Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 19

Another Anime Convention (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfDAfD2)

I had conceded my first argument, the strong keep due to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But throughout the discussion new sources and references had been added, and an entirely new claim to notability was introduced. Users such as Squilibob, SeanOrange, Farix, and PDelahanty had not had time to be exposed to the new information that was introduced. Also User:Roninbk and I were still discussing the verifiability of the new claims. Please ignore my first Strong Keep paragraph: I conceded that point. Instead, new information about the Convention (the fact that it is the only & largest in the state) had been added that other users did not have a chance to discuss. While this may or may not be of significant notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, that should be discussed in a new AfD, especially considering that most of the users that participated in this AfD never were exposed to the new material. Kopf1988 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - while there were claims of notability made, the editor above was not able to come up with acceptable references for the article. His most recent reference additions ([1] and [2]) were trivial mentions, and did not confer any notability or independent editorial opinion about the event in question. Also, editor's claim above that other editors had not had time to be exposed to the new information is based on what, exactly? Personal opinion, at best. Perhaps the other editors were not swayed by the references and saw no need to change their votes. In any event, the references provided were all either trivial, simple listings, or first-party citations, and the deletion should stand, as there was nothing out-of-order about the process, personal opinions from one camp aside. MikeWazowski 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The three sources were [3], [4], and [5], to show that the information was verifiable, the requirement for Wikipedia. Kopf1988 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The requirement is attribution to reliable sources, not simply verifiability. --Coredesat 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The attribution is to the AAC homepage, while verifiability to those other two sources. Kopf1988 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Statement of obvious logical error You can't assert attribution (and thereby notability) using the topic itself as a source. /Blaxthos 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Counterpoint - You can assert attribution using the topic itself so long as you can verify that the topic is not just puffing up itself. If RuneScape claims to be the only MMORPG, and Google/Dmoz/etc show it, then it would be included in Wikipedia, right? Kopf1988 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - This is simply not notable... if it were, it would assuredly be WP:ATTributable. Notability and attribution are wickedly intertwined. I believe that it's in poor taste to challenge other AfD contributors' opinions. I believe the appealing party has let WP:ILIKEIT cloud his judgement and application of our criterea for inclusion and sourcing, as evidenced by his vehement argument with every editor with whom he disagrees. /Blaxthos 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Just so you know, I've never been east of Chicago, so please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have argued with the other editors because I truly believe that this topic is notable. I'm fighting for that belief, not really for the convention. Kopf1988 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per two valid AFDs with no attributable information provided. --Coredesat 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - unless you can provide attributable sources, the topic is not notable.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - being the only or even being the largest in a state isn't automatic grounds for notability. I don't remember seeing a reference on the page so back up that claim anyway, was there one? And what about precedent? If we had articles for the largest anime convention in every state in America then we'd have to include the largest in every state in Australia, every province in New Zealand, UK, Canada, South Africa, etc etc. --Squilibob 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - ...for the exact same reason as above. It's what I would have posted if he didn't beat me to it. I know this is the largest anime con in NH, but that doesn't really matter. While it could help for notability, that fact alone does not establish notability, IMHO. --PatrickD 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It's just another Anime convention. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• But that doesn't make it unworthy of being noted, does it? Shrug I'll just wait for more sources on this years convention in October then. Kopf1988 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sad endorse deletion I love anime conventions (hell, I love anime conventions more than I love anime), but if there aren't reliable sources there can't be an article. It's that simple. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Shrug Oh well, its not like it won't be created again next year after some people write about its 2007 convention. I guess I'll just have to watch Fans View next October. Kopf1988 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reliable sources have been given, and they have to be attributable. --sunstar net^talk 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse There is no reason to giving me more time to reconsider my delete stance. The article continued to lack reliable third-party sources at the end of the AfD period nor was any evidence presented that such sources existed beyond the directory listings. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would recommend that this DRV be speedy closed since the whole reason for this review was to allow fore more time so that four editors can "admen" their comments. Since three of those four editors have already commented here endorsing the outcome, there is no point in going further for process sake. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Sufficiently notable term. This was first speedied, improperly in my opinion, as a neologism and a racist expression. I made a new version that I thought would pass G4, since it provided references to establish notability, but my rewrite was speedied as well. Of course it's an offensive term, but that doesn't mean it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. As to whether it's a neologism: yes, it doesn't appear in dictionaries. But the word has been used for a fairly long time. The earliest newspaper reference I could find with Lexis-Nexis was from 1991.The word was first listed in a slang dictionary in 1965. notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, invalid G4 as it has not gone through an entire AfD. Furthermore, the original speedy may not have been proper, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, slang dicdef at best, nonsense at worst. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Still needs an AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope. WP:CSD#G1 for nonsense, WP:CSD#G10 for attacks. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Not sure what the nonsense is, nor the attack. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Attack on Hispanics, nonsense (and arguably vandalism) in having an article illustrated with a picture of a tin of beans. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • So remove the vandalism, problem solved. We're not going to delete kike because it attacks Jews, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Which gets you WP:CSD#A1. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Doubtful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • How was the article an "attack on Hispanics"? It identified the word "beaner" as "a derogatory term" and explained its origins. Nowhere was the conversational use of said term endorsed. Had it been, that's what the "edit this page" link is for. Likewise, the image was inappropriate and should have been removed (though it didn't come close to being patently nonsensical). If I were to add this image to our kike article, should that be speedily deleted too?
