Dave has. Booshakla 18:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clock Crew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

They are an active community (www.clockcrew.cc). See Talk:Clock Crew for more on why this article should be back on Wikipedia. The last admin to change the article is on break. Lurcho 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• But do they meet WP:WEB? It doesn't look that way. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. This page has been deleted 20 times over the last 2+ years, because at no time have its supporters been able to establish notability. Bring us some reliable third-party media references, and then we can talk. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. No independent sources by the 20th deletion means that, to a high degree of certainty, none exist. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I can't imagine what Wikipedia would be like if being an active community automatically gave you an article. -Amark moo! 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Still no sources. Wickethewok 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and shudder at the thought of being an "active community" being enough to get an encyclopedia article. In this case, after 20 deletions it's prety clear that this just isn't happening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and if this article really does keep getting recreated, perhaps a redirect to Newgrounds, where they come from, is in order? They're completely non-notable outside of that site. --UsaSatsui 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bay Ridge Christian College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (AfD)

I would request a review of the deletion of the above article. While the college does not currently hold accreditation they have applied. Several pages link to the college to include Church of God (Anderson), Warner Pacific College, and Association of Christian College Athletics. Additionally, I am currently researching the colleges move from Mississippi to Texas as a result of threats from the KKK. This would give the college notoriety from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement perspective.
Absolon S. Kent 22:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, having applied for accreditation means nothing; anyone can do that. Now... what? You say you're a liutenant commander in the Navy. Since when did research of naval officers make things notable? For that matter, if you were a scholar, I'd still say the same thing, because that sounds a lot like this is a new thing you're trying to research. -Amark moo! 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• recreate later I am a little startled at the apparent ad hominim nature of the earlier comment--I assume it wasn't meant that way. The background of the person making the proposal is irrelevant (except in cases of banned users, fraud, &c). Sounding like OR isn't being OR. "Researching" in this context is probably a name for "finding the RSs that say X" -- and that's what we all do. But in this instance, where the new material isnt there yet, and it seems it would show N, the equitable way to go is for ASK to recreate the article when he has the material. DGG 06:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't intend it to be ad hominem; I don't care who is making the request. The issue is that a naval officer researching something in no way makes it notable. I didn't get the impression that he was saying "I'm finding sources for it". -Amark moo! 06:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion also. Wikipedia is not a billboard for every fake wannabe pseudo-something. And the above poster's comment is not ad hominm; the original poster used a stream of irrelevant non-information as evidence of why his make-believe school should be taken seriously by an encyclopedia.
  Sys Hax 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Deletion, but then again I'm kina feeling what DGG is saying. I'd advice Absolon S. Kent to create the page in his userspace and improve it there. Then come back with an article that you can show us would probably survive another AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and recommend continuing in user space. Want a userfied copy? Article doesn't have independent sources, so the only change I see relevant to the AFD discussion is that the college's website is live now. Given that the head of the school has changed since the AFD, there might well be new sources findable, but recreation should start from the sources. GRBerry 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review/discussion. Much of my original research into the college ("finding the RSs that say X") was contained in the article. Is there anyway to retire the information without starting from scratch to build the page in my user space? On the personnel comment note: I'm a little disappointed in the response tone in what I considered a legitimate request for review. I in no way wanted to present myself as a research expert, but instead was simply stating that I was looking for additional sources on the college. Bay Ridge Christian College is a small institution with limited funding and an interesting history to African-Americans and members of the Church of God (Anderson) movement. I was not attempting to do any free advertising for the college, but was instead trying to provide information on a top which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about.
Absolon S. Kent 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Madden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

see comments below please ww 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. On January 9, my very first and relatively new article, Bill Madden, was nominated for deletion for failing WP:V and WP:MUSIC. I noted in my Keep vote that I would modify the article so that it would prima facie and on its face assert the relevant points in WP:MUSIC specifically, points 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the criteria for musicians and ensembles and point 1 in the criteria for composers and lyricists, and fully substantiate as defined in WP:V. Between January 11 and January 15, I re-wrote my article to address these points. Unfortunately, on January 16, my article was deleted.

I acknowledge that my article as originally posted was poorly written and in "bad shape". However, I believe that it warranted at least a {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} tag initially rather than a nomination for delete.

As a newbie, I clearly understood the invitation from Wikipedia to be bold and also understood that, although my writing may not be up to par with experienced Wikipedians, that the community would assume good faith in my writing (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

I'm writing to ask that you please reconsider the deletion and consider my undeletion request for the following reasons:

• As suggested in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, Simple undeletion, I have edited the article to address the concerns that got it nominated for deletion in the first place.

• I looked for sources and added citations for the previously unverifiable points to make them verifiable. In addition, I removed the points that were unverifiable, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Problem articles where deletion may not be needed.

• My initial writing style failed to meet experienced Wikipedian standards and was misunderstood and for that I apologize; however, it has since been modified to meet the noted standards and expectations. I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which states that "behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules."

• As noted in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion, the article contributes to Wikipedia and helps it be a better encyclopedia with the article restored as it improves the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, and enhances Wikipedia's value (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

• As noted in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion, I had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored. Unfortunately, I feel as if I must win a popularity contest in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).

• Although the consensus as to the number of delete per nom votes won, I respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus vs. supermajority wherein it states "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." Additionally, it also states that "When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. ... If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds."

• Finally, I again respectfully call your attention to Wikipedia:Consensus, Reasonable consensus-building which states that "stubborn insistence on a position," with refusal to consider my additions, revisions, and viewpoints in good faith, "is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice."

For all of the above noted reasons, I kindly request that you consider my undeletion request and reinstate the most recent version of the Bill Madden article which can be found at the moment at User:Windwall/Bill_Madden. Please note that this version is different than the one that was discussed earlier (before deletion) as this version contains all of the recommended changes.

Thank you, Windwall 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong relist. The new version manages to cite upwards of 15 sources, which is definitely not the terrible state these people saw it in. -Amark moo! 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Potter Puppet Pals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Both Potter Puppet Pals and its creator, Lemon Demon, have been covered by the Boston Globe, establishing notoriety. The least that should happen is a merge of Potter Puppet Pals into Neil Cicierega. JNighthawk 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Knowledge of that article was present in the debate, so you have no new evidence, and no reason why closure was bad. You can put more information into the creator's article whenever you please. -Amark moo! 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the article is not even about the cartoon, it's about the creator. It gives next to no information on the cartoon itself. -Amark moo! 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid AFD, with awareness of the article from near the beginning. The AFD reveals that that article is already in use in Mr. Cicierega's article, just make more use of it there, without putting undue weight on anything. GRBerry 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Globe article is an excellent source for the Neil Cicierega article, but it only mentions PPP in passing, and thus can't be used to source information about it. I think a redirect to Neil Cicierega is reasonable though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Long Island Electric Railway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This had a template like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, telling admins "please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article", and it had similar information that I compiled. NE2 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the notes. is this what you were looking for?

• They had to purchase the Jamaica and Far Rockaway Turnpike to run to Far Rockaway. (details of this and other obstacles in 7/10/1896 page 8)
• July 24, 1896: opened Crescent Street (surface) to Jamaica (7/23/1896 page 4)
• April 25, 1897: incline to BMT Fulton Street Line at Crescent Street (transfer) completed; open to Jamaica (4/26/1897 page 1)
• May 2, 1897: Jamaica (at 168th Street) to Queens Village opened; not yet connected over BHRR (5/4/1897 page 1)
• night of May 15, 1897: temporary switch installed at 160th Street and Jamaica Avenue (Brooklyn Heights Railroad Jamaica Line); through route open from city line to Queens Village and open south from Jamaica to "Dooley's, near Three Mile Creek and Jamaica Bay and to Springfield [Gardens]" (5/17/1897 page 4)
• June 6, 1897: opened to Far Rockaway (6/7/1897 page 4)
• November 1897: switching from 105th Avenue and 148th Street to South Road and Waltham Street (I don't fully understand this) (11/19/1897 page 5)
• December 1897: allowed to use Brooklyn Heights Railroad on Jamaica Avenue between 160th Street and 168th Street (12/11/1897 page 4; also 4/11/1897 page 31 for agreement with the BHRR)
• July 1899: plans to consolidate LIE with proposed Cross Country Railroad (Flushing to Jamaica) and New York and North Shore Railroad (under construction Flushing to Jamaica) (7/25/1899 page 6)
• early November 1899: New York and North Shore Railroad open, Flushing to Highland Avenue and 164th Street, Jamaica (10/26/1899 page 7)

You might want to start the new article in userspace to keep it from being redeleted. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for, but it should be on the talk page to be of use to other editors who may wish to write the article. The template on top was processed just like the one on Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company, including the line "Admins: Please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article." --NE2 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G8 is unambiguous about this. Also, your purpose is better served if you start in userspace and advertise your project at the proper Wikiproject. ~ trialsanderrors 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Template:TWP have that text (added by Slambo, an admin), if it's not going to be heeded by other admins? --NE2 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What text? ~ trialsanderrors 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The text that appeared on this talk page, and that appears on other talk pages like Talk:New York and Long Island Traction Company. There is a parserfunction in the template that checks whether the article exists, and if it doesn't it displays "Admins: Please don't delete this talk page as it contains information relating to the creation of a new article." --NE2 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. That clearly has to go, it's against policy → WP:CSD#G8. I'll let Slambo know. I also looked around and didn't see it on any other project templates. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we apply ignore all rules here? The notes clearly help the encyclopedia. --NE2 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No we're not helping the encyclopedia. Userspace or WikiProjectspace is the right place to prepare articles. ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How is making notes on the talk page for others to start from not helping the encyclopedia? You assume that I will be the one to write the article. --NE2 14:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Because speedy deleting is a pretty shitty job as it is, and you're not helping the admins by posting stuff where it doesn't belong then come here to try and get it back. Post it on project space, see if you get collaborators, when you're done move it in article space. It's extremely simple and common sense. ~ trialsanderrors 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for missing the request on the template. Usually when I'm deleting orphan talk pages, there are about 20 of them in a row. I do think it would be better to work on a draft article in userspace than on an orphan talk page, as Trialsanderrors suggested above. NawlinWiki 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not a good idea to leave talk-pages orphaned for long periods of time NE2. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• user space would do & is in fact the customary way. There are many people interested in NYC transit. DGG 06:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then why shouldn't we give those people notes to help them write the article? --NE2 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get it. CSD G8 says that talk pages of non-existent pages may be deleted, not that they must be. I agree that it makes more sense to go ahead and write a stub, but I object to the idea that the page's existence is a "violation of policy". We have no rule against such pages, simply one that says that IF they're to be deleted, then an AfD isn't necessary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The answer to this is yes, they can be deleted, and if they're deleted editors should try to collegially retrieve the lost information, and not clutter DRV with frivolous requests. ~ trialsanderrors 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I wrote a stub at Long Island Electric Railway. Can we end this? --NE2 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasbara Fellowships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Out-of-process deletion John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was deleted without an AfD or proper use of a copyvio template by "20:48, 9 January 2007 RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Hasbara Fellowships" (fails WP:N, WP:COPY)". This left several articles with redlinks. The article had been previously edited by multiple editors over a period of time, and had settled on a brief article with a cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction. A copy of the article can be seen here on answers.com, since the Wikipedia copy is now inaccessible until restored. --John Nagle 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The "cited quote of the organization's position statement in the introduction" was virtually the article in its entirety; hence the copyright violation, satisfying WP:CSD criterion G12. In addition, the article did not assert its subject's notability and/or provide independent verification thereof, satisfying criterion A7. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Meantime, the red links are my fault, and I'm following through now. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse deletion. It's absurd to say "It wasn't tagged as a copyvio, so it can't be deleted as one!" Copyright violation is not just against policy, it is against the law. We can't restore a copyvio. -Amark moo! 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And if copyright violation is ignored, we have 11 words, which is not worth undeleting. -Amark moo! 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - it's claimed to be a copyvio by one editor. That's debatable. The article had a six line quote, properly cited. It's too bad that an out-of-process deletion hides the history. We got into this situation through edits which deleted material other than direct quotes. This is very unusual; the usual copyvio situation involves a new article, but that wasn't the case here. If we can get the history back, it should be straightforward to fix the article. It may just need a reversion to an earlier version. Also, please don't remove the redlinks to the article while this is pending. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored relevant red links to keep the record straight. --John Nagle 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The red links were supposed to have been removed upon deletion anyway, and the edit summary "rvv" (here's one of six) is usually an abbreviation of "revert vandalism", which is clearly inaccurate (if not provocative). Meantime, and I reiterate, almost the entire article was the verbatim quote from the website, which is indisputably a copyright violation, end of story. Instead of wasting so much effort in requesting reinstatement of data that cannot be, why aren't you starting a properly sourced (per WP:V), non-violative (per WP:COPY) article that asserts notability? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: G12 requires "There is no non-infringing content in the page history worth saving." This doesn't seem to be the case, even if the quote is removed. Could this be clarified, please? Additionally, I assume G12 articles may be safely recreated provided they have no infringing material? —Ashley Y 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With the quote out, the article is an 11-word intro (including the name), two "See also"s and an external link. As to your second point, this is why John Nagle and its other editors need to stop "wasting so much effort in requesting reinstatement of data that cannot be [and start] a properly sourced (per WP:V), non-violative (per WP:COPY) article that asserts notability". It was deleted, not salted. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion: we don't speedy-delete stubs (the non-infringing content per G12). —Ashley Y 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No copyvio template is required per CSD G12. The non-copyvio content, excluding links and boilerplate, appears to say: "Hasbara Fellowships is a pro-Israel organization based in New York." Well, that's speedily deletable too, under whichever of CSD A3 and A7 might be preferred, or both together. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've written a proposed replacement version for the article. See User:Nagle/Hasbara Fellowships. There's enough there to show notability, and it's not a copyvio. What if we just copy that into Hasbara Fellowships? --John Nagle 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. That's much preferable to debating whether the previous version should be undeleted, since it wasn't really that good anyway. -Amark moo! 03:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse this wholeheartedly, as previously suggested; a much improved version. May I suggest reading any of our Good or Featured articles for additional formatting assistance with inline citations and a footnote section near the base of the article? Well done! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Go right ahead and move it, you don't have to wait until the end of the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, did the move. That seems to settle this issue to the satisfaction of all parties, so we can probably close out this deletion review as moot. Thanks, everyone. --John Nagle 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The copyvio content was in all prior versions, so they have to stay deleted. The only other factoids in the history were later removed as original research. There is nothing that can be restored. There is more in the userspace version that was in the stub, just use it. (For clarity, a G12 deletion has no precedent value for later article creations. In fact, speedy deletions in general aren't precedent setting if a new version that solves the problem is created. Only deletion discussions (AFDs) are precedent setting, and then only for articles that are substantially similar or inferior - ie, if deleted as non-notable, bringing part of the text back as a stub is inferior.) GRBerry 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'll leave it for other editors to decide whether they want to send this to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Princess Charming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

A newspaper article indicated that the pilot episode of the show will be aired this Monday.[30] and another user created a much better article on its talk page. -Danngarcia 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted and protected this because it had multiple recreations after an AFD, and still no evidence of notability, jimfbleak 12:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and replace with the talk page version. Arguably met standards at the time of deletion, but certainly does now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good, protection removed. ~ trialsanderrors 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

the web site has been release and is a real company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mywebber (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion. It was deleted for having no assertion of notability, not being fake. -Amark moo! 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Fails WP:WEB, reads like an ad, Alexa ranking below 3 million. NawlinWiki 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Fails WP:WEB, probably WP:AUTO aswell. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Score (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted and protected from recreation, apparently without going through the AFD process. This is a major magazine with wide distribution in the United States, and while the article that was deleted consisted of only one line of text, it is expandable. As an admin, I have restored the page, however it appears other steps need to be take to remove the protection, which is why I'm going through this step. 23skidoo 17:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Send to AfD. Worth a wider look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Define "major", giving circulation figures. I don't care if it does go to AfD, but none of the three versions I deleted before protecting had any claim of notability - unless "prints pictures of naked women with big tits" is a substantive claim of notability these days. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt, but endorse all the substub deletions. Create something that actually asserts notability if you want to. -Amark moo! 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• The first deletion was neither a substub nor an A7. Send it to AFD. —Cryptic 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• True, but it did not claim notability either. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Does claim some kind of notability, "The success of the magazine...". Mathmo ^Talk 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete older revisions and list at AFD. The older revisions qualified as valid stubs, and although no sources were cited, it did indicate some notability, so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (which is it what it was deleted under), WP:CSD#A1, or even WP:CSD#G11. Send it through AFD so voters there may discuss it's notability. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD, I suppose. I don't think it'll pass an AfD, but I wouldn't say it has [WP:SNOW|zero] chance, and calling it a speedy is a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and AFD, my feelings are pretty much exactly what Andrew Lenahan just said. Don't restore it to the last version though, that is a pathetic substub. Instead the somewhat earlier version linked to in this deletion review that at least has a little bit more info. Mathmo ^Talk 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Podróże z i pod prąd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Wszystko jedno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Studio albums by a notable band (Happysad) speedy deleted by Proto on the grounds of insufficient notability. Notability criteria guideline for music says that the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article on the band happysad was deleted as a valid A7 (making the deletions of the album articles valid too), but undeleted by Proto when notability was asserted. The articles on the albums, however, were not. Obvious undelete, but if you asked Proto I expect he'd restore them himself without needing to wait for DRV. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Proto refused to restore these articles after notability of the band has been established. This is why I brought it here. Jogers (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My opinion remains undelete, then. I don't see how no content is better than little content in this case. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete, noting that standard practice, allowing articles which will almost certainly never be more than track listings, is stupid. -Amark moo! 15:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Bald tracklistings are WP:NOT stuff. We're not obliged to keep doing stupid things. Redirecting to happysad would be acceptable. Once there's an article, rather than a directory entry, it can be split out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no problem with these being restored, but did not initially bother as their entire content was a tracklisting each, and I thought Jogers had accepted that. As he wants them restored, now restored. Merging this non-content into the Happysad article may be the best solution. If they continue to remain as badly referenced tracklistings and nothing more, I will put them through AFD. Proto::► 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Why? I would bet that the closest you'd get to a consensus for deletion would be nothing more than a split between 'delete' and a bunch of 'merge' !votes from people with no intention of actually merging the article themselves. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  I was thinking of merging them too but I'm not really sure if this would be the most elegant solution. Jogers (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Elegance is overrated. I've merged them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete as per Sam. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blood Krupters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I think that this page should not be deleted as it is a history of a gang and nothing is bad about it! Please undelete it! I will be very thankfull! Sapp Krupter 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid Articles-7, WP:NFT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam Blanning. Also, User:Sapp Krupter is stating no significant reason to overturn. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Comment, my advice is if you think this is a worthy page and you want it to be on wikipedia then create a userpage. From their build up the article, then come back and show us there and if it can show good reason to exist then it will be welcomed back to wikipedia indeed. Best of luck. Mathmo ^Talk 07:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and please don't put this in user space. Valid A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Sam. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Janet Balaskas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Administrator appeared to overlook the extensive evidence that she is a notable author and speaker on natural childbirth, particlarly provided by the latter comments on the AFD. She coined the phrase "Active Birth" A Google Search shows some 71,000 uses of the term. She has published six books. I can't see that this fails our notability requirements! Maustrauser 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter if she's notable. You still must have multiple reliable (and independent) sources, which you did not. If you have any reliable sources, please show us them. -Amark moo! 15:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the AFD certainly showed a bunch of multiple and independent sources. She has published six books with DIFFERENT publshers (big publishers too - not vanity publishers). Isn't the test you applying much tighter than applies to bands, musicians, and cartoon characters that populate WP? The vast majority of these that have no reliable and independent sources other than a fansite and/or a publisher? It appears you are saying she might be notable, but the article is badly referenced. In that case, it deserves a reference tag, not deletion. Finally, there was no concensus between the editors for deletion. I suggest a better response from the administrator would be to have closed the AfD with 'No consensus' and suggested that the article be cleaned up. Maustrauser 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A book written by her is not a source. An article written by someone else, which is on her, is a source. And I reject the m:Eventualist stance of "Oh, well someone might find sources at some point in the future, so we can't delete unsourced things". It's your responsibility to find the sources, not other people's responsibility to prove that no sources exist or ever will exist. -Amark moo! 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My frustration is that the AfD showed sources! It showed articles about her written by others! That is why I have brought this to deletion review. Maustrauser 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist the only sources for notability I see in the AfD is the Google News Archive search. A quick look shows that some are trivial but some may be good. Further discussion focussing on whether specific sourced culled from that list demonstrate encyclopedic notabilty per WP:BIO would be appropriate. Eluchil404 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• relist Yes, it It is difficult to select the few right sources from such a large search, and a focused AfD might be able to do it. DGG 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• relist as wer Maustrauser. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Relist the last comment in the AfD discussion is compelling. Kla'quot 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Long form of closer's comment:
Going strictly by Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins), this should be sent to AFD again, as the article existed before the speedy deletion, because there is no consensus here to endorse the speedy deletion.