            Additionally, the version of the article deleted by Jpgordon contained no image and several references. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - dicdef. Doesn't matter how notable it is, it is still a dicdef. I can't see any evidence that one could write an article that wasn't. Recreate as a redirect somewhere if you want.--Doc^g 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope, we don't need a debate to know it is a dicdef.--Doc^g 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, we do. I disagree with your assessment. If there were no room for such disagreement, "dicdef" would be a CSD. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Pretty much any offensive term that is widely used can be expanded beyond a simple dicdef with content explaining why or how it is offensive. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Note that my rewrite was speedied almost immediately, so you all may be thinking of the original version. Mine included a referenced part on the origin of the term, as well as references for why it's considered offensive, meaning it was more than just a dicdef. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Both speedy deletions were improper. I agree that a standalone article is unwarranted, but this can be simply be merged into and redirected to List of ethnic slurs (where the term already is listed). Of course, this should be decided at AfD, not here. —David Levy 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. My speedy of the recreation of a deleted article was proper, but the early closing of the AfD wasn't. Put it back on AfD. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly, CSD G4 doesn't apply to the re-creation of speedily deleted content. Secondly, the version that you deleted was not substantially identical to the version previously deleted. —David Levy 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, neither speedy deletion was valid - the subject of the article is a racial slur, but the article doesn't read like an attack page (so not G10), and the second speedy deletion was not valid because G4 does not apply to previous speedy deletions (that includes AFDs that result in the speedy deletion of the article). Give it a full AFD and let it be deleted that way. --Coredesat 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist Dicdef is not a reason for speedy--the article might reasonably have been prodded-- perhaps. I say "perhaps" for I cannot see it, and it might be more than a dicdef. Nor is it a reason for a speedy closure. Apparent abuse of process. DGG 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Both deletions were apparently improper, and it isn't our role to stifle the growth potential of articles that need it. RFerreira 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - The topic, IMO, can merit an article if written properly. Send back to AfD. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist well, firstly, it seems inappropriate for the article to not be at least a redirect; but in any case, it should go through the process of AfD. JuJube 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: Dicdef. Only claim to fame is that Mencia says it a lot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not AfD. "Dicdef" is not a CSD. —David Levy 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope, but we know we delete dicdefs, so an afd is unnecessary process at this point.--Doc^g 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, your determination that this was a dicdef is not sufficient justification for bypassing discussion. If it were, "dicdef" would be a CSD. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know where I am. Dicdef is not a CSD, but No Context is as well as attack page (racist against mexicans)⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Right, but neither of the above describes this article (especially the version deleted by Jpgordon). —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:SNOW. No sense in sending it to AFD when it's obvious that AFD will end up deleting it anyway. Not a bureaucracy, folks. >Radiant< 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Odd that you think this is so obvious that it would be deleted at AfD. I certainly can't predict the future, but I think this has a good chance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I predicted the above remark, so I'd say my chances at predicting the AFD are pretty good. >Radiant< 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I doubt that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh ye of little WP:FAITH... :) >Radiant< 13:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm a WP:ATHIEST. d:-P --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW?! It isn't remotely "obvious" that this would be deleted at AfD. To me, it's a perfectly reasonable candidate for merger into and redirection to List of ethnic slurs. (In fact, I just noticed that Bobo The Ninja created such a redirect a couple of hours before the article was re-deleted.) —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per badlydrawnjeff. Haddiscoe 13:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AFD. Merging is seen as a real possibility at AFD so WP:SNOW is not appropriate. It is not patent nonsense in the sense we