The larger editorial community would probably look at the article the same way they did when the last AFD pointed them at the ArbComm case - they came up with an overwhelming keep result. So we get a cycle of 1) speedy deletion, 2) deletion review overturn, 3) AFD keep, 1) speedy deletion, etc.... We've already been around the cycle once; this is the second time at deletion review. The last ArbComm decision came right in the middle of the AFD that was closed at keep, but what was going to happen was clear to a reader that choose to look even before the AFD started. The AFD result was also obvious at the time the ArbComm closed their case, but I find no evidence that the last deletion review and current AFD had been pointed out to them.

While the cycle is not as fast moving as a wheel war, this isn't much better either, and the cycle is the natural consequence of the ArbComm case. (Anyone who has previously undeleted or speedy deleted and repeats that action is warned that this could be considered a wheel war, including myself if we get a third cycle.) I therefore take guidance from the policy on wheel wars, that dispute resolution should be used as an attempt to break the cycle. There are too many parties (42 here alone, disregarding banned users) for one on one discussion to reach a decision. The normal forum for discussing article deletion is AfD, and nobody endorsed the one proposal to use a different forum, so that is where we will go.

There is fairly weak evidence here of a consensus that we should not have an article at this title, so moving to a new title is part of the close, but the specific title I choose is not. And the ArbComm case says that any editor can stub the articles related to RM. So the close here overturns the speedy deletion, as per the Undeletion policy and brings the article to AFD per both the Undeletion policy and the wheel war policy. I will then, as an editor, move the page to one of the possible better titles and dramatically trim down the article. After that, I will complete the close here by listing at AFD.

A possible compromise outcome that we might be better served by putting a paragraph or two into History of Simon Fraser University was discussed, and is one of the initially proposed RfC. Unfortunately, that one-edit stub would also start suffering undue weight problems and be at risk of failing to remain in a state satisfying WP:BLP if even two paragraphs from this was just dropped in there. Additionally, many of the later keep deleted opiners that said keep deleted per above without clarification thereby left it uncertain if they support or oppose this outcome. One even managed to say per multiple names, some of whom support and some of whom oppose this possible outcome. I hope that the AFD can clarify whether this idea is supported by consensus. GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing in progress. Feel free to continue discussing at the bottom. GRBerry 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I am sad to say this is back at Deletion Review for the second time:

• November 17, 2006: Speedily deleted by User:JzG. The Rachel Marsden ArbCom case was open at that time.
• November 22: Overturned at Deletion Review (discussion) and sent to AfD.
• November 28: Arbcom case closed (Arbcom decision)
• November 29: AfD closed as an overwhelming keep (discussion); article restored
• December 1: Speedily deleted by User:SlimVirgin.
• December 2: Arbcom clarification issued: [31]see also [32][33], indicating that Arbcom had not asked for the article to be deleted. _{(I have replaced one of the links with a one showing more context, and removed an interpretation which has been controversial Kla'quot 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)).}

I have since tried to negotiate with SlimVirgin (by email) to have the article undeleted, but she has not agreed to do so.

Discussion on deletion has also taken place at: Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case and Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive2. I don't dare to summarize the discussion, however it should be noted that much of it comes from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. User:Stompin' Tom, who suggested the most recent speedy deletion, is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. In my opinion, no basis in Wikipedia policy has been given for deletion.

A person familiar with Canadian news over the past ten years would not consider this to be a sub-article of Rachel Marsden, or vice-versa. Half an hour of research easily establishes that the case soars above any notability bar we have, by a factor of ten at least. See the cross-section of newspaper articles compiled at Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources . Most of the items in numbers 106 to 299 deal directly with the case, and most of the rest make mention of it. The article should be expanded to discuss its far-reaching social impact, for which there is plenty of source material including a 1434 word article in the Phi Delta Kappan. Expanding the article would have the fortunate side effect of making it less focused on the individuals involved. _{(I've struck-out my vague POV, which is distracting the discussion from the question of how to apply Wikipedia policies for deletion and undeletion. Kla'quot 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC))}

The energy spent putting this article through deletions and undeletions would have been much better spent on constructively discussing concerns on the Talk page. Kla'quot 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Request clarification Do you want the old text back? If so why? Or do you instead just want people to join you in writing this article afresh. I see no discussion since 7 December, a month and a half ago, at Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case prior to opening this deletion review. I also see no mention at Talk:Rachel Marsden, and it doesn't look like the work of creating a decent article there is complete. GRBerry 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I want the old text back. (Doesn't everyone who brings a deleted article to DRV want the old text back??) It was a very well-sourced article on a complex case and it would take a lot of work to start it from scratch. I put a notice about this deletion review at Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, probably a minute or so after you looked for it. I don't think it's essential to mention it at Talk:Rachel Marsden and chose not to because I don't want to perpetuate the meme that one article is a sub-article or fork of the other, but since you asked, I will put a notice there. Kla'quot 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please perform a history-only undeletion of this article so contributors 0can see what we are talking about? Kla'quot 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't it astonishing that a case of "far-reaching social impact" has not been widely covered in the mainstream press or the sociology literature (article in PDK notwithstanding)? It seems to have created a very brief local stir. Keep deleted. Grace Note 02:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been covered dozens of times by the mainstream press. Maybe less so in your country than in mine. You still haven't given a basis in Wikipedia policy to delete it. Kla'quot 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To give some indication of what utter nonsense Grace Note's "brief local stir" comment is, the Ottawa Citizen ran a two-part set of articles about the case, totalling 7438 words, in December 1999. This was two and a half years after the story broke. The distance between SFU and Ottawa is 5660km. Kla'quot 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. It contained unsourced information on living people. Thus, anyone stopping by should have, and apparently did, remove it. That's what WP:BLP is. -Amark moo! 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, my reply was to Grace Note, not to you. You were the first person to vote Keep in the AfD [34] and nothing has been added to the article since then, so why did you change your mind? And what unsourced information are you talking about? The article was extremely well-referenced. Feel free to email me if it's too sensitive to repeat here. Kla'quot 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I saw the article, and it had too many WP:BLP issues. Just recreate it. On another note, why did anyone think that Arbcom even has jurisdiction over article deletions? -Amark moo! 02:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weird. I could have sworn that this was an unsourced pile of... you know. I find it hard to believe that it was speedy deleted twice for no reason, though, so I'm just not going to comment now. -Amark moo! 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You might want to check the original AfD, ca. line 5, A. ~ trialsanderrors 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  (Edit conflict) 1) People can misunderstand anything. 2) Simple cases never get to Arbcomm - they get solved long before that. Misinterpretations happen, that is why ArbComm has a "Requests for clarification" on the main page. GRBerry 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Apart from being a significant news story in its own right, the Marsden-Donnelly harrassment case had national significance beyond the actions of the two main participants. Several Canadian universities re-evaluated their procedures for adjudicating sexual harrassment complaints in light of the decision, and there was something of a "chill" on the issue for a time. I do not believe the decision to delete this page was appropriate, and I have some reason to suspect that SlimVirgin's perspective on the matter may not conform precisely to the expected standards of neutrality. ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) CJCurrie 04:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The ArbCom ruling allowed that any admin could delete the Marsden articles if there were BLP concerns, and I feel the concerns are very real in this case. She's arguably not notable enough for one article, let alone two. The first of the articles was created by a Canadian left-wing political activist as what appeared to be an attack page, one of a number of such pages on right-wing figures the editor didn't like. Since then, both articles have attracted a lot of trouble and very poor editing. There were blogs being used as sources, including, if I understood the ArbCom case correctly, a blog belonging to an admin who both edited the page and took admin action in relation to it; speculation about Marsden's sexuality; sly implications that she doesn't tell the truth about her education or professional life; people involved in the situation in real life editing the article; persistent sockpuppetry on both sides; and allegedly demonstrable damage to Marsden's career as a direct result of the articles. In fact, just about everything that should worry us BLP-wise has happened on one of the Marsden pages. Given her borderline notability, we should have at most one article about her, and we do at Rachel Marsden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • 1)The ArbCom case never determined that a blog belonging to an admin was used as a source for this page. This may have been asserted by one of the participants, but never appeared in the final decision nor was it even extensively discussed. A search of the relevant blog for "Marsden" brings up nothing, so I doubt this is true. 2) Most of the BLP concerns you raise appeared in Rachel Marsden and not in Marsden-Donnelly harassment case. Problems with a previous version of an article X are not a reason to delete the best-available version of article Y, and since when did we delete based on the worst-available version of any page? 3) The political orientation of contributors is not a reason to delete. 4) Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been written mainly by well-established users, and the participation of sockpuppets is not a reason to delete anyway. 5) There are hundreds of articles in reliable newspapers, from all across Canada, whose primary subject is either the harassment case or Rachel Marsden. This is not borderline notability no matter how many times you say it is. If we were to have one article, it should be the harassment case article, not Rachel Marsden. Kla'quot 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• It all depends what you mean by non-trivial coverage, I think. There is certainly a lot of sensationalist coverage, as one would expect given that this is a politically active individual, but no real evidence of scholarly critical review of the case that I've seen. Can anyone cite reviews in the legal journals or use as precedent as case law? That would be non-trivial. We'd need to be sure of that before taking on the pain of maintaining an article which has been used as a hatchet job in the past - it seems the only peopel who really care about this article are Marsden's political opponents. And I don't buy CJCurrie's accusations of bias against SV, either. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1) The imagined or real political orientation of contributors is not basis in policy to delete, especially given that an AfD closed as an overwhelming Keep. 2) Who has called Marsden-Donnelly harassment case a hatchet job, and where? 3) Are you saying that the notability bar for cases is "reviews in the legal journals and precedent as case law"? What policy did you get this from? 4) Cases settled out of court do not set legal precedent. You still have not given any basis in Wikipedia policy to delete this article. Kla'quot 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1) Oh yes it does, if the presence only of detractors and political opponents means that WP:BLP is being violated; 2) ArbCom in the Marsed case referred to several of the articles as including WP:BLP violations, including this one; 3) the notability bar is non-trivial coverage, sensationalist coverage in local or regional media is, by and large, trivial, hence I am asking what wider coverage exists - we have articles on many ground-breaking cases cited as precedent, we do not have articles on most cases even though most will have at least a couple of mentions in the local press - Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism, Wikinews is thataway → ; 4) All sorts of cases can set precedent, even if the precedent is only that such cases do not get prosecuted. Per policy, we are not a directory of legal cases, a tabloid newspaper or an attack site. Which is why I have concerns over this article. But I keep an open mind, which is why I asked for more information. Your response encourages me to believe that no wider coverage exists and that this is being pursued for sensationalist and political reasons. I apologise for my cynicism. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to answer your question about what wider coverage exists. Has the case been discussed in legal journals? To the best of my knowledge, no. Has it been extensively covered beyond the "local and regional" press, in stories that are multiple-pages long, beyond a brief period of time, beyond sensationalist stories, and beyond the tabloid press? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes, all at the same time, and these sources are cited in the article. If there is a spectrum of significance with minor local junk at the low end and multiple ciations in legal journals on the high end, this event falls somewhere within the spectrum, as do many events for which we have articles in Wikipedia (including all current events). I think we agree that we should delete articles on events that are at the low end of the spectrum, and we generally should keep articles at the high end. We're looking at something in-between, so I'm asking for us to a) articulate what the standard for inclusion really is, and b) evaluate whether this event meets the standard, as separate exercises. My participation in (b) will be limited: After being put through the wringer yesterday for citing sources too much (see my talk page), I have chosen to stop participating, as much as possible, in any discussion about information that relates to Marsden. Kla'quot 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question about scholarly critical review of the case: Reviews whose primary subject is this case include a 51-page position paper by the Fraser Institute (cited in the article) a position paper by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and an article in Canada's oldest political magazine, Canadian Forum. The case was also one of many cases used to support the thesis of a 2004 book written by a criminology professor; this book itself has been reviewed enough to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. Let me know if you want me to email you with details. There is also the Phi Delta Kappan article that I mentioned in the nomination for this DRV. Kla'quot 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I do not think the issue is non-trivial coverage. I think the issue is that the harassment case is if not the only then one of two or three things that merits any article at all. The current article addresses the harassment case. My point is simply that Marsden merits only one article. the current article could go into appropriate encyclopediac detail about the case and its significance and still be WAY under the ideal word-limit for wikipedia articles. And anyone interested in this case can easily find the Marsden article and thus all the information anyone could want to find concerning the case at Wikipedia. One article is enough. If the article reaches 50 kb and there is a consensus that all the material in the article conforms with all of our policies, then we can discuss spin-off articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"We need one article, not two" is an argument for merging, not deleting. The Rachel Marsden article is deliberately short due to the difficulty of writing a longer NPOV article about her, and currently says almost nothing about the case. The harassment case is historically far more important than Rachel Marsden, so if we were to merge them, I would vote to keep the harassment case article. Kla'quot 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that much of that content was deleted because it either violated NOR or Verifiability or came from an inappropriate source. There is no need to officially merge articles. If any deleted content is fully compliant with WP:NOR and WP:V and comes from appropriate sources, just add that content to the current article!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with what you say about the content that was deleted from Rachel Marsden, but in any case, I am not suggesting that the articles be merged. What I am suggesting is that if we merged the articles, Marsden-Donnelly harassment case should be the title of the resulting article. Please clarify if you want the articles merged or if you want Marsden-Donnelly harassment case deleted; we can't do both. Kla'quot 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, massive undue weight problem, WP:BLP and the Arbcom case are enough reason to keep it deleted. The claim that the case had any impact beyond SFU appears to be so much armwaving, as it's been repeated endlessly with no hard evidence that I've seen - it isn't even asserted in the article as it stood, only in Wikipedia space. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but how does BLP apply in the least to articles which are well-sourced, like this one? And how can you justify deletion because of an Arbcom case, especially when they make it clear that they did not intend to say that the article had to be deleted? -Amark moo! 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sam, could you please clarify what you mean by "a massive undue weight problem"? What point of view is being given undue weight in this article? Kla'quot 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Undue weight here refers to the amount of detail lavished on an event of no proven significance. When we devote paragraph after paragraph to such an event, either we're trying to damage the subject, or it looks like we're trying to damage the subject, and which it is doesn't matter. As to why BLP applies, BLP applies because it's a biography of a living person. Verifiability is not the only non-negotiable policy here, WP:NPOV is no less important just because it's more subjective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sam, everyone agrees that the WP:BLP policy applies to this article. The question is: How is is it being violated in this article? You seem to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if neutrally covering an event in detail would damage one of the individuals involved, we need to demonstrate that the case is of proven signifcance. Am I understanding you correctly? Kla'quot 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
        • If we are giving something undue weight, it is not being covered neutrally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam Blanning. GreenJoe 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam Blanning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn since it was speedy deleted and resubmit to an AFD. If consensus in an AFD says delete then delete, otherwise keep. General Idea 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just since it's becoming a recurring topic here at DRV, the standing community consensus is the one from the last AfD. So any "Keep deleted" opinions are in fact "overturn AfD closure, delete" opinions, and "Overturn, restore" are "Enforce AfD closure" opinions. So unless there is overwhelming consensus to overturn the AfD consensus, this will be sent back. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam Blanning above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, by its nature a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Fred Bauder 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on nomination: The claim in the nomination that "Arbcom clarification issued [40][41][42], indicating that Arbcom had not asked for the article to be deleted" is a misrepresentation. In all three links, it's very clear that SimonP is referring to the deletion of Rachel Marsden and only Rachel Marsden, not Marsden-Donnelly harassment case as the nomination claims. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I was specifically referring to the Marsden article in those comments, and personally I doubt that the case merits its own page; however, this subject certainly should be covered in the Marsdean and SFU articles. - SimonP 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're saying. My reading of Arbcom's intent is subjective and dependent on context: Several questions were asked in the request for clarification. CJCurrie pointed out that both pages had already been deleted, and asked whether page deletion is a solution. [43] I asked why ArbCom did not delete the pages themselves as soon as the case closed.[44] The clarification was worded in general terms and did not directly address specific questions. If they wanted either page to be deleted, this was their chance to say so but they clearly chose not to. My point is that Arbcom has never asked for Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, as it existed at the close of the Arbcom case, to be deleted. Immediate deletion was not requested in their Final Decision, and (in my view) the clarification made it more clear that immediate deletion was not being requested. Kla'quot 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant Arbcom statement is: "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator.[45]" SlimVirgin has made some less-than exact paraphrases of this before:

• I forget the exact words but they said any version deemed inappropriate by an admin could be deleted, or words to that effect. Process-wise, there's no problem here. It's a judgment call. (This comment was in relation to the speedy deletion of Rachel Marsden.
• The case has gone through ArbCom, which ruled that any admin could stub the article and ask that it be started from scratch, which is now being done. (also in relation to Rachel Marsden)
• And again on this page: The ArbCom ruling allowed that any admin could delete the Marsden articles if there were BLP concerns, and I feel the concerns are very real in this case. BLP concerns - not violations in the actual, current, article - were then described.