use the term on Wikipedia. Attack pages refer to articles which disparage the subject of the article, and this article did not exist to disparage the word. Trying to invoke those speedy criteria is stretching them to application in places they were never intended for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. This should go through a full AfD debate to determine its fate, the speedy was not appropriate. Arkyan 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and AFD. Being a shitty dictionary definition is not a reason to speedy the article on a potentially viable topic, it's a reason to improve the article, or merge it, leaving it a handy redirect to where many of these sort of slurs get dumped (an excellent idea, as it's one article to police for trolls instead of hundreds). And did Jeff mean WP:ATHEIST? Neil (not Proto ►) 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - we can have legitimate and well-written articles on racial slurs that are not just dicdefs; see Nigger and Kike. Also, neither speedy deletion had any legitimacy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 12:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redeletion as a rare instance of WP:IAR. The AFD was closed early so G4 should not have been applied. The claim that the most recent version was an attack page is also thin. But the recently deleted version was a mere dictionary definition and showed no possibility of expansion past that point. The discussion here confirms my opinion of that assessment. It included only the meaning, origin and usage of the term. I'll happily help you transwiki the content to Wiktionary but it really doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I also have no problem with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What about a merger into and redirection to List of ethnic slurs? By endorsing the deletions, you're arguing that it isn't even reasonable to discuss the possibility. —David Levy 17:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It was definitely not a dicdef, just a stub. I can see how content relating to how the word is offensive might be mistaken for a usage guide, but a usage guide is just "avoid this word because it's offensive", with no explanation. The deleted version contained references including a professor of ethnic studies's views on the word, a linguist's observations on how the word is in the middle of changing perceptions, and an article on the peculiarity of ethnic insults being derived from food habits, with beaner being listed as an example. This will be my last word here, but I'm just disappointed that people are basing their judgments on speculation about the content instead of whether the deletion was valid, which is what this process is for. I spent a couple hours getting the references for this, and I just want them back, because I doubt I'll bother to comb around for them again after this hassle. And, for the record, I don't really care if it is merged or not, given its short length. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not disagreeing with your comments about the word but I feel strongly that you are shortchanging Wiktionary. All the content you just described is lexical, not encyclopedic. It's all information about the word, not the ethnicity. It is exactly the kind of detail that I would hope to see in a truly great entry in an unabridged dictionary. Remember Wiktionary is not paper either. It's good content, it just doesn't belong here. Rossami (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a determination to be made at AfD. You aren't arguing that the article should be deleted. You're arguing that it's entirely unreasonable to even consider any alternatives.
        Personally, I see no valid reason why the article shouldn't be merged into List of ethnic slurs (which certainly wouldn't preclude a Wiktionary entry). —David Levy 19:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. We have lists of derogatory terms, we have articles about derogatory terms. This is a well-known slur, even if it's just a redirect, it shouldn't be a redlink. The AfD didn't have a lot of discussion. And WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid deletion criterion. Corvus cornix 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per above. Just because it might sound like nonsense, or be offensive to some people, doesn't mean we should delete. And there certainly is no speedy criterion that backs this up. Mangojuice^talk 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This could be relisted at AFD, but the other alternative is just to merge it into List of ethnic slurs. I am not certain we need an article on every ethnic slur that exists. --sunstar net^talk 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
• See also: [[6]], Matrixism vandals

Reliable References

Bouma, Gary (2007). Australian Soul, Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13 978-0521673891

Kohn, Rachael. The Spirit of Things, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National, August 20, 2006.

Possamai, Adam (2005). In Search of New Age Spiritualities, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN-13 978-0754652137

Morris, Linda. They're All God Movies in Mysterious Ways, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 19, 2005.