I hope this explains why I brought up the ArbCom clarification in my nomination: I have seen Arbcom's decision paraphrased before in ways that I consider skewed. Everything I've seen from Arbcom members since then indicates that their original statement stands as stated - no more, no less. Kla'quot 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Per Fred. However, it might be appropriate to include some of this material in Simon Fraser University. The notable event was not the Marsden-Donelly case itself, but the fact that this case prompted a review of the handling of harassment cases that resulted in several old cases being overturned and the resignation of the university president. A brief description of the Marsden case in the context of the overall controversy at SFU might be appropriate. Naming the article after Marsden is by itself a BLP/undue weight violation--it would be like writing an article about the Trojan War calling it the Paris-Helen affair. Thatcher131 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your fresh and well-reasoned suggestions. I agree with moving the page to, say, Simon Fraser University 1997 sexual harassment controversy as the overall story was about endemic problems in the university investigation process, which were exposed by the Marsden-Donnelly case. Kla'quot 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to make it a separate article. A couple of paragraphs in the article on SFU will be sufficient. And it certainly shouldn't be moved, but rewritten, bearing in mind that the focus is on SFU's flawed process for dealing with harassment cases, of which the Marsden case happens to be the one where the accused fought back. Thatcher131 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Lexis-Nexis (1997–2001) uses the word harassment 52 times in a headline wrt to the case. What's your standard for a stand-alone article? 100 headline mentions? I'd say most of the article use SFU as an identifier, some others Simon Fraser, so 1997 Simon Fraser makes sense. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, as per Sam Blanning.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam Blanning and Thatcher131. If anything is notable, it should go into SFU or RM articles per above comments. Crum375 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Samuel Blanning. Musical Linguist 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Could someone please explain why Arbcom has jurisdiction over article deletions? -Amark moo! 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't. We're interpreting ArbCom's findings re the problematic history of these articles and the difficulty of keeping them compliant, with content removed up in one place only to pop up in another. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom has no right to give any admin carte blanche to delete the article at will. It's enabling censorship and a clear impediment to attracting good-willed editors. ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The duty of anyone who encounters material of this nature to delete it arises from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no limit or restriction on deletion. Being based on exposure of an individual to opprobrium, it cannot be made into an acceptable article. Fred Bauder 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty blatant misreading of BLP. There is no "exposure to oppobrium", as you call it, the "exposure" happened in the unvisersity proceedings an in the national press. BLP allows for deletion of unsourced material, not for any material an editor might find objectionable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it's not clear to me whether you're saying that the original sources or the article are based on exposure of an individual to opprobrium. It can't be the sources, because they were all written before Rachel Marsden's career began. The public had never heard of her before the story broke. As for the article, as long as it sticks closely to the sources (which it does) it should be OK. Kla'quot 06:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Per many good arguments presented. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Sam (and Fred and Thatcher). As for ArbCom, I'm not sure that people are saying we have to delete this because they say so but more we should delete this because of the problems that they recognized. On the other hand, As the highest level of dispute resolution ArbCom has authority to issue binding decisions in the name of the community/Jimbo. Where there are substantive policy issues (such as WP:BLP), as opposed to a simple content dispute, at stake I see no problem with making a deletion decision. Eluchil404 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted Issue of whether Marsden was harassed was never resolved and no precedents of any kind were set. Of local notability at best. Kitty's little helper 11:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Kitty's little helper is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis. Kla'quot 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not a sock puppet. Arthur Ellis does not have an account on Wikipedia. I am editing legally. People can look at my edits and szee if I have been in the least bit disruptive. I have started some important new entries, copy-edited a couple of hundred, and am being attacked because I have crossed Kla'quot's little Marsden hate campaign. Kitty's little helper 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have never engaged in a hate campaign of any size against anyone. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per all of the above. - Merzbow 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus AfD closure, overturn unilateral deletion First of all, even if anywhere remotely true, Sam Blanning's comments amount to an AfD round 2, which routinely gets thrown out at DRV. No argument was made why the AfD endorsement was out of process. Second, his misreading of NPOV is egregious. Claiming that the harassment case is not notable enough for a stand-alone article and needs to be merged into the Harsden article is like claiming the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal article needs to be merged into Crystal Gail Mangum. Evidence for national notability per WP:N is overwhelming. After reading 100 kilobytes of material on the case from 1997–99 Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis articles there is no doubt in my mind that under any additional restrictions the article would still look functionally identical to the one endorsed by AfD and deleted by SlimVirgin. If we require triple-sourcing for every claim made the article would look functionally the same. If we require that each claim be sourced to only the three or four most reputable media sources in Canada the article would still look the same. If require that no local newspapers be used to support the claims the article would still be functionally the same. Even (and that's the only claim in the article I found dubious) if we restrict ourselves to only international coverage we could write an article that supports the key claims. There is no substantial disagreement among reputable media sources on the key facts, which is clearly within Due Weight: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Kla'quot made every effort possible to substantiate this, and all she got here in response is a number of established editors putting fingers in their ears and singing lalala so they don't have to acknowledge the evidence. The attempts to constantly move the goalposts here in order to discourage Kla'quot from editing the article is equally shameful and amounts to functional censorship. The idea that a comprehensive list of sourced headlines relevant to the case amount to biased editing and fails BLP is an egregious misreading of our policies. "Newspaper X wrote Y on day Z" is in Wikipedia parlance a fact as long as there is no reasonable disagreement that newspaper X actually ran headline Y on day Z. This is the currency Wikipedia is built on, and to claim that The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Maclean's, or even the Vancouver Sun are suddenly unreliable sources just because they all agree on a sequence of events that make Harsden (and Stubbs, who seems to have been forgotten here) look bad is ad-hoc legislation. WP:BLP requires tight sourcing of all claims and respect of privacy, but it at no point requires that public, agreed-upon information from reputable sources has to be removed because it is unflattering to the subject. Another arbitrary ad-hoc criterion unsupported by policy and in ignorance of the facts is to require that this case has to set a legal precedent. There is no legal case, the parties agreed, a priori and a posteriori, to resolve the issue in mediation, and "legal precedent" has never been offered as a claim to notability. The claims were, in order, cause célèbre (media attention), resignation of the president of a major university and rewriting of procedures (institutional impact). Those claims were endorsed by the Afd and it is outside the purview of DRV to renege on those. It is within the purview of DRV to scrutinize SlimVirgin's deletion, and the way this task has been ignored is blatant. There is no single comment above that pinpoints an unsourced claim in the article, or provides evidence that a viewpoint held by a significant minority has been ignored or that private matter was made public by a Wikipedia editor. There is no scrutiny of her defense which amounts to "older versions of a different article used questionable sources", along with a number of insinuations about the motives of editors. Instead we get handwaving over unspecified notability issues and the proposal of a remedy that is outside the purview of DRV and GFDL. This review should be declared a mistrial and restarted, with a clear directive that DRV procedures be followed, policy breaches be pinpointed, and evidence be provided. In addition, several editors here owe Kla'quot an apology. If anyone is actually interested in the source material and can't access Newsbank or Lexis-Nexis, contact me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• When I was told on my talk page of a length reply to my post, I was expecting some concrete reason that might lead me to change my mind, not this bucketload of bluster and hysteria ("several editors here owe Kla'quot an apology"? o rly? I'll get my self-flagellation whip and my kow-towing kneepads) coupled with appeal to the imaginary WikiJudges that routinely overturn anything that wasn't done in process. If my reasoning is an 'Afd round 2', that's unfortunate, but if AfD had got it right, I would have been able to say 'endorse AfD', but they didn't, policy had to be put above process, and it has to be put above process here as well. None of the above changes the fact that this article is undue weight. Especially as long as the central Rachel Marsden article remains only slightly above a stub (currently six very short and loosely connected paragraphs), undeleting this two-page snigger would be ludicrous, and reverse all the effort put in by Arbcom and others into getting this small corner of Wikipedia into a respectable state of affairs. And probably after then as well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The length of the Marsden article is entirely irrelevant. Not all actors in a public scandal have biographies beyond their involvement in the scandal. Undue weight characterizes the length of the article compared to the volume of reputable source material, and the inclusion of minority viewpoints. Per WP:BLP: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. As it is now, the length of the article is at less than 5% of the available source material, and uses sources conservatively and neutrally. Your lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is noted though. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I've violated some acronyms. Please go ahead and note it, and have the imaginary WikiStenographer carbon copy your notes on my imaginary WikiContemptOfCourt to my office. My sister's hamster needs more bedding. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sam, trialsanderrors didn't say who owes me an apology, but FWIW I don't think you owe me an apology. Sigh. Kla'quot 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn per trialsanderrors, who absolutely nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• restore article I wasn't involved in earlier rounds. It seems that a highly respected WP ed. and admin made an obviously wrong decision, for whatever reason. . The remedy against such decisions is of course this process, and the minimum that need be done is to restore the article, with an understanding that the repeated use of speedy process is not appropriate. Like any article affected by many hostile edits, the best procedure would be to recreate it from scratch. Presumably the article will then be submitted for AfD once again, but it is only 60 days since the previous AfD closed. I gather we have no remedy against multiple continuing attempts to find by chance an admin willing to close in the direction desired. Wouldn't a RfC on the article be the better choice? It should give a more definitive result. DGG 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Participants in the prior deletion discussions have been notified. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - let me get this straight: The article is debated at AfD, which rightly (and overwhelmingly) comes to a consensus that it is a keep. After long debates and strong consensus building, the article is speedily deleted despite not coming close to meeting any relevent criterion. I'm not sure why it's generated this much discussion when it is such a clear overturn as procedures were not only not followed, but circumvented to reach an erroneous conclusion against overwhelming consensus. WilyD 19:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The reason for the AfD being overwhelmingly "keep" was the large number of reliable sources verifying content, as well as establishing notability. It's not up to us to decide past events; our authority on history, events and notoriety is reliable sources and, as trialsanderrors pointed out, there's no reason to charge that The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Maclean's or the Vancouver Sun are all inaccurate. We're heading into a double standard at WP if we make more stringent demands of verification from reliable sources and then do an about-face and suddendly start ignoring them. --Oakshade 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Sam Blanning above. A mes chers confrères canadiens: shrilly indignant lessons on the various importance of different news sources in the Canadian market is unhelpful, small-minded and missing the point. Eusebeus 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't mind being called shrill, indignant, small-minded or missing the point, but I certainly take offense at being called Canadian. :-) I would go as far as claim that until three days ago, I had no knowledge of your country's existence. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I had looked at this deletion review and decided not to comment because I was torn. But then, because of my If by whiskey response to the previous DRV, I was asked to come here and comment. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Thinking about this some, it seems there are sufficient sources that establish notability. Good God, that's an understatement. There are copious sources on this, and multiple, independent coverage is the standard, rather than more subjective criteria, such as whether something sets a significant legal precedent or not. But the Arbcom case contained this remedy:

2) Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So, these articles can be created, then an administrator can determine that they violate WP:BLP and delete them. That decision can then be brought here. If deletion is upheld, the article can be created again (using those sources trialsanderrors talks about), and then can be... Well, you get the point. We need to have an article on Rachel Marsden. The harrassment case needs to be covered as part of the History of Simon Fraser University. We don't really need a separate article on this topic. This current debate is simply the continuation of the ArbCom case by other means. A possible way to resolve this is the Brian Peppers solution: delete and salt for a year. Maybe then tempers will have cooled down. JChap2007 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for summarizing the procedure. So the question which still has to be answered is: Which statement within the deleted article failed WP:BLP, i.e. was potentially slanderous and unsourced? Alternatively, which favorable sources have been ignored in favor of other, unfavorable sources? ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, my point had more to do with how this article was subject to serial creation and deletion because there are arguable points on each side. As you, quite rightly pointed out, there are numerous sources. But Sam believes that there is an undue weight problem: WP's coverage of Marsden is mostly about the sexual harrassment case. How much weight to assign to various incidents in a person's life when writing an article about here is inherently a subjective judgement, usually solved by compromise. No one here is interested in compromising, however. They're primarily interested in proving they were right. And the background, procedures and ArbCom remedies surrounding this virtually guarantee serial recreation and deletion. JChap2007 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be an odd perception that the case is about Marsden, which might be due to the inordinate attention her article has received at ArbCom. The article is about Marsden, Donnelly, Stubbs, SFU, and other players, all of which have a right to unbiased representation. Since there were adversaries, all biased information in favor of Marsden is unfavorbale against Donnelly, etc. That's why it's very important to keep those two things separate. The weight of this case will undoubtedly unbalance any ancillary article it's included in, although History of Simon Fraser University might be the closest match. But that's a notability dispute which is tangential. The primary dispute is about the sources included by bucketsofg, and no matter how they're refactored into different articles, I haven't seen an argument (other than Fred Bauder's) that there is policy which allows for the removal of reputable sources. Even WP:BLP is adamant that sourcing is paramount. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• No-one here is interested in compromising? The fact that the Rachel Marsden article is intentionally a stub is a good example of a compromise. Here, I have agreed to moving the article, and so has trialsanderrors. I have indicated that I am willing to seriously discuss merging the two articles. I have suggested expanding the article so that it does not focus so much on the individuals. I have raised no objections to ideas for rewriting the article, which I think are mostly good but do not belong in this DRV. In summary, I have agreed to at least discuss just about everything except keeping this article deleted when there is no basis in policy for doing so. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely the case involves more people than just Marsden. I would argue that they don't have any "right" to representation or coverage here, only that if we do cover them they have the right to be treated fairly (meaning any information be in compliance with WP:BLP with no undue weight given to the facts favorable or unfavorable to any side). It is still unclear to me why we need a separate article to do that. And I would note that the ArbCom's decision applies to any article "related to Rachel Marsden." Whether or not the original case was actually about Marsden, it is clear that the ArbCom remedy would apply to this article. Much of the continuing interest in the case (both on-and-off wiki) does seem related to her involvement. The irony is just too delicious: a Canadian version of Ann Coulter was involved in beyond-Oleanna behaviour in a sexual harrassment case. In the end, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis: the benefit is an article focussing on a scandal involving a minor media celebrity, the cost is continued enormous disruption. I say, there is no deadline here. Let's do the article in a year. We are unlikely to get anything stable in the time being. JChap2007 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and I don't think they particularly like to be included. The right is that of the Wikipedia editor in return for establishing notability and providing a fair set of reputable sources and derives from our policies. I don't think a year will change anything. The precedent that is being established here that if you care enough about the article to run through the gauntlet erected to protect it from being recreated then you must have invidious motives will not go away. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Judging from its history, the content of the article had been stable in the months before it was deleted, except for vandalism. I can find no version that has any kind of "disputed" template on it. There were no comments at all on the Talk page between March and December of last year. The number of comments on the Talk page that are not part of deletion discussions is exactly one, and it's unsigned. (There is also some relevant discussion in the archives of Talk:Rachel Marsden from last spring.) The only thing unstable about this article is its existence. This may set some kind of record for being the most undisputed page to ever earn comments from Arbcom. And please see the humour in this: The article's second edit was a stub-sort by none other than Sam Blanning. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn due to previous AfDs, the fact that this story has had national press attention and the fact that the effects as a result of this story have been significant. Also, it's verifiable and the sources (both in number and by type, as many of them are national news outlets) certainly make this article notable. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Bauder and Blanning. Proto::► 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Query The petitioner for deletion review writes The article should be expanded to discuss its far-reaching social impact, for which there is plenty of source material including a 1434 word article in the Phi Delta Kappan. I've looked at the full text of this article (available through a free trial of High Beam[46]), and I don't see anything that corresponds with "far-reaching social impact". There's this line "Clearly, the Marsden/Donnelly case has been one of the more notorious sexual harassment fiascos in Canada, and it sent strong signals about the many inequities in the handling of sexual harassment cases by Canadian universities" (and well there's this too: "Simon Fraser's sensational case has all the makings of an erotic made-for-TV movie"). But the only substantive impacts due to the case described by the article appear to be localized to Simon Fraser University. ("Strong signals" is too vague and insubstantial). The article starts out by suggesting that the Simon Fraser case belongs to sexual harrassment policy problem trend in British Columbia universities that were first marked by two earlier (1993 and 1995 - the Marsen case was in 1997) cases at the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia. The article also refers to coverage in the Canadian media but not to international coverage. Can the petitioner come up with sources showing "far-reaching social impact" as well as the international prominence (a "cause célèbre") claimed but not proven in the Marsden case article? (The only international coverage (excluding general newswire reports) I can find on this case is a "Letter from Canada" opinion column in the Lifestyle section of the Malaysian New Straits Times.). Bwithh 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is much evidence for the international cause célèbre, although I found a few more international sources (Wash Times, grrr). This certainly needs to be stricken from the claim to notability: The case became a cause célèbre both in Canada and internationally because of the salaciousness of the details, the topicality of sexual harassment, and the procedures for investigating it. The case led to the resignation of SFU President John Stubbs and a rewriting of procedures for investigating allegations of sexual harassment. The rest, as far I can tell, is accurate. So social impact seems to be in line with other cases in List of academic scandals and Category:Scandals, especially the Duke lacrosse case, probably the closest contemporary match. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the institutional social impact localized to Simon Fraser. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (still thinking) Bwithh 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I've struck the "far-reaching" part of my nomination, as it's a vague statement that can't be proven one way or the other, and it's irrelevant to DRV. The original reasoning beind my comment came from two articles. In one, the Canadian Association of University Teachers said, "Many commentators noted that universities across the country were likely to reconsider their sexual harassment policies as a consequence of this case." Another, published by the Hamilton Spectator in 1998, was entirely devoted to the effects of the case on feminism and the status of women. One quote "But the message to women on campuses was clear -- for God's sake, if you're being sexually harassed, keep it to yourself. That message was clear to the women at SFU, where complaints dropped by 80 percent. " The "international cause célèbre" claim doesn't come from me and I doubt it's accurate. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clayquot, I'm concerned that your comment implies you feel this article is important because the case sent the message to women that "if you're being sexually harassed, keep it to yourself." But your interest in this has been to criticize, or even attack, the woman who made the complaint. That's why a number of people have felt uncomfortable, and it's why the BLP issue kicked in: the undue weight issue. And you're right: the case was neither far-reaching nor did it have any international impact as I believe was claimed at one point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am a feminist woman quoting another feminist woman writer who made the comment in her pro-feminist article. You are making a sly, hurtful, entirely unfounded, and completely false insinuation that I want to keep this article in order to discourage reporting of sexual harassment claims. It is a personal attack. I have never edited the article whose deletion we are reviewing here, and only started editing Rachel Marsden (check my contributions to see if they violate BLP) after you and Arthur Ellis's sockpuppet made similar blanket allegations on its Talk page and drove off most of the men. Kla'quot 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn without prejudice against future afds; recommend toning down of article claims I'm not convinced that the article needed to be speedy deleted under WP:BLP, which appears to be the critical issue here (rather than the case for encyclopedic notability outlined by Kla'quot. Trialsanderrors' point that the case involves SFU, Donnelly and John Stubbs not just Marsden is a good one. I strongly suggest that this article's unsourced claims to importance be referenced or removed. I'm not yet convinced by the notability case for a separate article on this subject and expect to vote for a merge of cut-down content in a potential future afd of this article Bwithh 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to draw the attention of readers to User Talk:LotusLander2006. CJCurrie 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, or rather accept community decision to keep per AfD consensus and WP:NOT censored. WP:BLP applies to unsourced negative information, not sourced and correct negative information which is unflattering. If the article's a POV/BLP problem, full-protect a fully-sourced NPOV version until both sides hash that out, but don't censor it. Seraphimblade 08:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus AfD closure, overturn unilateral deletion as per trialanderrors. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per previous community decisions and per Trialsanderrors above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The idea that this article, just by existence, fails NPOV is bizarre. Applying this logic to a more internationally well-known incident, it's like saying the existence of Lewinsky scandal fails NPOV because it dwells on a single unflattering incident in the life of Monica Lewinsky. Aside from the identity of the contributors, zero evidence has been given that the article is itself biased. If you have to look at the names of contributors in order to tell that an article may be biased, that is the very definition of an NPOV article.