Jordison, Sam (2005). The Joy of Sects, Robson Books. ISBN 1861059051

In light of these reliable and verifiable references it seems that an article on Matrixism should be re-visited. At the very least the dicussion page for the Matrixism article should be unlocked. 206.188.56.24 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unprotect. Only one AfD that I can find, and the result was a merge. Locking the page is inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this nonsense article which has been deleted 18 times by various admins over the years and has been the subject of trolling over much of that time. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The first AfD was a merge - editorial decision. The second was speedied as a repost, an invalid speedy since there was never a deleted AfD to qualify a repost for. Whether it's been speedied 18 times is completely irrelevant here - that's 18 invalid speedy deletions by various admins over the years, and if it needs to be deleted, it should get a full hearing. From the looks of the sources, the result may surprise you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, this article always is and always was bullshit from beginning to end, which is why it has been deleted so many times. The last version had a single source cited: a geocities page, most likely that of the WP:SPA who posted the "article." And you'll never guess what's right above this one at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Matrixism... Guy (Help!) 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It'd be a great argument for a new AfD if you don't think the content is appropriate anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously there are more credible citations now. Why not allow the article to be re-written such that is not the "bullshit" that you describe? Also where did you look at the edit history? All that I can find are edits of the particular forms of deletion.206.124.144.3 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I agree that the speedy deletions were out of process, but it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD, and just seems like a waste of time. It's sad that I'm torn on clear religioncruft. :/ JuJube 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Due process isn't a waste of time. It's how we create an encyclopedia that "doesn't suck". 206.124.144.3 10:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and unendorse processwanking. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - crap--Doc^g 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion fancruftyness /Blaxthos 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Mr 206, if you believe an encyclopaedic, referenced, neutral article can be created on the topic, please do so (either by creating an account and doing it in the userspace, on the talk page of your IP address, or at Talk:Matrixism), and let me know. If it asserts notability of the subject, and is reliably referenced), I will gladly move it back into article space for you. You can even write the article on your own computer and email it me or post it to my talk page. Neil (not Proto ►) 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the Matrixism talk page has also been locked and salted. I think that deleting and protecting the talk page might be a tactic used by unscrupulous administrators to subvert transparency and accountability in Wikipedia. I am no expert on how to make the deleting/protecting/review process work but I would gladly write a fair, modest and well researched article on this subject if allowed a place to do so. The reason that it is important to review the deletion of this article is precisely because its talk page has also been deleted and salted. 206.188.56.24 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, attacking the admins really helps your case no end. Oh, perhaps not. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• As said, make an account and put it in your userspace. Making an account is painfully easy. JuJube 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have put a placeholder at User:Neil/Matrixism - 206.x or anyone else is more than welcome to try and create a viable article there, which could be moved across at a later date. I think there's one in this somewhere, despite the stuff existing to now being subpar, to say the least. Neil (not Proto ►) 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. To the anon above - it's standard to delete the talk page when an article is deleted. There's no grand conspiracy there. Kafziel ^Talk 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Someone has edited out large parts of this deletion review. It seems that some people are unwilling to give this article a fair hearing. Perhaps this should be reported to administrators. I would do it myself but I am not yet familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. 206.124.144.3 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Offhand, I can't find proof of that. Can you tell me whose contributions were removed? It'd help. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• The deleted contributions that I spotted have been returned since I reported this abuse to other Wikipedians. However I cannot be sure that all deleted contributions and votes have been returned. Neil's contribution along with my response to it was deleted and then returned as well as my comment that begins with Attention. These would be good places to begin looking for whoever is behind this abuse. 206.188.56.24 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion According to the log, this has been deleted twenty times by a number of admins, going back to 2005. No, that's not a typo. TWENTY TIMES. I don't think it's coming back at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I note two things: First, though the article HAS been deleted 20 times, several sources referenced at the top of this request have been published since that time. This may represent an improvement in notability, perhaps enough to merit an article. And second, many of the more recent deletion requests (and some comments here) were/are based on the quality of the article, not the suitability of the subject by Wikipedia standards. While it IS true that many of the older versions of the article were poorly done, and deserving of deletion at that time, and while it is true that, for the time frame in which those 20 deletes were imposed, there was no clear notability, am I correct in understanding the above comments to mean that a short article MIGHT be merited, if it were both well-written and met notability standards? If so, as a neutral party (via the ref desk discussion), I appreciate Neil's talk page offer, and will encourage 206.188 to work there which both directs appropriately to the articles on Matrix and to related religious/belief systems, and cites those newer sources appropriately. Jfarber 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn if the sources are accurate. Regardless of how many times the article was deleted out-of-process, if these sources indeed refer to the article subject, it's probably possible to write a legitimate article. Long-term salting should be discouraged anyway, as it's inimical to the goals of the encyclopedia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stupid.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AFD2)

It was deleted due to failing WP:CORP, though WP:WEB should technically apply. It had a very weak consensus. Also, it did not fail the main notability criteria. It was the subject of this article from the Dallas Morning News, this article from a Mississippi news source,and this article from the New York Times. (Unfortunately, the last 2 articles are paid subscription only, so only part of the text is available) According to the AfD, it was also featured on Good Morning America and CNN. The 2nd AfD, (where it was actually deleted) can be found here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, neutral on a relist. I don't even think it fails WP:CORP. Looks fine to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I've personally seen this website prominently featured on international television more than once. There was no "obvious consensus," and Radiant overstepped his bounds by disregarding another admin's decision to relist (particularly considering the fact that the previous deletion discussion ended with a result of "keep"). —David Levy 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Really now. Please point out any policy or guideline or precedent that indicates such? Deletion debates can be closed after the requisite number of days (i.e. five). Just because one admin does not close a particular debate doesn't mean another admin cannot close it. >Radiant< 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The relisting of an AfD discussion is not a form of inaction on the part of an admin. It's a formally prescribed process step stemming from the determination that due to an insufficient amount of feedback, no clear consensus has emerged. (The alternative is to close the debate with a result of "no consensus"). You unilaterally overruled another admin's determination that there was no clear consensus.