I do think the idea of deleting articles on trivial or ephemeral news events that could damage living people is a reasonable one, and notability guidelines for events could be rewritten to say so. However, it is very unlikely that the community would accept jacking up the notability bar high enough to justify deleting this article. Will we require editorials in the national newspaper of record? Multiple Google Scholar results? If we did, it still would not be high enough to have this article deleted.

I completely agree that it is important to avoid giving the appearance of creating an attack page. It is equally important that we avoid the appearance of whitewashing history in order to protect political interests. And it's hard to think of a more blatant way give that impression than to circumvent our own policies so we can suppress information unflattering to someone who was once asked to run for office by the party currently governing the country. Kla'quot 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• List of academic scandals might a closer example. And of course Duke lacrosse. All a pain in the butt to edit. None deleted solely because the "expose (someone) to opprobrium". ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Trialsanderrors analysis. Catchpole 09:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per trialsanderrors. As I said in the AfD, the article has the potential to be NPOV, I don't see why badly sourced POV nonsense warrants deletion of the article, as opposed to the bad material. Stubify is necessary, but deletion is an overreaction. Lankiveil 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
• I participated in the most recent AfD debate, and at the time felt that the article was suitable for retention, largely on the grounds that it appeared to be a moderately well-known case in Canada, and appeared to have adequate references. For background it may be useful to note that I am not Canadian, nor had I heard of this case before the AfD debate. I have now reviewed the article, and the various debates about it, paying particular attention to privacy concerns, the risk of libel, and the risk of misrepresentation of the points of view of the various parties in the case. In my comments in the AfD debate I noted that I would have preferred the article to have as little in the way of salacious comment as possible.

I participate in a large number of AfD debates - working on such debates is, in fact, my principal contribution to Wikipedia - and the first questions I ask of articles under review for deletion are the simple ones of notability and supporting references/sources. It seems to me that there is clear evidence that references/sources for this topic are adequate, and when I search for this subject on the internet there is prima facie evidence of notability: the case made the news, and had a significant impact on the people involved and the university in question. Policies were changed, and actions performed or reversed, as a result of this case. Broadly, I feel that this case should therefore be covered by Wikipedia.

The case itself does not reflect well on the participants. Given the kind of case, the allegations made and the participants' previous relationship ( the earlier case involving a junior team ) this is not surprising. Unfortunately, these items are all matters of verifiable fact, and it appears to possible to document them all, along with other substantive matters of fact, in a NPOV way. I wish to support and re-iterate a comment made above by Kla'quot: "The idea that this article, just by existence, fails NPOV is bizarre." I believe it is quite possible to write articles on court cases in a way that ensures a balanced presentation of the facts: in fact, we already have many cases covered in Wikipedia.

One question that has been discussed is the possibility of merging this article with the article on Rachel Marsden. I feel this would be inappropriate, as she was not the only participant in the case, and in the interests of balance we should not seek to give any one participant in the case undue prominence or weight. That Ms Marsden has gone on to a successful career and attained notability in her own right is certainly reason for her to have her own article, but as I understand it the events of this case, its reasons for notability, and the publication of the relevant sources all pre-date her successful public career.

Finally, on the question of the article name, I wish to follow the guidance given by my colleagues in these debates ( I am "assuming good faith" in accepting this guidance ) and suggest that the article be renamed from "Marsden-Donnelly Harassment Case" to "Marsden-Donnelly Case", if this is indeed our preferred form for such case names.

In conclusion, is seems to me ( after some fairly exhaustive and exhausting reading ) that: (1) the case is notable and can be adequately documented; (2) the case can be presented in an NPOV and non-salacious way; and, (3) it is coincidental ( that is, was not caused by her participation in this case ) that Ms Marsden has found subsequent fame in an unrelated field. Accordingly, I advocate that we Retain this article, that we Protect against deletion without further discussion, that we Review for bias, and edit appropriately to remove POV items, and finally that we Rename as "Marsden-Donnelly Case".

Please let me know if I can make any further contribution. WMMartin 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - WP:BLP is not to be trifled with, and whether you find your self in opposition or support of this person, WP articles have to hold themselves to a high standard. --Leifern 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that ... uh ... WP:BLP doesn't advocate the deletion of sourced, encyclopaedic neutral articles on living people, would you care to elaborate? WilyD 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Sam Blanning and Thatcher131. Any encyclopaedic [verifiable] information should be included in the main article, and heed payed to BLP. Tewfik^Talk 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I've been following this case since it was at arbcom, though I don't believe I ever commented about it before now. This case is by no means clear cut, and there's right on both sides of the debate above. Having said that, though, a blow-by-blow description of what was ultimately a very minor scandal is, well, something of an "undue weight fork," to coin a phrase. A scandal that brings down the president of a country is quite a bit different from one that brings down the president of a university. IronDuke 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does this put the case in comparison to our coverage to, say the Ward Churchill scandal, on which we have at last count at least four articles? ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• If we've made mistakes elsewhere, that's no reason to make them here, T&E. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't realize you're still around. So what exactly is the source of your objection to the article? BLP clearly, as discussed above, does not state that "we cannot have articles that present living people in a negative light". It states "we cannot have unsourced, poorly sourced or unduly unbalanced articles on events that present living people in a negative light". I have no idea where this thing got so completely out of control that people have to make those extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims. This is a mid-level scandal at a fairly prominent Canadian university that never got A1 frontpage 84pt font headline billing, but was still covered extensively by all the major Canadian news outlets over an extended period of time and still reverberates through the press. As I posted on JChap's talk page, I polled four Canadian friends about Marsden, and three of them actively remembered the case. So this is far from obscure, and we certainly don't have a policy called WP:LETSLEEPINGDOGSLIE. Not to toot my own horn here, but I would claim that I would be a perfect candidate to edit an article on such a topic. I know fuck-all about Canadian politics or punditry, I pass the WP:FORGET test because I have never even heard of the case or the participants before. I even managed to be accused of having both a left and a right wing bias in my editing history here. Now after having read some 30,000 words on the case if I wanted to create such an article it wouldn't look all that different from the one we're discussing here, maybe with some of the claims about impact toned down and more direct quotes and claims about events double-sourced. The players are certainly not portrayed in an unduly negative light, there is far worse in the source material (from top-level newspapers, not the tabloids which I'm sure had a go at it). Right now it's at less 3% of the coverage available to me, so it's probably at less than 1% of the actual coverage. And lastly our respnsibility is not to the participants in the case but to our readers who have come to expect Wikipedia to be the first port of call on dispassionate and accurate information about noteworthy events including scandals, especially if the primary sources are hidden behind paywalls. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The arguments have been made by many others already, T&E, so take a look above for the details. In summary, she's borderline notable. We therefore don't need two articles on her; and we need to pay heed to the undue weight issue, which is very pressing in this case, because very little biographical material exists about her, given her borderline notability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's an argument for deletion of the Marsden bio, as happened to the Donnelly bio. He was also considered non-notable outside the case, so any bio on him would be unduly biased by the discussion of the case. (Also technically that was a prodded deletion.) The idea that the case should be discussed on the Marsden bio creates undue weight, because she was only one of four players in the case. The case for all I can tell should be discussed in an article titled "1997 Simon Fraser University harassment scandal" or somesuch, but that's a page move issue. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• IronDuke, to clarify, I've never said that this case was anywhere nearly as important as Lewinsky scandal. I said that if this article violates NPOV by existing, so does that one. Kla'quot 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your argument misses the point. Lots of biographical material has been published about Lewinsky, because she is truly notable, notwithstanding that she become notable over an arguably negative issue. With Marsden, very little is known about her, because she's borderline notable, so the undue weight issue of the negative material is overwhelming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• So let's delete the article on her then. That doesn't diminish the role of the SFU case. ~ trialsanderrors 01:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per Sam Blanning, Thatcher131, IronDuke and others. 6SJ7 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I don't think the event is notable enough for its own article, and I agree that it seems its purpose is merely to attack the subject.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is starting to look like IRC channel canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "Starting"? CJCurrie 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about the sudden appearance of "me too" commenters after the nominal deadline. ~ trialsanderrors 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Whether we're looking at the results of IRC, emails, or just people who chronically follow each other around nodding in agreement with each other, there's no question that Wikipedia emotional baggage is playing a significant role in this debate. To cut straight to the point, this has all the appearances of being a continuation of a bitter conflict between the creator of the original Rachel Marsden article, SlimVirgin, and others (many of whom have voted on this page) over Israel-related articles. I've very often agreed with SlimVirgin in the past - far more often than not - but everyone makes mistakes and deleting this article was a mistake. It is Wikipedia's emotional baggage we need to get rid of, not this article. Kla'quot 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing in progress. Please add any additional comments below this line of text. GRBerry 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pawn Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Well written real page, is notable. It was deleted due to (nn web) I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive the quality of what I am doing. Pawn Game I believe is a notable game, and it worthy of staying up. Just like Stick arena is because they are basically the same thing. it is a game that is created and is playable, forums, domain etc. I will keep it updated. I do not know what to say? I am new, but I love wikipedia, but this is my first ever created submission, besides minor edits, etc.

• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability, valid under CSD Articles-7. If notability can be asserted by showing non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, the article can be recreated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yet another Flash game. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I see no claim of significance or importance in the article, which makes deletion under WP:CSD#A7 legitimate. I see no evidence in the article or appeal that anyone unrelated to the game has published anything in a reliable source about it. I do see the version release notes, which are not encyclopedia content. I do see a complete staff list, which is not encyclopedia content. I do see a complete list of weapons and ranks, again not encyclopedia content. If there are multiple reliable source publications by people independent of the game about it, try writing a new article in accordance with the suggestions at Wikipedia:Amnesia test, using only those independent publications. If that is a decent article, then fill it out with encyclopedic content from the game's published documents, not with game guide materials. The old article will not be a helpful starting point as no independent sources were used and too much of the content does not belong in an encyclopedia. GRBerry 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per GRBerry. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bought Science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

IMHO, this page should not have faced speedy deletion by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. If pages such as Junk science and Sound science can exist on Wiki, then surely one for Bought science should be. Bought science is neither any more of a neologism, nor a POV, than "Junk science" or "Sound science" is, as Jeffrey alleges. NorthMiamiBeach 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bought science" only gets about 2000 hits on Google (the neologism half), and the text of the article irrelevantly goes into the issues you bring up in your POV essay listed below (the POV part of the equation). Wikipedia is not a venue to air your grievances with the PMRA. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You claim I have grievances with the PMRA? Not so, that's unfounded. These are very real concerns by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Charles Caccia report entitled: "Pesticides: Making the Right Choice", May 16, 2000) and Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gelinas (all cited in the PMRA article). As for rapid deletion by claiming it is POV, well, isn't that's a fine way to censor anything that one disagrees with!--NorthMiamiBeach 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your opinion (nor do I agree with it). I do disagree with your attempts at trying to inject your opinion into Wikipedia, both through this article and the POV essay I deleted (see below). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, egregious soapboxing, original research and a neologism, all from a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and cite copyviolation when deleting restored history. Copyright violation is of [47]. Published there under the same license that does not allow derivative works or commercial use. GRBerry 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I question why this page faced speedy deletion. It was not patent nonsense, nor advertising, nor a personal attack page, but rather a well written and researched article critical of the PMRA. If other Wikipedia pages can exist that are critical to issues such as global warming (i.e. the movie an Inconvenient Truth etc), or Criticisms to the 911 Movie "Loose Change" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Criticism ), then surely one critical of the PRMA should also be allowed to exist, without being deleted. I would appreciate a Wikipedia panel review on this matter. NorthMiamiBeach 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If not a copyvio, it is an unencyclopedic essay. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a copy violation, as I hold authorship rights. As for "unencyclopedic", that is not a qualification for speedy deletion. It is my opinion that my article is of merit and should not be deleted. --NorthMiamiBeach 13:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no link to the infringed material given that I can see so I can't endorse on the basis of copyright violation (assuming that's what 'cv' means - what, even 'copyvio' takes too long to type now?), but this is an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Please see what Wikipedia is not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on 'What Wiki is not...' Upon reviewing that, I fail to see the PMRA article as being a personal essay. Rather, the article references the works of others who share the opinions that the PMRA is problematic, i.e. Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gelinas... etc)--NorthMiamiBeach 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, egregious soapboxing, original research and a neologism, all from a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse CopyVio Deletion It is a copy of [48] (to the point of having identical typos), which is licensed under a Creative Commons license that does not allow derivative works or commercial use. Award deleter a cookie for spotting this, and a trout for not saying what it was a copyvio of. Additionally, we shouldn't have an article on criticism of X, without first having an article on X. The PMRA is one small branch of Health Canada, and does not yet have an article. And an article on criticism of X should not be at a title beginning "Problems with". GRBerry 16:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ooh, extra bonus of being a non-reliable source; on the site's legal disclaimer they say " The information is not guaranteed to be accurate, nor does The Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa take responsibility for it. The information comes from other sources and therefore may be wholly unreliable, and CHO does not guarantee its suitability for any purpose." GRBerry 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller court martial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

(1) The court martial is notable because (a) Court matialsPolitical court matials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years, (b) the court martial was covered in all the main newspapers in Israel at the time including the English language Jerusalem Post and the Arabic Al-Ittihad and was recently referred to by the British Guardian.

(2) The deletion was an Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process. The proposer of the deletion (User:Yellow up) makes no attempt to hide his disgust at the actions of Adam Kellner describing Kellner as "irrelevant" and using the term "military evaders". The proposer made a number of incorrect assertions to back up his request for undeltion. User:Yellow up is entitled to his oppinion of Israeli dissidents and their actions. And I imagine that in the highly polarised atmosphere surrounding the Arab/Israeli conflict many Israelis share his opinion. But the deletion policy clearly states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."

The deletion discussion did raise sime problems with the way the article was written. But these should be handled by fixing the article rather than deleting it. Abu ali 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for now, unless you can present some solid evidence like citations that this was actually covered in major papers. That was brought up in the AFD, but ultimately there wasn't evidence for it. I recognize many of the other participants arguing for deletion as AfD regulars whose opinions necessarily count in determining consensus, even if we were to disregard the nominator. I agree that notable content should be fixed rather than deleted, but you've got to prove it's notable first.--Kchase T 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair point. The problem is that the court martial occured in 1988, before papers had archives on the internet. The bigger libraries in Israel would contain hard copies of back issued of the relevant issues, and I hope that given time, some of our Israeli editors will dig out concrete citations. In the mean time we can start with the following article in the Guardian [[49]]. Abu ali 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Here's an article that might help: [50] --NE2 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The link NE2 provided gives a number of citations: Jerusalem Post Dec 19 1995, Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988) and Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Dec 1, 2004. Many thanks to NE2! Abu ali 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It was a valid closure, but more sources is enough to permit relisting for discussion in the proper forum. Given Keller's history of writing about himself, this will probably need to be policed for sourcing to make sure nobody inserts their own memory of the events in question.--Kchase T 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I provisionally restored and compared diffs. The subject wrote virtually all of the content and all the other editors just made minor changes. The single reference was added in the last edit to the article. Whatever salvageable content exists should be replaced when someone re-writes this with a proper range of sources. I return to endorsing deletion.--Kchase T 12:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
            • But if I or anyone else recreates the article, it will probably be speedily deleted according to policy. Or am I misundersanding the policy here? Abu ali 13:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
              • You should be ok. The existence of this DRV insulates you some from that. G4 doesn't apply to content that is "merely a new article on the same subject", and I think we're establishing here that it actually is notable, even if the AFD was valid.--Kchase T 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Some referencing was added on the 5th day of the AFD, and not discussed by any of the delete opiners (the only later one said "delete per all", which is useless. More newspaper sources found and mentioned here, one of which has "155 related", so clearly got widespread coverage at that time (but I'm not going to pay to read all those to see whether it was a single wire story covered widely or several wire stories, or actual articles by each paper). Relist for an evaluation of the sources in the proper forum. GRBerry 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. The closer properly determined that the argument that this is vanity spam to make a point was not refuted. The fact of some coverage in a newspaper is not a requirement that an article be kept (if it is, we will theoretically eventually end up with literally a million articles on passing events). I did not comment in the original AfD but this article is clearly way, way too much information about an ephemeral event and was close properly in my opinion. Herostratus 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as process was properly followed, and besides, the right thing to do from an editorial standpoint is to let someone who is not Adam Keller write this article. JChap2007 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse deletion (process was apparently carried out reasonably), without prejudice against WP:NPOV and WP:V recreation by someone who isn't Adam Keller nor someone acting on his behalf (nor someone acting against him). I would be in favor of a Relist if the closing admin finds the new sources sufficient for that. I don't know many of the facts, especially whether major magazines have included featured coverage that shows probable "lasting influence" as compared to "only passing attention". Wikipedia is not Wikinews and doesn't need to cover every once-a-decade controversy unless the topic has significant historical effect upon its field. Barno 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But some of the sources cited above are 15 years after the event. Surely this shows that that the court-martial recieved more than pasing attention? Abu ali 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not automatically; it depends upon the content. Many newspapers and magazines have small-print filler sections of what went on five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ago. If the newer articles demonstrate that the court-martial itself had a lot of lasting influence, then (when properly cited) they should help the relist end as "Keep". If they only show it drew attention as part of the broader situation, and didn't drive much change or serve as the focus for a popular movement, then the reviewing editors should support a merge to some article like "Anti-war protest in Israel". Barno 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hmmmmmm. I think that a brief article on this subject could be supported, based on the few available sources that satisfy Wikipedia rules. The article in the form that was deleted was not acceptable because it did not pass the verifiability rules. Mr Keller's personal recollections are interesting, but we are required to only add material that comes from published sources and cited so that other people can check those sources. I would think that a new article which obeys the rules would probably survive deletion attempts. It would be much briefer though. Incidentally, here is the complete text relevant to the Keller case that appeared in JP 19 Dec 1995, p6: "According to Ha'aretz (May 6, 1988), Peace Now activist Adam Keller vandalized Israeli army tanks during his tour of reserve duty, to protest Israel's presence in the territories." It isn't any use for article writing, and isn't even acceptable as a source in my opinion because it is actually a letter to the editor from the chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel. There seems to be a much more useful article in JP, 25 Feb 1990 but I can't read it due to a database error. --Zero^talk 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Court martials are rare events in Israel, and normally do not occur more than once in 10 years" - if this were true, either the IDF must be by an incredible margin the best-disciplined military in the world or enforcement of IDF regulations is very lax. However, even leaving aside the other violations of military regulations that one may be court martialled for, being court martialled for violation of regulations in the name of conscientious objection while a member of the IDF is a much more frequent event than is suggested by the petitioner. According to the Courage to Refuse campaign over 280 IDF members who are part of the campaign have been court martialled for refusing to serve in occupied Palestinian territories since 2002 Bwithh 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out an error in my original statement. I should have said political court matials. Mr Keller was kind enough to answer my query on this question and I will take the liberty of quoting his rely here.