      I see that you received a complaint on your talk page, and A Train shouldn't have backed down. —David Levy 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You're attaching way too much importance to a page with some instructions on them, that despite your claim is nowhere near "formally prescribed". WP:BURO. >Radiant< 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Firstly, AfD relisting is included in the deletion policy as well.
          Secondly, you're the one demanding that I "point out any policy or guideline or precedent" instead of applying common sense, so your WP:BURO remark is unwarranted.
          Again, relisting an article is not indicative of inaction or indecisiveness. It's an actual decision (the determination of a discussion outcome). "Relisting" is shorthand for "no clear consensus, but there wasn't very much discussion, so we'll wait for more." You unilaterally overruled another admin's determination that there was no clear consensus.
          Thirdly, while none of this automatically means that A Train's assessment was correct and yours was incorrect, that's precisely my take on the situation. I see no consensus whatsoever, let alone "obvious" consensus. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • No, it was certainly called for. I asked for a policy, guideline or precedent, and you responded by an overly formal and bureaucratic interpretation ("formal prescription", your words) of a simple instructive page that is none of that. It is entirely unhelpful to accuse people of "overstepping bounds" when in fact those bounds aren't defined anywhere. >Radiant< 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Again, AfD relisting is included in the deletion policy as well. I thought that it would be more helpful to direct you to the page on which the details are documented (because it didn't occur to me that you would reject it on the basis that it lacks a "policy"/"guideline" tag at the top). Do we really need to spell out "don't unilaterally overrule other admins' AfD decisions" on a policy/guideline page before you'll accept that doing so usually is inappropriate? —David Levy 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, unilaterally overriding somebody's AFD closing is inappropriate, but no, a relisting is not a closing, and is not a decision but the lack of one. >Radiant< 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Again, that simply isn't true. Relisting is indicative of the decision that there is no clear consensus (due to insufficient discussion).
                  A Train determined that no clear consensus existed. He could have closed the debate with a "no consensus" outcome, but he decided to extend it (per policy) in the hope of reaching one. You then stepped in and unilaterally overruled this decision. —David Levy 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn based on this: [7]. Policy? Feh. That rocks :o) Guy (Help!) 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Anyway, as closer, endorse without prejudice. The links given so far were not articles about the site, but passing mentions of the site in web directories ([8], [9]). If there are actual sources that'd be a big improvement. >Radiant< 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist I was quite surprised to see the close of the 2nd AfD, even though I !voted "weak delete", for it did not seem there was consensus. DGG 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn-and-relist.com. There was no clear consensus to delete, I'm not sure what the closing nominator was referring to. RFerreira 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Seems like it meets WP:CORP. FCYTravis 06:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry. (Tongue-in-cheek) When I nominated this for deletion, I had no idea it would cause such a stir. Of course I endorse the deletion, but my opinion should not count. YechielMan 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted as non-notable. FreeCol has won last Februaries Sourceforge.net's Project of the Month (as was stated in the article) and has 115,000 hits in Google. Kc4 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, not a legitimate speedy (being a major open-source group's project of the month is a valid assertion of notability), and the deleting admin appears to have extended A7 to require sources in this case, which is not what A7 requires. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (and relist?) No idea whether this is notable or not, but it needs discussed. Afd is the place for discussion.--Doc^g 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. Almost certainly notable, but definitely not a speed candidate. Relist probably isn't necessary, but if anyone wants to they can always be bold and do it after the article is recreated. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn me! I apologize - to me, being Sourceforge.net's project of the month means absolutely nothing; I didn't take it as any more of an assertion of notability than I would if it had said, "My little sister thinks it's awesome." My mistake. I certainly would never speedy an article just for being unsourced; I honestly didn't recognize any credible assertion of notability. I looked at the (proposed) guideline for pointers on how to tell, but didn't see that this claimed to meet any of the suggested criteria. Anyway, feel free to overturn it (or I can do it, if it cuts through any red tape - this is my first restore, so I'm not sure what's appropriate). Kafziel ^Talk 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FRS Plus (antioxidant health drink) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Arbitrary speedy deletion unwarranted. This article was speedily deleted within an hour of its creation, preventing me from adding more information. The health drink is the beginning of a new market of antioxidant drinks that claim to have wide-ranging health benefits. A Wikipedia article that provides information about whether these claims are valid is "notable". Americanuck 05:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from the admin who speedy deleted the article. The article as written contained a list of ingredients and a link to the company web site. Nothing in the article indicated any notability. Vegaswikian 05:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The product needs to be notable, not the Wikipedia article about it. Claims made about a non-notable product are non-notable as well. --Ezeu 06:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rebuttal How is the product non-notable? It is the first of its kind. An antioxidant health energy drink. It is potentially the first of an energy-drink revolution geared at health benefits. The article itself wasn't given enough time to develop and list the claimed/proven benefits, it was deleted too quickly.Americanuck 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, article provided no context and was also a pretty clear ad. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rebuttal Look, the reasoning behind no context/lack of content is flawed. The point of Wikipedia is that it is a community effort right? I started out the page with the intent of adding the claimed health benefits etc., and hopefully others would pitch in their own research. When an article is deleted as quickly as this one was, it defies the purpose of the community effort. Judging that an article has no potential within an hour of its creation is a poor opinionated assessment. Obviously there is an extreme bias among the administration here. When an article is deleted you stand up for each other? Due to your obvious resilience to any potential damage to your dignity, I ask this: if I write the article with more information and then post it, can I have any assurance that it won't be speedily deleted to protect your egos, and instead considered impartially as a positive addition to Wikipedia? Further, why are there many other "energy drink" topics out there that haven't been deleted. I understand that this is a poor argument (well why does he get to have an article?), but I sincerely feel a "ganging-up" attack on this article. So put your egos aside for a few minutes and actually consider that this article may be notable with more content.Americanuck 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia editors don't get to grant notability, on the contrary, our policies bind us to disallow articles that have no reliable sources to back up their claims. This article was comprised entirely of a list of ingredients which, while useful, doesn't really provide any context for the product. You claim that it is a "health drink", has it been approved by the FDA as such? Has it received significant coverage in the media? (outside of advertising) Does the company manufacturing this product have a notable history? There was nothing in that article to indicate a positive response to any of these questions, so the obvious conclusion was that this was merely an advertisement. Endorse deletion ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, Clear spam. Article contents were one sentence, an ingredients list, and the beginnings of a "health effects" section, not to mention partial nutrition facts. --Coredesat 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THIS Notice how I didn't write "Health benefits??? You aren't reading/responding to my points. My point is how could I add to the article when it gets deleted so quickly!? A simple google search of "frs plus review" will give you plenty of independent reviews/studies of the drink. The drink was invented by prestigious professors of American universities. There is a lot to add to the article. This drink is to athletes as bawls is to gamers. I'm not associated with this company. My whole drive to write this article was because I wanted more information on the drink that wasn't just from the company's website, but there was no wiki entry on it (however there are plenty of worthless wiki articles on other less-notable energy drinks). The deleted article was the very beginnings of the entry, just as Coredesat pointed out. I mean come on. How can you determine something is spam before it has been completed? The responsible thing to do would be to watch the article and if a couple days passed with no changes, then go ahead and wreak you havoc. At the very least send me a copy of the wiki entry I made so I can edit it in a text file and avoid the self-righteous speedy deletion squad. Americanuck 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Write a draft that includes cited information from independent reviews and studies of the drink, track down mentions of athletes or athletic organizations that use/endorse it, find information on the drink's manufacturer. You can store this draft in a User:Americanuck/sandbox in your userspace. Make sure that the tone is neutral and the information is verifiable. This discussion concerns only the article's state when you posted it. At that time it clearly satisfied several criteria for speedy deletion (a1/a7/g11). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have populated User:Americanuck/sandbox with the text that was deleted. Vegaswikian 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse for obvious reasons, and endorse Anetode's suggestion above as well. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the deleted article was literally only a link, an indredient list, and a short opening sentence. That's all, and if undeleted would be speedied again probably within minutes. If the creator can write a good, solid, well-referenced article with every fact backed up by reliable sources, go ahead and do so and we'll consider that, but there's no way the previous version is coming back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, per everybody, with no barrier toward re-creation in userspace (if it can be done, since I'm skeptical). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Anetode. No reliable sources were given for anything; the only links were to the manufacturer's web site, which we cannot cite due to the conflict of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment maybe their should be an article for Antioxidant Health Drink, and all the sources and reference to this can go there?? Kopf1988 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As it stands, there's no encyclopedia article. By the way, if the author can recreate it as something suitable, it should be simply at FRS Plus. JuJube 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The original article was unencyclopedic, and little more than advertising. As Starblind says, it needs reliable sources, and the conflict of interest factor means there is little to no chance the original article will be restored.