    There are two systems of judging soldiers. "Disciplinary proceeding" by a commanding officer, held in camera in his bureau without lawyers or witenesses and with the punishment restricted to 28 days, is very common. A full court martial, with three judges of whom at least one must be a jurist, which is held in public with lawyers and witnesses and press coverage, can give a much longer sentence but it can (and is) used for political speeches and gets considerable attention.That is why the army resorts to it only once a decade or so, and each case is memorable, is noticed by the press and by peace activists who make an effort to be present. The 280 cases that are refered to are of "disciplinary" instant trials in camera, not full court martials. The army does often use the full court martial against soldiers who broke discipline for non-political reasons (for example, desertion, being rude to an officer etc.). In non-political cases, the army feels free because they get no press attention.

    Abu ali 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. From searching around, an article on Adam Keller himself focusing much more on his role as a Israeli peace activist would seem to be more appropriate. From Factiva (which goes back to 1988 (though the further back you go, the patchier it gets - 1988 is very patchy at the moment)), there are a number articles mentioning Keller , and the one or two which are profiles of him mention the court martials but don't treat them as the defining or key reason why he's significant, so I don't think an article just about his court martial is in order. Bwithh 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I would agree that the court martial is not Keller's most significant event in his long history in the peace movement. But that does not necessarily imply that the court martial is not notable. We have seen above that the court matial is turing up in references 15 years after the event [[51]]. Whether Keller as an individual is notable and whether an article about him should be written is an interesting question, but not the one which we are discussing here. Abu ali 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore The event is certainly notable. It is covered in the standard literature on the Intifada – eg in Andrew Rigby,"Living the Intifada" (Zed Press, 1991), p 185. Rigby cites Al-Fajr 26 February 1990. The trial was covered in the Israeli press, but it is even harder finding a twenty-year old Hebrew article than an English one; the Haaretz online archive, for instance, goes back only to 1994.

The event is notable not only in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and of the Israeli peace movement; it is remarkable in anyone's terms. Writing graffiti on 117 tanks, as well as the officers' mess and toilets — and a long slogan too, not just one or two words — is surely unprecedented in peace and protest movements anywhere.

In fact, I think that Adam Keller deserves a Wikipedia article of his own. He is the spokesperson of Gush Shalom, the editor of The Other Israel, a long-standing activist in Yesh Gvul, a pioneer of Israeli meetings with the PLO, and author of the excellent study of Israel "Terrible Days". And if we do this, the court martial (and his other spells in gaol) will certainly be relevant. RolandR 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do we have a rought consensus that the court-martial was a notable event? If so the main argument for deletion is that the article's subject made many of the edits himslef. This is discouraged by the policy WP:AB. The WP:Autobiography policy states

  You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia [1]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing. This does not mean, however, that it is impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, or that they are strictly forbidden.

(my emphasis added). Keller should have refrained from writing an article about an event which he was so personally involved in. But if you examine his edits to the article you will find that he was absolutely meticulous in maintaining a neutral point of view and avoiding any form of self-aggrandizement. In fact a large part of the article is made up of direct quotation of the arguments of the military prosecutor. I therefore think that undeleting the article would be the best course of action. It would allow the sources uneathed in this discussion to be added and allow the article to be ruthelessly purged of anything which fails WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Abu ali 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it would be a viable option to restore this as a redirect to Adam Keller and you can create an article on the person and canabilize material from the old version of this article and properly source it as you go (thus addressing GFDL concerns about keeping the edit history there to preserve attribution history). I'm not comfortable keeping any of the author's version unless it gets properly sourced, but if you want to do that, more power to you. I'd just feel better if that happened slowly as a new article gets built, rather than being restored in full and then potentially have little unsourced bits remain.--Kchase T 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now created an article on Adam Keller. It is a stub, which needs more work. But the bare bones are there, including reference to the court martial. He is certainly a notable-enough person to merit a Wikipedia entry. RolandR 13:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• new article its clear from the comments above that the matter in N, and that RS are present, because the discussion has moved on to the qy of the actions of the IDF. . But, Roland R has the solution--for others than RK to do an article on RK, affording him the usual BLP courtesies. This article will be more suitable than the old one in all respects. DGG 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we seem to have a consensus about notability and reliable sources regarding the court-martial. I would also agree that the subject of the court martial is notable enough for a biographical article. But the question of whether these two articles should be merged is something that I have not been convinced about, and is really a separate discussion. Abu ali 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was split from the main Futurama article in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, I don't have time to check Wikipedia all the time as I have a life, so I was not able to bring this point up in the AFD discussion. Suoerh2 07:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, AfD was perfectly proper. This is an encyclopaedia, not a television schedule. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Check your facts, a list of syndicaters is not a television schedule, get your facts straight, otherwise your vote doesn't count. Suoerh2 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• O RLY? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia intends for people to follow it's policies, then deleting this article sends the wrong message. Pretty soon people will not want to split off sections from long articles into new articles for fear that some Wikipedian who has no idea what he is talking about finds the new article, thinks its "trivial" and deletes it. Sometimes, with summary style, your going to get article that aren't full of a huge amount of content, but that is just something you have to live with if you want to use the summary style. If nothing else, then please restore the text of the article to the Futurama page (where is lived for a long time with no problem) and let the editors of that page decide if the information belongs or not, not some elistish snobby Wikipedians who troll deletion review (thats what they are). Suoerh2 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Please be reminded that Deletion review is not AFD round 2. The deletion review is more about judging process than result. Could you indicate why you believe that certain processes were not followed properly? Is there any information that was not considered during the AFD? Aecis^Bravado 10:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This reminds me of arguments against deleting fancruft which follow the lines of "But we split this out from the main article, so it must be good!" -Amark moo! 15:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion per unanimous AFD. --Coredesat 17:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Unanimous AFD. Not a TV guide was the prod reason. After you had the article undeleted as an after the fact contested prod, you should have improved the article to address the concern. This was not done in the fortnight after the article was restored, the AFD was unanimous, and the argument offered here does not constitute a reason for keeping the content - it is either appropriate for an encyclopedia or not, and whether it started as a separate list or was spun out from the main article isn't relevant. Content that won't survive spun out as a sub-article probably shouldn't exist in the main article either. GRBerry 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW, if nothing else. The nom offered WP:NOT, which is core policy, as a deletion reason and it includes TV guide as one of the things that Wikipedia is not. (WP:V seems invalid, as this information would be easy to verify through TV listings) However, it would make me more comfortable if the nom had noted that "TV guide" was the specific thing that WP was not and if all of the !votes had not been "per nom." JChap2007 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• remerge the pertinent material into main article--if it was removed for fear the main article was overlong but it has been found that by itself it is not sufficient. If anyone objects to it being there, cite this DelRev. DGG 06:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of this unanimous discussion. If the editors at the main article decide (on the article's Talk page) that there is consensus to bring this detail back in, it can be merged and redirected via a history-only undeletion (above). Until they reach such consensus, leave the page deleted. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles_C._Poindexter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Notable Subject. Reasonable amount of time for expansion. Passes Google test and founder of group that became prominant fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha. [52] Notability was established at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_C._Poindexter. MrDouglass 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. It was a legitimate G5 when the sock made it, who initiated the creation after that, because those G4s are a problem for me. If it's not a sock/banned user who recreated the G4 deletions, undelete. If it was, can I request userfication to clean it up and make it legit, since "notability" appears to be established in the linked AfD? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  Our DRV nominator has done all three recreations. I have no basis for an opinion whether G5 would still apply, although I can see that others are suspicious, I don't have the knowledge base to tell myself because my mop is still too clean and shiny. If you think notability was shown, I hope that means the AFD revealed adequate sources, and you could just use them. GRBerry 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. G4 does not apply to speedies, and if it did, it certainly would not apply to a speedy criteria that doesn't even judge the article. -Amark moo! 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was one of the deleting admins. I have a very strong suspicion that MrDouglass is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, Mykungfu, since he showed up less than 24 hours after the article was first deleted and the then-most-recent sock of Mykungfu was blocked and re-created the article. That's not a coincidence. His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK). I have no objection to undeletion per se, but to another attempt by Mykungfu to game the system. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If the article is bad, it won't survive an AfD. If it is not, surely it shouldn't matter who you suspect wrote it. -Amark moo! 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely it does matter. Banned or blocked users are not allowed to create articles; it's speedy deletion criterion G5. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well MrDarcy has now listed MrDouglass as a sockpuppet of Mykungfu. [53]

Lets see if there is any valid proof with this one. 172.164.250.29 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite fortunately, G5 does not apply to suspicions. If it is established that he is a banned user, it's different (although I'd likely just ditch G5 then, since it looks decent), but suspecting who a user is is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Proof by contributions is more than sufficient, and the user's contribs have made it clear to me from day one that it is Mykungfu. Proof by checkuser is not required, and in this case, since Mykungfu and all of his socks use AOL, it's not possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Undelete just so other users know what G3,G4 and other terms are.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion . If MrDarcy suspects me to be racist. Simply go thru my edits and see if you find any racially biased edits. Also, i thank everyone who will supports this articles undeletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDouglass (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

• • But now I don't want your thanks. Where in the world did you get the "I'm being accused of racism" card from? -Amark moo! 04:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

from "His first edit to another mainspace article was to Ku Klux Klan; one of Mykungfu's earlier socks was McGrandWizard (Grand Wizard is the title of the head of the KKK)." of the above opinion. MrDouglass 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's not much to undelete, just a short paragraph with a lot of weasel words and sourced solely with questionable copyright material from skipmason.com via the Google cache. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment MrDouglass has been indef-blocked as a sock of the banned user Mykungfu (not by me). This DRV should probably be closed on that basis, but since I was the admin who originally deleted the article in question, I'm going to recuse myself. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion We now know that WP:CSD#G5 applies per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu, and it isn't worth undeleting and redeleting to put G5 on top of the log. GRBerry 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per GRBerry. Would be a valid G5. --Coredesat 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Game (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AFD6)

The Game has previously been deleted from Wikipedia because it was not previously verifiable. However, The Game has now been published on its own web site, http://ilostthegame.org. Does this web site dedicated to The Game suffice? Hamz01 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no sufficient reason to overturn AfD result. The website cited by Hamz01 is just one person's self-published thing with no editorial review to check facts, and it's not under the aegis of any organization (since the game has none). See the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. Barno 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse, this has been endorsed before, and having its own site does not provide verifiability. -Amark moo! 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - a self-published website does not notability make. Sorry, nothing new to see here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again A DRV perennial. No new information. I've also linked in AFD6, which is the most recent AFD discussion resulting in deletion. If someone could dig up the recent DRVs, for completeness I'd appreciate; I don't have time now. GRBerry 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Liz Rettig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AFD)

• Published author listed on Amazon with two books, deleted within 10 minutes of its creation even though two editors were developing it. Rklawton 21:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse A7 Valid, if awful fast, A7 deletion. I'd be willing to userfy to your space if that would close this. The original posting was obviously a WP:COI problem, given the name of the creator. Your edit probably looked like a wikification edit. GRBerry 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - She's got over 2000 g-hits and quite a few reviews, so how does she fail A7? Note: COI isn't grounds for a speedy. Rklawton 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD#A7 is a test of the article, not of the subject. All of the speedy deletion criteria are meant to be testable just by looking at evidence on Wikipedia. I'm starting to feel we've gotten too aggressive about A7 and G11, hence I currently support loosening the undeletion policy as it relates to these criteria. Looking again at the timestamps on the deleted history, I'm not sure the deleting admin even saw your edit; it was the same minute as the deletion so I suspect they were looking at the edit you almost nominated for speedy deletion. That, paraphrased was roughly "Name is a writer, most famous for writing X and Y. She lives with her family. Plot content for X." COI isn't grounds for a speedy, but when an article looks like an A7 it makes peoples trigger fingers itchier. You don't have a COI, so I'm willing to userfy it. Do you want it? GRBerry 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks - I think userfy would be best. That'll give me time to add the necessary sources, edit, etc. If you would, just paste it at the top of my sandbox. Rklawton 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Young Hot Rod (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

How many times do I have to tell you, he IS TOO notable! I mean, he is signed to G-Unit Records as well as Interscope (Spider Loc isn't part of Interscope, yet you have a page on him}, his single Be Easy, charted on the Billboard charts (Top R&B/Hip-Hop), and if you google him, there are several notable sources. Undelete, but if that's not possible, Unprotect, so someone with better info can recreate it. Tom Danson 20:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion and salting. I don't see evidence here that he meets WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't appear that "Be Easy" charted (Billboard's Web site does not show him having any charting singles or albums). And Mr. Danson, watch your tone. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: According to the very last version of the article, "His debut album ... is scheduled to be released. ... The first single of the album is called "Be Easy" and features Mary J. Blige." There's not a single assertion of notability in the article. What I also find remarkable is that version uses itself as a reference, while citing it as AOL Music. And a final thing: according to the AfD'd version, Young Hot Rod was born in Sacramento. According to the final version he was born in Phoenix. Which is it? Aecis^Bravado 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep protected and come back after writing in userspace. The AFD was properly closed. Between the two article's logs (original and new), I see a half dozen deletions of recreated content to start from a favorable assumption about what will happen to a blank page. So, go write a reliably sourced (and cited!) article at a user subpage, then bring it here for review. I recommend applying the amnesia test method of writing. GRBerry 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Tom, you only have to tell us once that he "is too notable", but you have to bring reliable sources. Nothing else actually matters much: no sources, no article. Try that in userspace. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Here's three independent sources: [54] [55] [56], probably more info on his website. I can write a stub in userspace if that is still necessary. Recury 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alela Diane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Alela Diane is an up-and-coming artist of renown, for whom at some point soon there will clearly need to be an article. She is already cross referenced in the psych folk and New Weird America articles. She currently has 47,000 Google hits (up from 45K yesterday), is touring in the US, and shortly in the UK. She has an All Music Guide entry. I suspect that one factor in the summary deletion of the article may have been the references to her early work being self-published. However, her album has now been issued internationally to widespread acclaim, as evidenced by a simple Google search which will show numerous positive reviews, establishing her importance as a singer-songwriter. Information should be made available on this current artist who is in the process of becoming one of international renown. Ghmyrtle 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. Avid readers of DRV may wish to know that "up-and-coming" in this context can be backed up by mentions in the New York Times ("And that's not to mention promising artists like Alela Diane ...") and other papers, not just the usual MySpace stuff. Without seeing the history it's hard to be quite sure, but based on the available sources, and Ghmyrtle's solid track record when it comes to creating music articles, I suggest undeleting ASAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. A quick Google news search suggests she might meet WP:MUSIC on that note, and she has toured nationally and will be touring internationally, so this doesn't really seem to be a question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete/Recreate Without seeing the original article (I can't find a cache or mirror on Google), I can't speak to its state, but the sources and assertions made here (touring, NYTimes) clearly put her above the A7 standard. Eluchil404 16:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Part of history restored for review. I restored only the 2007 versions, the 2006 versions met WP:CSD#A7 and add no evidence of notability. GRBerry 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The original version had no claims of notability and no sources. No objection to rewrite with sourced claims. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• List Looking more closely at the restored history, this was obviously a contentious speedy deletion. A speedy deletion tag had been added and removed by the same user previously. They had decided the article should be kept. Contentious A7s should be taken to AFD. Article in its current form is unlikely to survive AFD unless the sources are available. Hint, hint... GRBerry 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and List at afd Shouldn't have been speedied as article has basic claim to notability. Being in the All Music Guide (low barriers to entry) and a passing mention in the New York Times are not reliable indicators of encyclopedic notability however. Also, it is said that there has been an international release - but I cannot find non-import versions of her latest album on Amazon UK or even Amazon Canada. List at afd and let's get things sorted out. Bwithh 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, what basic claim of notability? Please point it out to me in Alela Diane is a part of the pysch folk scene. Hailing from Northern California town Nevada City, Alela grew up singing songs with her parents (both musicians), and performing in the school choir. During a stay in San Francisco in 2003, she began teaching herself guitar and writing her first songs. These soon caught the attention of friend and fellow Nevada City native Joanna Newsom, who in turn invited Alela to play her first live show. She resides, with her cat, in Portland,OR.. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Zoe, I'd restored the portion of the edit history that is being contested. What you quoted is last year's versions, that remain deleted and aren't being contested. I probably caused this by only partially restoring. The claim, I think, is the release of two albums, at least one of which has come out on a label instead of just being self published. By WP:MUSIC standards, (much lower than mine), that is a claim, but not itself a claim high enough to meet WP:MUSIC, which requires more of the releases than was in the article. But failing to meet WP:NOTE/WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO isn't the speedy deletion standard, failing to make a claim is. GRBerry 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What GRBerry said + I typically do a quick check on google and related links before I will nominate for CSD in order to satisfy the recommendation "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub" on WP:CSD. While the Holocene Music label is a very small one, there is initial evidence on their page for the album suggesting possible/debatable encyclopedically significant media coverage of the album[57] Bwithh 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, sorry, I apologize, I didn't catch that there were two versions. However, the new version only mentions one released album, doesn't that fail WP:MUSIC? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, according to WP:MUSIC: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. She does not qualify. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • And the touring? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
          • What touring? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
            • This - [58]Ghmyrtle 11:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have revised the original article to include more evidence of notability and placed it for the time being at User_talk:Ghmyrtle. The suggestion made earlier that her album has not been released in the UK is incorrect; it is available at Amazon.co.uk (not as an import), as is her more recent vinyl release. I'd be grateful to be kept informed of the process from now on, as luckily this question of notability has not arisen with any of my previous articles. Ghmyrtle 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction - it is an import to UK, but readily available. Incidentally, the criterion of being released by a "major label" or even an "important indie" is surely an anachronism in this era of downloads, when (in UK at least) musicians can make the charts through downloads alone without being signed to any label ... ? (Not for this forum, I know...).Ghmyrtle 14:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• undelete I dont think there was the intent to be unfair, but it seems to have turned out that way.DGG 06:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Assburger syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|RfD)

• I would like to ask that the people who based their "endorse deletion" !votes on it not being a plausible misspelling be discounted, because they are continually repeating proven-incorrect assumptions about how the name is properly pronounced, and have not responded when challenged. This is not a vote. --Random832(tc) 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC) In other words, OF COURSE "Assburger" isn't a plausible misspelling of "az-PAIR-gher" - which is immaterial because "Asperger" isn't pronounced "az-PAIR-gher".