--sunstar net^talk 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This is a maintenance category that is only empty for a short time after the cleanup has been completed, until the next run of the Smackbot that tags articles with {{Please check ISBN}}. John Vandenberg 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And therefore of course we need it--how did it come to bedeleted?DGG 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log says it turned up on User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, which I presume is filled with cats that have no entries. John Vandenberg 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Voice of All is already littered with a variety of other complaints about categories (that were temporarily empty) being indiscriminately deleted due to appearing on that list. Dragons flight 05:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dean Roberts (criminal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted as memorial/non-notable individual MadMax 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I had previously created an article on Dean Roberts, a Yardie-affiliated drug dealer who had been a longtime requested article at WikiProject British crime when it had been nominated for deletion during the last week as a memorial and non-notable individual. However, while it is arguable weither or not his criminal career itself was notable (which indeed remained the main focus of the debate), he was one of two notable victims (the other being prominant music producer Henry "Junjo" Lawes) regarding a series of unsolved Yardie gangland related slayings occuring in London during the first half of 1999 (which as cited in the article, caused Scotland Yard to form a government task force to deal with the revenge killings). The main point which I made was that his notability, at least in my opinion, was based on the fact that he was a victim of a highly publicized unsolved murder spree which would ultimatly result in the life imprisonment of Rickey Sweeney and several members of the North London-based "Lock Street Crew" in 2002 during Operation Trident. Other gangland murder victims have similarly been covered on Wikipedia such as Arnold Schuster, Ferdinand Boccia and Eddie Cummiskey. However, while I left several reponces to a number of editors, only one user (User:TBC) replied and later recinded his own vote in favor of merging with Operation Trident. After its nomination for deletion, I expanded the article significantly and provided at least 4-5 additional resources including news reports and articles regarding his unsolved murder and his murder being the principal cause of the Lock Street Crew's downfall, however, no other comments were made after March 13. MadMax 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, consensus was crystal clear. --Ezeu 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on the basis of such invalid arguments as (one of the 6 gangland murders, so he's not partic. notable individually) The arguments amounted to Idontwantotoadmithesnotable., asserted in the face of good sourcing--which is now apparent better, and gives a reason to relist. DGG 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Um. Seems there are sources, but a valid qwuestion over whether this is really about Dean Roberts or about the gang war that followed. Is there a suitable merge target? Guy (Help!) 13:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was largely foused on Dean Roberts unsolved murder, most of the sources provided were used for the basis of:
    1. Establishing he was the victim of a highly publicized unsolved killing spree.
    2. The killing spree was ganglard-related as a result a gang war between the North West 10 and Lock Street Crew, both major Yardie posses operating in London's underworld.
    3. The murders resulted in the formation of a government task force which was created specificly to investigate the "revenge" killings of which he and music producer Henry "Junjo" Lawes were victims of.
    4. His unsolved murder would be used during Operation Trident to convict Rickey Sweeney, a major Yardie gang leader who recieved life imprisonment, and several high ranking members of the Lock Street Crew.
  • The sources provided, I feel, supported his notability as a murder victim, the gang war in which he was killed (and the subsequent investigation by Scotland Yard) and the aftermath of his murder resulting the virtual dismantling of a major Yardie posse in North London. MadMax 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ... much of which, from your description, isn't about him himself, and so is presented in the wrong way if it is presented as a biographical article about this person's life and works. (After all, the events that you describe are hardly this person's life and works, given that he is dead when they occur.)