I think there is substantial evidence that this exists as an innocent misspelling, and the presence of a so-called "bad word" should not have automatically caused it to be seen as disparaging and used as a reason to delete the redirect. Random832 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think the controversy at Redirects to Asperger syndrome is grounds for a speedy relist at the very least. —Random8322007-01-26 13:44 UTC (01/26 08:44 EST)

• There is a related deletion discussion at Redirects to Asperger syndrome
• Comments from talk page: "I hate to do this but i am beginning to wonder whether i should have nominated it each time it appeared. Yes it seems to be a personal attack (at least my POV) but i am finding it not uncommon in web search. Simply south 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, Google redirects it. It's an offensive term, but would still be a pretty functional redirect. Philwelch 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) -- —Random8322007-01-25 13:49 UTC (01/25 08:49 EST)
• Relevant discussion at User talk:Omnivore Oprah. Note that Simply south is incorrect here; the proper way to pronounce it [59] is indeed with a hard /g/ that could easily be misheard as this redirect, NOT with /dƷ/ as Simply south seems to believe. —Random8322007-01-25 13:58 UTC (01/25 08:58 EST)
  • Comment: Further down the aspergers talk page i have also put on a section on pronounciation. Here in the UK, it is common to use a soft g and it is pronounced officially like this. I say it has and indistinguishable p or b sound. Simply south 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I really hate to say this, but Restore. For someone who casually hears the term and does not know the correct spelling, this is actually a pretty likely guess. As a likely vandalism target, it might be a good idea to protect the redirect. Fan-1967 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, nothing but a puerile joke. >Radiant< 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the motive behind its creation is particularly relevant, only whether the end result improves the encyclopedia. —Random8322007-01-25 16:30 UTC (01/25 11:30 EST)
• Protect the redirect, but restore as a likely misspelling. This is exactly how it is pronounced. -Amark moo! 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion According to US dictionary sites [60] (Merriam-Webster) [61](American National Heritage), the correct pronounciation is As-perger's (hard p not b, and hard g) not "Assburgers". Wikitionary's (possibly unreliable) entry has a UK pronunciation which is the same but with a soft g[62] (this UK Asperger's Syndrome site suggests "Ass-pairghers" (hard g)[63]). I don't see the need for Wikipedia to cater and coddle for every kind of misspelling and mispronunciation out there ("Assburger Sindroam", "Bifpairgher") - we already assume that users are able to handle a computer keyboard/mouse and an internet interface. Bwithh 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike syndrome, Asperger is not a familiar word. Also, /p/ and /b/ are identical in most dialects when placed after an /s/. I'm not sure why you noted the hard g, since that's also present in the pronunciation of the redirect. And, anyway, it's not a mispronunciation because they are pronounced the same, and it's not just any misspelling, it's the only spelling that consists of common english words whose pronunciation EXACTLY match the proper pronunciation --Random8322007-01-25 17:01 UTC (01/25 12:01 EST)
    • Comment I would say less than 10% of the people I know are careful enough in their diction that one could easily hear the difference between "aspbergers" properly pronounced and "assburgers". How it should be pronounced, and how it commonly is, are two different things. Fan-1967 18:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin. I speedied this as a clear attack page. Common sense should tell any user that "Assburger" isn't right, and I don't think Wikipedia should include anything that appears to be making fun of mental illness. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Common sense won't tell them what actual the proper spelling is, and they might figure that a pronunciation spelling for an unfamiliar word will have been created as a redirect. —Random8322007-01-25 17:02 UTC (01/25 12:02 EST) PS once I actually clicked the link it turns out "pronunciation spelling" is not the right term. Is it sufficiently clear, though, what I meant? (as for "appears to be making fun of mental illness"; I have this condition and I wasn't offended. As it happens, if anything I'm more offended by your use of the term "mental illness". But, of course, you don't have to believe me. —Random8322007-01-25 17:05 UTC (01/25 12:05 EST))
• I have started a fairly similar discussion to this on the Aspergers talk page. See both talk:Asperger syndrome#Assburger issue and talk:Asperger syndrome#Pronounciation. Simply south 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I don't think any reader with an ounce of common sense would spell anything phonically if it clearly appeared to be a nonsensical, compound slang word. The mere presence of this redirect insults the intelligence of any person that goes on Wikipedia. Yanksox 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yanksox said all that needed to be said, and if common sense was actually common then we wouldn't need even that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Common sense isn't that common. Even if someone knows "assburger" can't be right, they may well have no idea what the right spelling is. We still ought to make it possible for them to find the right page. Fan-1967 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That logic would lead to an indefinite number of redirects. We can help users who don't know the exact spelling of "Asperger's" without resorting to infantile jokes about the disorder. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • How? If someone heard a reference on TV to something that sounds like "assburger" (and I've heard what sounded like that pronunciation dozens of times), and they were curious to get information on it, how would they find the article? Fan-1967 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • This is absurd. Any adult who thinks he heard "Assburger" would immediately think, "That's not right," and try other spellings It requires the tiniest sliver of common sense. Anyone over the age of 8 should be able to figure out that "Assburger" is NOT the name of a developmental disorder. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • But "should" does not translate to "will". For that matter, why would someone hearing it on the TV know it was a developmental disorder, and not just an insult? -Amark moo! 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Read my comments more carefully - I never said "should." I said "would." I don't find the idea that anyone over the age of eight would mis-hear it and not immediately self-correct to be even a tiny bit plausible. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • How would they know it's not a valid name? Not possible that it could be a real name? Many German names start in "Ass". Many end in "burger". It's really not that implausible. Fan-1967 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I've never heard of a German name starting with "ass", could you cite sources on the statement that "many" such names do? >Radiant< 11:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Assmann --Random832(tc) 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore as redirect - It's definitely a likely misspelling. --adavidw 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore as redirect per Fan-1967. Flyingtoaster1337 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like anyone who claims that nobody with an ounce of common sense would think they heard correctly to visit this town please. -Amark moo! 05:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And then maybe send a letter to this guy. -Amark moo! 05:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • An Austrian town and a Brazilian man? Find a counterexample in English. Otherwise, you're just being argumentative. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Asperger isn't an English name. Fan-1967 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I never said that it was. The point is that I don't know of an English term that incorporates an offensive word (really, an offensive term) in the way that "Assburger" does. And again, even the impression that we're making fun of people with a developmental disorder is something to avoid. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • "even the impression ... is something to avoid" wtf are you talking about? --Random832(tc) 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • You assume that all people should know that no such name could possibly exist. I guess that they should likewise assume that there could be no such name as Assman or Assmann? This is not about your being offended by the name. This is about people being able to find the article. Fan-1967 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Swastika, Ontario. ColourBurst 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • In English? How about Arsenal? (or does UK English not count?) --adavidw 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Too lame; didn't read. Tossing a coin can settle this, unless it really needs to come to pistols at dawn over a mondegreen redirect. You couldn't make it up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Grow up. Proto::► 11:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and protect Readers looking for a term will likely enter what a term sounds like and expect to be redirected, like on Google. Until the Wikimedia software allows for improved search capabilities, there is no better answer than to create redirects for what the titles of articles "sound like," no matter how puerile. If people are really worried about this being an attack on the mentally ill, a protected redirect will at least stop it being an attack article. JChap2007 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore I can't understand the argument that this redirect should be deleted because it is a stupid phrase. I have a real hard time searching things that I don't know the specific name of on wikipedia and redirects are one of the better solutions where there is a similar sounding phrase that is a realistic search term. MLA 12:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion a redirect that's not a likely spelling mistake and insensitive as well.-- danntm ^T _C 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, and protect if wanted/necessary. I do think that there is probably a marginal possibility that one will mishear it, but it greatly outweighs any actual negative effects (which deletors have failed to point out.) Abeg92contribs 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This "innocent misspelling" involves three sound changes, with the first one being the difference between a "z" sound and a soft "s" sound. I also have difficulty with the change of "e" to u", and while the "p" to "b" switch is plausible it none-the-less completes the transformation from of the name of a syndrome into an insult derived from it. IMO, if someone is that lost then they are best off going to autism and linking to the article from there while gleaning the correct spelling. I therefore fail to see how the process did not work in this case. IMO, a judgement call had to made on this one, and it was. --EMS | Talk 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • the so-called '"e" to "u"' is actually ə (no change), and the "s" is in the original pronunciation, I don't know WHERE you're getting "z" from. And someone having heard it in a conversation might not know it's a variant of autism. —Random8322007-01-29 16:23 UTC (01/29 11:23 EST)
  • Like he said. Where I live, an "s" is never pronounced like a "z", "bur" and "ber" are pronounced exactly the same way, and same with "sp" and "sb". -Amark moo! 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's not a plausible spelling mistake. YechielMan 04:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion essentially because I think that the case for deletion in the first place was a good one. DGG 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Asperger's syndrome is not a joke, and the closing admin tok the right decision.--Newport 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that the redirect is intended as a joke - it is a VERY plausible misspelling (NOT a mispronunciation. That list of sound changes it supposedly requires is patent nonsense. We're supposed to believe that it's "properly" pronounced with /zp/? I'd like to see a minimal pair of that with either /sp/ or /zb/) --Random832(tc) 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If it stays, will it really hurt anyone? I mean, can't we give it the benefit of the doubt? Abeg92contribs 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure and restore the redirect. This was clearly created in good faith both the first time (here) and as a redirect. It is a plausible misspelling based on phonetic transcription of the correct name and is exactly what redirects are designed for. To answer MrDarcy's concern above, we don't go randomly creating redirects for every possible misspelling but once one has been created in good faith, we keep them around. As the old saying goes, "redirects are cheap." Restoring the redirect would also be consistent with the emerging consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23#Redirects to Asperger syndrome. Rossami (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It doesn't matter how it's "properly" pronounced, if it's meant to be a redirect from a mispronunciation. What matters is how it is pronounced. Calling for people's opinions that it's a reasonable error to make to be discounted is weird. -Amark moo! 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm the only one who's called for anyone's !votes to be discounted, and it's the ones who are saying that it's NOT a reasonable error who I think should be ignored, because THEY are making up random pronunciations to say how different this "mispronunciation" is from it and therefore implausible. /zp/, honestly? --Random832(tc) 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oopsies, I completely misread that. My point still holds, though; it doesn't matter what the correct pronunciation is. -Amark moo! 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think I'd be comatose from reading this if'n for the language course. It's a hard "g" btw. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of transfers of Serie A - 2007/2008 season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

No reason given by closing admin. WP:CRYSTAL was cited by many delete proponents, however, content was referenced and citations inserted. A message left on the closing admin's talk page has gone unanswered. Neier 12:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not required to give a reason for deletion of an AfD - I found consensus to delete, so I did. --Majorly (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Was that concensus after discarding the WP:CRYSTAL arguments? All but one delete comment (plus the nominator) mentioned speculative or WP:CRYSTAL. After most of those arguments had been made, documenting evidence was added to the article proving that it was neither speculative, nor WP:CRYSTAL. That is why I brought this to review. Neier 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying please don't expect me to give a reason. --Majorly (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Not enough discussion, discounting WP:CRYSTAL stuff, which is irrelevant with sources. -Amark moo! 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. A couple of references were added, to an otherwise nearly-empty article. I think relisting might be the best option. --Majorly (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment History restored for review. GRBerry 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Gawd, a list with two inhabitants. Nevertheless, WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid delete reason when the information about the future event is sourced. JChap2007 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Currently, just two; but the list will likely be much longer, ala List of transfers of Serie A - 2006/2007 season, as time goes on and more are announced. Neier 05:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I recently discovered the ProductWiki article was deleted from Wikipedia. I read the debate that lead to the deletion, and feel that the comments in the debate were unfair and inaccurate. I am a co-founder of ProductWiki, and we are not a spam wiki, nor new, nor an insignificant wiki. We have been growing for over 1 year, and have 13,000 products contributed by our community of almost 2,000 members. We provide a voice for the consumer, and have chosen the wiki format as the best medium.

As per the WP:WEB Web notability criteria, we meet criteria #1. We have been sourced multiple times in published works, including Popular Science magazine (both print and online), the Kitchener Record, and in Ben McConnell's latest book Citizen Marketers. Ekkalvia 15:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Popular Science link appears to be incorrect; it is totally unrelated.The Popular Science link gives only passing mentions. The Kitchener Record link was in the deleted article. "Mentioned in" is not the WP:WEB standard, "been the subject of" is. The amazon link doesn't help us know the extent of that book's coverage. Why the Kitchener Record link, which to my eyes is a clear slam dunk first piece of coverage, wasn't mentioned in the AFD I don't know. But one is not multiple, so where is #2? GRBerry 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Citizen Marketers was written by Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba of the popular marketing blog Church of the customer. He was on ABC Money matters discussing the book: link. As for #2, how about this feature in the University of Waterloo's newspaper: link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ekkalvia (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion, as AfD nominator. What new information was missing from the AfD debate? None presented as yet. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, do we need to make it clearer that you're not supposed to use DRV just because you disagree with consensus? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete, ProductWiki meets WP:WEB criteria number one by being the subject of two different printed independent publications. The Kitchener Record, and The University of Waterloo's Imprint Newspaper. In light of these two pieces of factual evidence that ensure ProductWiki meets the standard for inclusion, I don't see how this can even be debated further. The other "mentioned in" articles further strengthen the point of significance. All arguments made in the original deletion debate to form consensus were uninformed. Now, with the full information come to light I see no other reasons for deletion to be a consideration. If people have an opinion about the quality, integrity or "spamness" of ProductWiki then they should come up with objective observations to justify this viewpoint and place it inside the Wikipedia article for ProductWiki. (full disclosure: I am also a co-founder of ProductWiki). Omarismail 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... no, it is not the subject of those two publications... -Amark moo! 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see how there's any dispute about the KW Record article. As for the Imprint article, it's about ProductWiki and more specifically how I (as a founder) was able to find and utilize the resources available to me to benefit the business. Can you guys help me out here to understand the spitefulness I sense here? I mean, everybody against is simply giving one line answers that don't really justify anything. The only reasonable response given so far was a comment that agreed with the Record article "a slam dunk" was the term used, and requested for another article, which has subsequently been provided. If the Imprint article isn't sufficient as an independent publication then please explain why and point to the relevant Wikipedia policies that define what an article is "about", because it's definitely more than a passing mention.Omarismail 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No, the Imprint article is about the UW program, including, as an example, ProductWiki. That's really not more than a passing mention. -Amark moo! 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • "As an example" is being inaccurate, such a statement implies that ProductWiki is just one among many, when in fact the article focuses entirely on ProductWiki and me. I'm the only person who is interviewed, and the entire piece revolves around my experiences and my advice, with information as to what I've done and where it's got me with the site. The article would mean nothing if you took away the context that these are my experiences with launching ProductWiki. And fundamentally, this makes the article about ProductWiki. But it's about the site in a different way. It's behind the scenes kind of information. That's why I said the word "about" in regards to "publications about the site" is ambiguous. Do the referenced pieces have to be strictly about the site itself and factual information concerning the site like an encyclopedic entry? Or can the piece examine other aspects to the organization not just the web address itself? This isn't defined in the policy, and for now is up to people's judgements. Now, let's go back to the original point of this entire discussion and the essense of the policy, is ProductWiki a notable and significant site? If ProductWiki wasn't notable and insignificant then there would be no reason to interview me as a success since my product would be unknown. It's precisely because ProductWiki is notable and significant that the article exists. This is the independent, objective, unbiased real world references that Wikipedia is looking for to determine notability.Omarismail 07:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)— Omarismail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• once more, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
• Repeating, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article. Could someone explain the purpose of having an appeals procedure if it has to depend on memory of the original process? I remember someone said once that it is enough to look at the arguments during the afd, but this and many other DelRev involve the original article. DGG 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case, you certainly don't need the article. The issue is if there is new information here that wasn't considered or if it was closed incorrectly, not anything else. Unanimous decisions are pretty clear consensus, so that leaves new information. Nothing requires the article, regardless of what some people would like. -Amark moo! 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't be dismissive of ordinary users requests for notice, openness, fair process and access to information in AfDs and DRs. These are not trivial concerns. I am not weighing in on the merits here. At issue is "will editors work be destroyed in a manner that is not involved in edit disputes." Histories are removed. It is a "Kafka-tutional" issue. I agree with the need for reasonable access. Edivorce 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Edit history restored for this review. ~ trialsanderrors 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. The book and the major article (neither of which showed up at the AfD) give the impression that it likely meets WP:WEB. More eyes at the AfD, and perhaps a clearer review of the book, would generate a consensus of more than 4 editors. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete Now that I can see the edit history, I endorse the deletion, because there is no evidence whatsoever of the significance of this site.DGG 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The Piotr Blass article was deleated after AfD#1 and AfD#2, largely because of lack of Wikipedia:Notability. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion. I took the new information and created a draft article here, which I would like to be included as the Piotr Blass article. The article talk page requests that this article be discussed prior to recreating it. Please review the draft article and take the steps necessary to have it included as the Piotr Blass article (relisting, overturn, etc.). Thank you. -- Jreferee 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• RelistUnsalt There seems to be adequate evidence of notability here, and at least some of the substantial problems of the first AFD have been solved. As for the second, it was closed as speedily deleted under G4, so the first AFD is more important. Maintaining it in an NPOV state may be difficult given the prior history. I'm hoping the proposer here will help watch over it. GRBerry 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Actually, advertising it via AFD probably won't help avoid the past problems, so I've reconsidered and am willing to just let it move in. GRBerry 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question Can anyone think of any way this article can be maintained, and not turned into a vanity piece to the greater glory of Piotr Blass, once it hits article space and he creates a new sockpuppet? Anyone want to spend eternity patrolling, reverting and protecting it? I'm reminded of myg0t or GNAA. Seriously, is having an article on this guy worth the trouble? Fan-1967 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-list Since the current state is not what was discussed in AfD, so it should be discussed again. I note that even in the recreation, it contains the NPOV phrase, "despite his qualifications" in section 1.2 , the section on family law 1st para is irrelevant, and the other paras written with a POV slant. And the final section has has POV and irrelevancies. I strongly urge Jreferee to improve it substantially before the AfD discussion.DGG 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - far far better than the original and now appears to meet WP:BIO, good work Jreferee! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt. I do not want to think of the precedent we'd set if we refused a well-referenced article on a notable thing because it might be turned into a vanity piece. I don't know why it's necessary to relist; it's really much better. -Amark moo! 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist but wouldn't object much to a simple unsalting. I still would prefer this to be relisted because since even hough this version is much better it still isn't clear to me if he is notable. In particular, it isn't clear to me if he meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO (by nature, pieces that are purely interviews are not terribly useful) and I have slight concerns about there being OR in the new draft, especially regarding his children. JoshuaZ 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominating for AfD is perfectly within anybody's editorial discretion. In fact, I would prefer that this gets nominated editorially. ~ trialsanderrors 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I unsalted it. I don't see a speedy criterion that could possibly apply now. ~ trialsanderrors 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Saul Kaiserman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

I'd ask that you undelete that bio/article. In support of my request, and in response to the criticisms made of the bio/article's noteworthiness, I am attaching some of my notes and relevant links below.

Saul Kaiserman is a recognized leader in the field of Jewish education, and an opinion leader in the scholarship re: birkat hamazon

• Kaiserman's thesis has been reprinted on an independent website: lookstein.org
• Curriculum has been written based upon ideas gleaned from Kaiserman's writings on birkat. lookstein.org
• Kaiserman was an invited/featured speaker at the Limmud 2007 conference on birkat and other topics in Jewish education: limmudny.org
• On the subject of treatment of eating disorders in the Jewish community: atid.org
• Of course, there's also the self-published scholarship: newjewisheducation.blogspot.com
• On other topics: shma.com, my.mli.org.il, bjeny.org
• And he has influenced other scholars: urj.org

Devincohen 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment linked in AFD2, which had the delete result. GRBerry 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: This is blatant antisemitism. Kaiserman has accomplished a tremendous amount in the field of Jewish education, a fact that was made abundantly clear in the entry (and above). The only way one could disregard the level and magnitude of achievements as being unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia is to begin with an a priori hostility to the field itself. —The preceding Wolfpowers (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment Calm down. People of all sorts of racial/ethnic/religious/cultural/whatever backgrounds get deleted. This decision has nothing to do with anti-semitism (furthermore, as a piece of advice, Wikipedians are unlike to look favorably upon claims of anti-semitism without a wikipolicy based reason for overturning).
• Endorse deletion The AfD was procedurally correct and seems to have reached the correct conclusion. He does not meet the notability criterion for an individual. Now if we had multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources about him we could have an article. But we don't. JoshuaZ 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD, no reliable sources from which to fix the article. Also, this appears to be Devincohen's fourth edit. Devin, do you normally contribute anonymously? Wolfpowers also seems to have very few edits. Both have a long period of absence from the project and have suddenly re-appeared now. Lovely to see you again, both. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (Duplicate removed) Fair question, Guy. Read lots, Try only to edit when I have something new and substantive to add. In this case, while it may be mostly to a niche interest area, I believe that Saul Kaiserman has made significant contributions. Further, he has held some high profile jobs in the area, and is currently a fellow in a well-regarded institute for mid-career educators. Finally, I hope that I will not be judged for trying to write smarter, rather than merely more.Devincohen 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Valid afd and I'm not seeing anything reliable/substantive in the new sources which would suggest an overturn for consideration under WP:PROF Bwithh 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/Restore I realize "independent research" may include personal experiences, but I have worked with Saul Kaiserman in my capacity as a Reform Rabbi. He is the foremost up-and-coming Jewish educator in this area (greater NYC and perhaps the whole East Coast). I don't have websites that say that, but I know that from individual experience. He is has begun to revolutionize Jewish education in religious schools. This isn't a big field and likely doesn't have lots of websites about it, but it is a field that affects the entire Jewish community/future. It you know little about the field of contemporary progressive Jewish supplemental education, I imagine this doesn't seem important to you. But millions of jewish kids go to Sunday School. Kaiserman is changing the whole model. I strongly endore overturning the deletion and allowing additional information to be found/added. JerseyRabbi 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Acount created 1/24/07
• Endorse deletion, zero independent sources. If you can come up with the Jerusalem Post article and some New York Times, Post, Newsday, etc., articles which have him as the prime focus and discuss how he is changing education, then rewrite. But the latest version was lots of puffery with no reliable sources. Dang, those Wikipedia policies on verifiability must be anti-Semitic. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Straighforward, proper and clear AfD discussion and result. None of the links provided above convince me that the result was incorrect. Agent 86 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I see no faults in the AfD. CharonX/talk 01:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• relist on the basis that some of the sources cited by the nominator here are in fact independent sources, & of considerable importance, and that the inclusion of his work there testifies to his notability. Eg lookstein.org, which somewhat to my surprise i found an impt. organization with diverse support. I do not know what his bio looked like, but an adequate one could be written. DGG 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak relist per above. I'm not entirely sure that the sources are good enough, and he's at best marginally notable. -Amark moo! 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn / Restore Additional independent, verifiable sources demonstrating his leadership: Saul Kaiserman serves on the Board of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation http://www.jewishpartisans.org/t_switch.php?pageName=board+of+directors# (click on 'advisory board'). Mr. Kaiserman serves on the Board of Directors of the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center http://www.isabellafreedman.org/about_us/board.shtml Saul Kaiserman is on the speaker's bureau of the Coalition of the Environment and Jewish Life, whose website lists additional credentials and areas of expertise: http://www.coejl.org/speakers/kaiserman_s.php Mr. Kaiserman is a Jerusalem fellow of the Mandel Leadership Institute: http://mandel.mli.org.il/MandelCMS/English/ProgramsEn/JerusalemFellows/Fellows/ Bobmedford 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) — Bobmedford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• undelete and relist I think there will be a real effort for better sources and detail made if more people have a chance at it again. If the article were visible I would try it now. DGG 05:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a reason, that's a wish. (double vote struck) --Calton | Talk 07:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment: This is Saul Kaiserman here. I just wanted to say that while I always was amused that there was a wikipedia entry about me, I don't necessarily consider myself to be "encyclopedia-worthy." On the other hand, I'd say a substantial percentage of what I am glad is included in the Wikipedia would probably be considered as being of dubious merit. Further, I suspect that most people who google me have appreciated finding the information that was in my entry. Regarding this current conversation, I doubt seriously that most of the people commenting here are in any way qualified to know what credentials would make one appropriate to be considered a "cutting-edge Jewish educator." I also suspect that few of you have actually done any serious research into the links that were provided - saying "I haven't found anything to overturn the AfD" is like saying "I haven't found any evidence that he isn't a pig-f**ker, so he must be." A lot of people think that "superfluous entries" mar the credibility of the Wikipedia, but from my perspective, it is the amount of time people waste on arguments like this one that truly demonstrates the limitations of its volunteer-driven character. One would think that any of you commenting here would find the Wikipedia better served by working to improve and edit the truly substantial entries, not decrying the superfluous and ultimately irrelevant ones. Think Fred 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• saying "I haven't found anything to overturn the AfD" is like saying "I haven't found any evidence that he isn't a pig-f**ker, so he must be." Not even close, User:Saulkaiserman. To repeat what's said frequently, this is an examination of process, not AFD Round 2: the burden is on you to show any flaws.
• I doubt seriously that most of the people commenting here are in any way qualified to know what credentials would make one appropriate to be considered a "cutting-edge Jewish educator." Your appeal to authority aside, your obvious conflict of interest means that you're not not really qualified to assert your importance.
• One would think that any of you commenting here would find the Wikipedia better served by working to improve and edit the truly substantial entries, not decrying the superfluous and ultimately irrelevant ones. Removing the superfluous, inappropriate, and irrelevant indeed raises the overall quality level here, and it's certainly a false dichotomy to claim one comes at the expense of the other. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I believe that the administrator allowed people's personal bias to interfere with the rational approach to this debate. The fact that people disagree with the tactics that caused the name LoHo to come into play 10 years ago do not take away the fact that it indeed has come into play. Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The decision was biased and did not account for the name's real use and notoriety.Juda S. Engelmayer 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Duplicate removed)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD; consensus was that the name is not notable. Saying "Yes it is!" isn't grounds to overturn it. If you have sources establishing notability that were not mentioned, it's fine, but you do not. -Amark moo! 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I fail to understand why an entry is rejected because its origins can be traced to a commercial source. The term LoHo has been in use well before LoHo Realty existed, it is part of the names of several establishments and it is a legitimate reference to a distinct geographic area. By deleting it the editors of this service are saying it isn't there; indeed they are endeavoring to make it not be there. Does not compute. YyanoverYyanover
  • It implies no such thing. The mere fact of existing doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article; third-party articles in reliable sources do. ColourBurst 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Close was in accordance with the guideline WP:NEO, which requires secondary sources about the term before we cover it. It was also within reasonable admin discretion even if that guideline didn't govern the outcome. GRBerry 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - won't endorse myself, but the consensus was clear. Proto::► 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as Originator I did not realize it was a consensus vote. I thought if you showed that it was in use (in 20 articles), it demonstrated viability. Were the references ignored and only the consensus adhered to? Juda S. Engelmayer 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If the "20 articles" were from reliable sources and documented the name as being in wide use, rather than minor passing mentions and blog postings and one article mentioning this as a neologism, and if anything demonstrated that the term has been influential in anything except naming one agency, then the references would have overruled any number of "delete" votes that didn't give a valid policy reason. The consensus of the commenting editors and the closing admin was that those references were not sufficient for WP policy, and I agree. They weren't ignored, they were found not to establish notability. Barno 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. I see no evidence that the closing admin was swayed by anyone's bias. The admin gave a clear and cogent reason as to why he chose to delete it. Nothing in that reasoning seems to be "irrational". Agent 86 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse perfectly reasonable assessment of the debate. I'm struggling to see how Proto "allowed" anything here, all he did was weigh up the arguments, which seem to me to be pretty clearly on the side of deletion. What am I missing here? Guy (Help!) 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Since I was involved in the AfD debate I won't endorse, but I'm not at all clear what abuse of process User:Judae1 is alleging. It's not that people ignored his wall of footnotes, it's that we didn't agree with him that they supported notability, and he seems to be taking it personally. --Polonius 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• reverse for further discussion I did vote to keep in the AfD, on the grounds that neighborhoods with a distinctive name used in newspapers about other than real estate (I don't consider such pages necessarily a RS in these matter) were notable, & this has been. I think it may have been preconceived notions. DGG 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment as Afd initiator - I won't endorse one way or the other, but given that WP:NEO is explicit about requiring multiple independent, reliable sources that are about, and not simply mention, the subject, which of the sources listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/LoHo verify that LoHo a widely recognized name and/or the topic isn't redundant with Lower East Side, Manhattan? The Miami Herald/KC Star piece seems to come the closest, but the others either aren't RS or mention LoHo in passing (and one doesn't mention the neighborhood at all, referring instead to Lindsay Lohan and a club in MePa). Mosmof 03:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) MePa?

Lotus in on Clinton St at Attorney. 207.237.54.86 03:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're thinking of the Lotus Lounge at Clinton and Stanton (Clinton and Attorney don't intersect). The blog post in question is talking about Lotus, Lindsay Lohan's (or "Lindsay LoHo-Ho-Ho-Han") hangout on 14th. Mosmof 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Would it be valid to redirect to Lower East Side, Manhattan? --NE2 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about that - a part of me thinks, since it's a duplicative topic, it makes sense and it can't do any harm. But I also have to ask, if the LoHo term fails WP:NEO, wouldn't you not use the term, and wouldn't this legitimize the term as much as an article space would? Ytny 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to Ytny "wouldn't you not use the term, and wouldn't this legitimize the term...?" The term is already in use, article space or not. Your question can be interpreted as yielding to those opposed to the term itself for whatever reason. While not on the same scale, it is like taking a poll of those who like the name "Hell's Kitchen" and deciding that it does not merit mention, even though well established and used, because people don't like it. Or, to be more political, and also to a considerably lesser degree, it is tantamount to American voters who do not like the current admininistration and therefore say, "he's not my president." Well, yes he is. Same here. I would think mention of the name on the Lower East Side page would be a decent compromise, and would acknowledge, that while some of the references may not be from what Wiki considers reliable sources, they are not shills set up for this article, and they are a representation of how the many among the New Lower East Siders feel.Juda S. Engelmayer 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand my point. I guess "legitimize" was the wrong term, but it's too early in the day for me to think of a better term. Anyway, there would be no issue with "Hell's Kitchen", or even its new dastardly new moniker, "Clinton", because both names have been the subject of multiple books and articles from reliable sources. And multiple, non-trivial sources have established that George W. Bush is in fact my president.

    It may be true that "LoHo" is widely used, but remember that Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth; its only interest is verifiability. President Bush and Hell's Kitchen (and Clinton) meet the tests for notability, LoHo doesn't.

    As for the mentions, I don't want to be draconian about WP, but the WP:NEO has been established for a good reason and I think it applies in this case. The vast majority of the mentions aren't RS, and given the amount of press and blogospheric coverage the neighborhood receives every day, I'm not sure if the cited sources amount to much more than a drip in the bucket. If you're going to go against a well established policy, there should be a very compelling reason, and I have yet to hear one.

    Also, I don't think a mention in the Lower East Side article wouldn't be a terrible idea, but it'll depend on the context. What you're suggesting seems to resort to original research. Again, what is the compelling reason to go against policy? Ytny 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you. That was clear and probably the most informative reply I have seen on this.Juda S. Engelmayer 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion This was in process and sources were discussed and determined to be insufficient to meet the guidelines. People did get a little upset about the spamminess of the article, but that does not change the fact that the reasoning for deletion was sound. Plus, you cannot start a food fight and try to stick WP with the dry cleaning bill. JChap2007 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I tried a Google News search of the term LoHo, and there was a relevant hit 3 days ago from The New York Observer, an actual newspaper, but... it was documenting Wikipedia's recent deletion of the LoHo article! I thought this was an interesting case of a technical RS that obviously doesn't count, but for all I know there's already a definitive policy on such circular referencing. --gwc 21:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  It sounds like that wouldn't count as a source about LoHo under the notability policy because the source is about the article and not about LoHo itself. JChap2007 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • • Also, it's from the NYO Real Estate blog, not NYO proper. It's more reputable than the average blog, but it still takes the "Take what I say with a grain of salt" approach that most blogs take. Plus, since they operate by relaying reader tips and news in other media outlets, they're only reliable as their sources are. I've written for a site within a fairly notable blog network, and the primary concerns are drawing traffic and meeting the daily quota, journalistic standards be damned. Ytny 07:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment **The Village Voice, not sure if it is a Reliable Source, had a story called LES is more, and it talks about the "boutiquification" of Loho. See this link Village Voice, LES Is More, by Sarah Ferguson, March 22 - 28, 2000. It states,

"He limits his study to the area south of 14th Street and north of Houston, ignoring the recent boutiquification of the old Jewish quarter south of Houston, dubbed "Loho," where an Orchard Street condo just sold for $1.1 million."

While it is stil not the feature on the name, it is about the neighborhood and mentions "dubbed Loho" Juda S. Engelmayer 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Loho will still remain the name of a place, if only a fictional colony in the fantasy world of Wayard. For now, while easily accesible by the "F" Train, it will have to be thought of as place on the continent of Anagra's west coast that can only be accessed by ship. I do appreciate the effort and time here, and do believe that you'll see it again arise as a place that doesn't only exist in fantasy or for real in the Barangay of Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, province in the Philippines. New York awaitsJuda S. Engelmayer 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You still seem confused about Wikipedia's basic principles. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something exists or is true is not enough of a reason to include it in Wikipedia.

For example, my girlfriend exists (really!), and that she doesn't have her own Wikipedia article doesn't change the fact. But if she does get a profile in NY Times and Bob Woodward pens her bio, then she's probably going to get herself a Wikipedia article. In fact, even if my girlfriend didn't exist (but she does, I swear!), she'd actually get herself a Wiki article if the Economist and Time wrote feature articles about my imaginary girlfriend. Why? Because my imaginary girlfriend is notable enough for reliable journalists, people whose job depends on knowing what is and isn't notable, to waste their precious time and energy writing about her.

The point I'm making with this admittedly far fetched example is that existence or truthfulness is irrelevant. The key is notability. When something is notable, notable media will talk about it. And this is why Narnia (world), a land of make believe, has an article, and LoHo, a real life location, doesn't. It doesn't matter that one is more real or important than others.

As for your specific example, I don't see how the Village Voice article helps your case. Notice that the writer left "LoHo" in quotes, which I interpreted to mean that she doesn't really think the name is established. You might disagree, but that's precisely the point - if it's open to interpretation, then it's not verifiable. And the phrase "dubbed 'LoHo'" can easily be read to mean, "dubbed 'LoHo' by realtors, but not too many others". Again, you might disagree, which is why Wikipedia demands multiple independent sources talking about the subject, so there's no room for interpretation. Ytny 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Overturn: Another big webcomic deleted in Naconkantari (talk • contribs) spree in the beginning of this month. The comic is hosted on Keenspot and published in print by them as well, meeting WP:WEB. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, probably list at AfD. Meets WP:WEB, but should get a full hearing at worst. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Requestor gave us the disambiguation page, not the webcomic article, which clearly is the one wanted from the text of the appeal. I've updated the links. GRBerry 14:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on the basis of new information. I can't see what the claim of notability made in the article is. We've determined recently that just being hosted at Keenspot isn't adequate, even if it took two AFDs and two DRVs on a single article to get there, so the Keenspot bit is not a reason to list. However, in the article, the bit about the book (quoted in full: "Funny Farm vol. 1") is preceeded by a call to {{future book}}, so the article was only claiming that it might be published in print in the future. Yet we have Image:Funny Farm volume 1.jpeg, which purports to be the cover of said book, so I can believe it was published in print although the article didn't make the claim. Those wanting the article should be prepared to verify that it is indeed in print, probably by finding the ISBN number. If it survives AFD, the article will need cleanup; it fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) by having in universe content and spoilers dominate the article. GRBerry 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When did we determine that Keenspot wasn't adequate? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that was Dayfree Press, not Keenspot, in the Able and Baker mess earlier this month. The issue is identical however. GRBerry 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. How I miss actually endorsing A7 deletions... -Amark moo! 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I suppose, since the nomination implies that being on Keenspot amounts to an assertion of notability. If you didn't know that (I didn't) then it would look a lot like a valid A7. Needs to be AfD'd though because it reads as 100% original research with not one source outside of the comic itself. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of literary works with eponymous heroines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

follow-up deletion, no thorough discussion <KF> 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

At first there was no request for deletion at all. Rather, a contributor was hoping that the companion article, List of literary works with eponymous heroes (that one still very much work in progress), would be improved. As no deletion was requested, "speedy close" of discussion was suggested. However, at that point someone who had never contributed to either page (User:Apostrophe) suddenly requested deletion. In the wake of the ensuing debate (about the definition of "hero", whether it could ever be NPOV, where participants misinterpreted the literary term as a moral judgement), attention was also paid to the corresponding "female" list. Its deletion was only requested by four contributors (who had never contributed to it), and one of the major reasons cited was that now, after the deletion of its "male" counterpart, the list was "orphaned". In fact it had existed since 2003, had always been carefully maintained (not just by myself but also by other contributors who also seem to have been unaware of the deletion process) and is linked to by more than 20 pages.

I request undeletion as this list serves at least two purposes: to show all those involved in the WikiProject Novels which articles are still missing, and mainly because it serves as a survey of works of literature with eponymous female protagonists. Minor problems—what should be included, what not, etc.—could be easily discussed, and resolved, on the talk page.

• If you want to create a list of missing novels in project space as part of your WikiProject, go right ahead. Consensus was pretty clear here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes that these lists are not suitable for mainspace due to their arbitrary nature. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Such a list can be of interest not just to members of this particular WikiProject but to all students of literature. There is nothing whatsoever arbitrary about individual authors deciding to call their novel after the female protagonist (for example, you can notice a marked increase in the second half of the 19th century, what with "fallen women" becoming "heroines" etc.). Also, this list also included/includes all literary genres (drama and poetry). Finally, you are referring to the wrong deletion discussion. There is no mention of what you are referring to at the "female" counterpart. <KF> 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:USEFUL. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - Hero or Heroine is a well known literary term and should be seen as such. These debates are often small minded and often without specialist knowledge of the field envolved. Both articles should be reinstated, however work to cite and reference items included should be added. More examples of the binning of perfectly good (albeit incomplete work). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus was clear (especially if the two AfD's are looked at in tandem). A list of missing novels belongs in the project space. Eluchil404 12:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If it belongs in the project space, it should've been moved instead of deleted.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But this wasn't that list. This was a list with poorly defined and indescriminant criteria for membership. My point was that the "redlinks are useful" argument applies to projectspace not mainspace. Eluchil404 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There was a clear consensus, and your reasons for overturning it are a bunch of arguments about how it's useful (which is not a criterion for inclusion), how you worked on it (again, not a criterion), and a bunch of blasting of the people who recommended deletion. Nothing convincing. -Amark moo! 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above Bwithh 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Consensus was clear in the AFD. The very nature of a wiki is that no editor or group of editors owns any content, and any editor can begin adding or removing material at any time. GRBerry 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus in both AfDs. I see no procedural error and cannot think of anything that could be said differently about this article that could not be said about the companion article. I also see no reason why the opinion of those who did not contribute to the article ought to be discounted. Agent 86 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy restore although I can feel that if people who have hardly any idea about the subject-matter can vote on this there is no hope. "Consensus was clear"? What does that mean? What would an "unclear consensus" be? Why do only the "endorse deletion" arguments count but not the "restore" arguments? If, as GRBerry says above, "any editor can begin adding or removing material at any time", how can I add the material that has been deleted? Whycreateanaccount 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I really don't appreciate being turned into a target and implied to be akin to a "destructive" Cro-Magnon with no appreciation for the finer arts because I don't contribute to your cherished articles. Wikipedia isn't a personal playground for for you; there are other kids, and they do get a say. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that was just nasty. Especially since there seems to be some sympathy towards moving the list into project space, so no work would be lost. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. Yes, I agree with Guy that it was indeed nasty to delete the list. A noteworthy collection of titles whose unifying criterion is that the heroine gives the book its title. The criteria are in no way indiscriminate (that's what you mean by "indescriminant", right?). For example, DuMaurier's Rebecca was excluded because the character of Rebecca actually never appears in the novel etc. The list would have been the basis of more extensive work of the typology sort, like creating various types of heroines etc. Where can I get hold of that list? I jsut dont believe someone had it deleted. Wikikiwi 10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. If you look up my user contributions now it may seem I hardly ever contribute, but many of my edits were this list.

• • It's indiscriminate because there's no actual connection between the novels. "creating various types of heroines"? Are you sure that isn't original research? Furthermore, the "nasty" is referring to my name being dragged through the mud. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore The lists were useful and as said above the term "hero" or "heroine" is a valid term in literature. Even if this is still part of the argument against the list, why not change the name of the list to "List of books with female eponymous protagonists" and the same for the male counterparts? Tartan 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:USEFUL. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists, where the word "useful" is used in an official Wikipedia guideline ("useful for development purposes"). <KF> 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore I'm editing now for the first time, but I have been using this list as a point of reference for I suppose more than 3 years. I don't know if I'm doing the right thing here, I found this page via the What links here button on the talk page. Sorry if I have made a mistake, if so please delete this again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.65.173.162 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion per consensus here. >Radiant< 15:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here. <KF> 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • PS The main objection brought forward against this list is its arbitrariness ("an indiscriminate collection of titles", "there's no actual connection between the novels"), i e the lack of a criterion by which you can tell whether an item fits into the list or not. Now if that is true, I suppose a list such as the List of unusual deaths—"unique causes or extremely rare circumstances throughout history", as it says in the introductory sentence—will even more so violate Wikipedia's official policy against arbitrariness.
  • The reasons are clear. Not only are book titles verifiable (no problem at all, any publisher's or library catalogue will do) whereas death "by having a red-hot iron inserted into one's anus" (Edward II of England, 1327) may be "apocryphal," it is also highly subjective and POV whether you consider a certain death "unusual". Any lifelong militant non-smoker dying of lung cancer plus their family and friends will tell you they think their imminent death is not just unfair but also "unusual" although we know that 13.4 per cent of lung cancer deaths are not attributable to smoking and are thus not "unusual" at all. As far as lists of works of literature are concerned, while the content of a particular book may be controversial, a book title hardly ever is. You couldn't possibly say, "I don't think Mrs Dalloway is the title of the book and at the same time the name of the female protagonist, do you?" On the other hand, what, pray, is so "unusual" about suffering a fatal heart attack during a discussion, which happened to Alexander Woolcott in 1943?
  • Consequently, one might think, the List of unusual deaths will already have met its maker, maybe even have been speedy-deleted. However, this page reveals that the list has even been a Featured list candidate.
  • Don't get me wrong here. This is the first time I've come across that list, and I thoroughly enjoyed browsing through it, so under no circumstances would I want to see it deleted either. The whole point of knowledge is that isolated items of knowledge are cross-referenced, grouped and regrouped under a broad variety of titles and categories so that new insights can be gained. In that context someone even pre-emptively resorted to Wikipedia's "no original research" argument just because someone who would like to see the list restored pointed out that they were planning—privately, I suppose—to use the list as the starting point of some further categorisation.
  • So rather than having some more "Endorse deletion per consensus" or "Endorse deletion per above" votes by experienced voters or critical comments saying that unusual deaths are not the issue here (I know that very well), could someone actually explain to me what makes that other list—a random choice by the way—so much more eligible for inclusion than the female protagonists? <KF> 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As you so kindly reminded us, "Let me point out again that the consensus you are referring to concerns a different article, not the one under consideration here." Either precedent counts or it doesn't. You're also assuming that we approve of that article when you have no basis for believing as such. I know I don't. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless, featured list candidacy proves absolutely nothing. Anybody can do such to any list, and for you to use this for your support is deceptive, implying that only exemplary or consensus-approved lists get this. Especially with the fact that there was absolutely no support for it becoming a featured list. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "Deceptive" is a strong word, and I don't like being called a deceiver. This I'm afraid is no basis for a discussion. Whom should I want to deceive anyway if all I'm doing is asking for an explanation not why the List of unusual deaths has, or has not, or has almost been, awarded Featured List status but why it has survived two Votes for Deletion although, by all standards of objectivity, it is far more "arbitrary" than the Female Protagonists ever could become. I've never understood what makes individuals so set upon having something removed which they could easily ignore while at the same time others would benefit from it. This deletion has already driven away one (more or less potential) contributor to the literature articles, and I can well imagine that Wikikiwi might also stop contributing if what they say—that they mainly contributed to this list—is true (which I can no longer verify because the edits have been eradicated from their user contributions). Have it your way. There is no point in carrying on once it gets personal. And no, I'm not feeling chatty any more. <KF> 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Looking at the debate, it was clear that there certainly had been no consensus that lists in general were not suitable for article space. There may possibly have been some consensus about this particular list in the state it was in at the time, but it will take more than a single AfD to get a consensus on where lists can go--in fact, I do not think we will ever have a consensus about what to do with lists, though sometimes people (not represented here) have tried to remove individual ones on the basis of various pretended policies.

it was also clear that the debate there was really a personal fight which quickly diverged into unrelated issues. i don't think any decision made in that atmosphere should stand. I know I didnt participate because of the way it was going.

In fact, the same thing is happening again here. Some of the debate above is about other lists entirely. Some of it is about tobacco-related deaths. At least it isn't over-personal. DGG 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not seeing the relevance of your arguments. Lists aren't at debate here. An arbitrary list is. I'm also not seeing a "personal fight" in the AfD. Are you sure you're in the right debate? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula." Thus, rather than the list itself, its being singled out for deletion is arbitrary. <KF> 13:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you have any sort of argument beyond WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that I'm not spending my entire life nominating articles for deletion? I'm sorry I'm not a superhuman capable of nominating every article I don't like in Wikipedia. Not only do you have to find all of them, you'd have to exert yourself arguing against inclusionists. I'm not exactly in the mood to redo this same debate a thousand times over, you see. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • First of all, your not being "capable of nominating every article I don't like in Wikipedia" reveals the interesting insight that you are using a highly personal rather than an objective yardstick when it comes to assessing Wikipedia articles. You shouldn't do this while at the same time hiding behind various official guidelines such as "USEFUL" or "OTHERCRAP". Secondly, I have explained all my arguments above, and others have done so as well, but if each argument in favour of keeping/restoring this list is automatically met with disapproval of its validity, honestly, there is nothing to be added here. I have said so already, and I do not consider myself a loser for it. It's a sad thing that casual users accessing an article about an individual novel will from now on be denied the larger picture, that they will no longer be referred to the fact that there are many more works of literature with eponymous heroines they might want to consider, but that's the way it is. <KF> 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • You're grasping at straws. My dislike of Wikipedia articles is based on policy, whether you agree with my interpretation or not. The fact that I "don't like" things doesn't indicate a "highly personal yardstick". I also perplex at your hypocrisy; you are somehow allowed to dispute endorse opinions, but I am not allowed to do so in return? Please stop applying standards to your opponents that you cannot follow yourself. Furthermore, disallowing the opposing side to refute your points entirely defeats the purpose of debate. It's rather clear that you're letting this get too personal, as indicated by this (some of which can be taken as a personal attack). May I suggest a breather? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
            • As I said, there is nothing to be added to this deletion review. If you feel you can personally profit from that sort of thing, consider yourself the winner of this debate. All the best, <KF> 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I don't see any process problems with the deletion discussion nor do I see any way the closer could have interpreted the discussion any differently. The only person who commented at all favorably during the deletion discussion qualified his/her opinion with "Ultra weak keep". The companion discussion was also nearly unanimous. No new evidence has been presented above which convinces me that we should overturn the deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There were certainly no "process problems" in the deletion discussion. The only "process problem" I can think of (are there any others?) is the deletion of an article although a majority voted "keep", and this was certainly not the case. However, if one looks at the deletion process with the spirit rather than the letter of the law in mind, one will see that only four individuals took part in it—a very small number indeed— and that none of the regular contributors to this list took part (their own fault, according to the letter of the law, I know, but they might have been notified just like every uploader of an image is when it is put up for deletion). By the way, the novel entitled Esther of course fits the criterion/criteria for inclusion: Almost every novel has "A Novel" as its subtitle; in that particular case it served as a disambiguation from the Esther page.
  • I am not sure what would count as "new evidence". I can only say again that what all the novels in the list have in common is that they have a female protagonist who at the same time gives the novel its title. The casual user/browser is led from an individual novel page to the list and there gets a survey of works of literature (not just novels) with the same or similar themes and motifs. It is from there that he/she can continue his/her reading/research.
  • Such a point of reference is important because it visualizes the interrelatedness of seemingly isolated pieces of knowledge (our Wikipedia categories serve exactly that purpose). <KF> 23:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That seems like a classic case of original research, doesn't it? Ytny 00:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • We had the "original research" argument before in this deletion discussion (see above). Please be precise and state what your "that" refers to. It can't be "original research" if a reader draws their own conclusions or starts seeing things in a different light, can it? So what do you mean? <KF> 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I admit, I can't really be arsed to wade through the wall of comments. But what I got from browsing just now is not that there was much of a "discussion" about original research, but rather a case of someone pointing it out and you brushing it aside. What I'm talking about specifically is this:

# Such a point of reference is important because it visualizes the interrelatedness of seemingly isolated pieces of knowledge (our Wikipedia categories serve exactly that purpose).

"Interrelatedness" and "seemingly isolated" are are purely your interpretation, as correct as they may be. That is about as pure a case of original research as you can get, asserting your own views and assuming reader interpretation. Ytny 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying here. Just as, say, 1967 in literature gives a whole list of isolated (seemingly isolated, yes, that's my claim) facts and figures, the heroine list lists isolated book titles. Users of Wikipedia cannot be prevented when they read "1967 in literature" from noticing that, for example, in that year more books were published by female authors than, say, in 1867 or 1767, can they? The "original research" clause was introduced because cranks were advancing their personal conspiracy or end of the world theories, not because some readers may be clever enough to think for themselves. <KF> 00:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speartip Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I request that this article would be fully restored. It was deleted on reasoning that it was a gaming clan, which is true, but also the fact that it is non-nnotable, this however is not true. The 'gaming clan' is a group of Warhammer 40k players who were set up in Game Workshops recent campaign. The group wasn't unnoticed and whose actions were featured in several of the weekly reviews of the Campaign, although the group wasn't mentioned by name, and in the final international conclusion for the race that the group fought for: Medusa V Conclusion (Paragraph 7) The group is also mentioned in another Wikipedia article: The Imperial 12th Army Group which is basically our equivalent but on the 'other' side. The group also intends to have a page on Lexicanum another wiki encyclopedia. Thank you for reviewing our case and the group apologises for any inconvenience. Speartip 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, could have been deleted via speedy deletion, let alone Articles for deletion. Valid A7, no good reason for undeletion. Proto::► 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7 (as was The Imperial 12th Army Group). Self-evident conflict of interest from the requester. Speartip, this is an encyclopaedia, not MySpace or a directory of gaming clans. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was not intended to be about the group, i.e trying to advertise it, but about the actual object the Speartip is, basically it is like other articles on Warhammer 40,000 and not about the group of people who set it up.

• Endorse deletion. There is absolutely no chance a minor-ish gaming clan from Warhammer would survive AfD; clans are rarely, if ever, notable. -Amark moo! 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. After AfD, the page was repeatedly recreated and then speedied. Non-notable gaming clan; and if it wasn't supposed to be about the group, why was it called 'Speartip Alliance'? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is what the subject is, it is in the world of Warhammer 40,000 a group of chaos lords who set up an alliance. Though as it was mentioned on the official warhammer website then surely it has as much right to be here as any of the other articles on things in Warhammer 40k such as the Medusa V article in which the Allaince was recognised in one of the campaign summarys (see original post). Just for complete clarification: what is calssed as a 'Gaming clan', I know what it is but I would be interested to know what the in-depth definition is. Speartip 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, let me see if I understand this (I don't play Warhammer 40k). You meant for the article to be about the fictional group, but still possibly containing some data about the real people who represent it? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not intentional for it to contain information about the people. If this is accepted then I shall make sure the page has no reference to the people and only to the Alliance. You may be interested to see the page on lexicanum: The Speartip Alliance Speartip 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just making sure. And I would like to point out that the article on Lexicanum has been marked as possible "Fan Fluff", which seems to be the same thing as fancruft. And besides, anybody can create an article on a wiki; that's the entire point. So I don't think we can use existence of an article on another wiki as notability evidence. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The notice on Lexicanum does make things look bad but it is mainly to do with the lack of sources which I have now provided, you can see that there is quite a lot of mention of the Alliance. The reason why I pointed out the article on Lexicanum is that it is somewhere where you can see what the article on Wikipedia would basically look like, with any required or requested ommisions. Speartip 17:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The "weekly reviews of the Campaign" do not meet WP:RS, and neither do the blogs and chatrooms. In general, game clans get featured coverage only from self-published sources, not from anything with fact-checking editorial staffs with real independence from the publisher; so they don't meet the core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without that, we can't use it, no matter how much interest a few dozen people may have. Barno 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is reliable as anything else to do with the Medusa V Campaign, Games Workshop could have not placed the group in the updates, as soon as it did so it became as official as Medusa V. There are no chatrooms on that sources list and if you are implying the group itself I request that you check my previous statesments on how the article will be about the written group and not the group of people. Speartip 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• But it is, to be charitable, non-canon. And that is always going to be a problem. You already have an article on the relevant specialist WIki, I'd leave it at that if I were you. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what any other administrators have to say first, if it isn't restored then i'll stick to the Lexicanum page. Speartip 08:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators or Mods feel free to close this review 15:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:MontenegroFairUse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

Template:SerbiaFairUse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|joint TfD)