      I suggest that you look at Glasgow Ice Cream Wars. That isn't split into biographical articles about the individual victims. Given that the first two of the sources that you cited both began with an attention-grabbing paragraph or two about an individual act and then proceeded to talk about Operation Trident at length, it would appear that Operation Trident is the right place to write what you want to write based upon these sources. (The other two sources gave this person a 1-sentence mention in long laundry-lists of murders, and do not support having a biographical encyclopaedia article on this person because they are not non-trivial. Their actual subjects are Yardies and unsolved murder cases in London.) Uncle G 20:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• The point I had been trying to assert was that his notability was based on his status as an unsolved murder victim. I could find no sources online regarding his criminal career, however there are any number of unsolved murder victims covered by Wikipedia which cover the same ground as you've stated (the individual's murder being the focus of the atricle). The sources I provided support statement made as to his notability and the effects of his murder. The article was never about the unsolved gangland slayings as information seemed to be inconsistant on some details, however the article did support the notability of the event (from which the initial complaint stems from). While I believe Roberts' murder as well as the 1999 gangland killings do deserve mention on Operation Tridant, Roberts murder is notable by itself remaining unsolved for over two years prior to Operation Tridant. As stated in the AfD debate, I have no opposition towards merging the article to Operation Tridant. I only disagree with the argument that he is a memorial/non-notable article despite citing sources to the contrary. MadMax 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. These arguments were all made in the AFD discussion. I find no process problems in that discussion and no new evidence here to justify reopening the debate. The changes that were made to the article were made early during the discussion period and failed to sway the participants. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I apologise if I've been unclear, however the debate became effectivly inactive after March 13 and no replies (or reasonable disputes) either to my arguments for keeping the article or comments toward any improvements I contributed had been made by anyone until its eventual deletion four days later. Also, the one user who responded to my comments did change his vote. My purpose for proposing this article for undeletion was, if failing to have the article itself restored, then to at least have the information on his murder be transfered to a related article. To be fair, I have at least proved his death was at least a notable event of Operation Trident. MadMax 08:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, consensus was clear and read properly by closer, no new information's been brought up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Work in progress, also need history, discussion, and discussion in delete proposal. MBHiii 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Consensus on the AfD was read 100% correctly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The AfD was mostly, but not all, "delete" with people who identified themselves by religion or as Republican leading the charge. As the article was edited by different people, largely in response to POV and OR complaints, it gained supporters. Please read the latest version of the article before deciding; it's much changed from what was first flagged. --MBHiii 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AFD was valid. --Coredesat 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid, the AfD was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AHEM, did any of you guys read the latest version, or did you base your decisions solely on the (now largely irrelevant) AfD log? When you evaluate an AfD, do you weigh more heavily the later votes and comments that reflect changes made to the document after the AfD started? --MBHiii 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse all deletions of soapboxes. Of course we did not read the article, or the debate - we are the unholy alliance of deletionists. We are all biased and working on the basis of personal prejudice, just like you said the !voters in the AfD were. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Soapbox? That's defined at that link as 1. Propaganda, 2. Self-promotion, and 3. Advertising, none of which were present. Look, my questions were serious. Being new to this, I have little to no idea how you operate. I assume, from your answer, that you all did read the latest version; is that correct? You did not answer my other question as to weighing the logs more heavily toward the end of the debate; do you? I'm trying to understand. Also, I do think it should be a matter of policy that those who feel so strongly about a particular religion, political party, or anything else, for that matter, that is primarily a matter of personal belief and personal commitment (which would exempt merely academic interests), as to advertise it on their personal pages, should be expected to recuse themselves from a deletion debate involving that subject. That still doesn't prevent them from having someone else argue for them on the merits of their case. It just interposes a buffer to constrain the usual source of unintended bias from contaminating what should otherwise be an academic debate. I'd like to propose that be adopted as policy; how do I do that? --MBHiii 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. See how many people think it was inappropriate advocacy? Quite a few, by the looks of it. Perhaps your judgement of the content you wrote is at odds with ho others view it? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD was valid and the consensus was clear. The nominator may not like it and may argue ad nauseum about how we all need to recuse ourselves from the discussion for one reason or another, but the AfD was 100% by the book. If the author feels he has a valid article that he can create might I suggest doing so as a subpage in his user space and ask for some advise before recreating it. However there's no reason to overturn the deletion of the previous material. Arkyan 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and applaud the AfD nominator for the sinthesis/synthesis joke. There was a clear-cut consensus on the AfD that the article did not quote reliable sources and consisted mainly of attacks. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, "Uncle!" request "History only undeletion" to enable restoration of unoffending documented portions (no middle paragraph without more backup) with last version on the discussion page. Also, please check Southern mafia --MBHiii 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Speedied per CSD:G11, deletion contested at Talk:Www.jackcolton.com and [10]. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and AFD. Not G11, but should probably be deleted anyway, given that all but one of the sources are blogs, and the last source is an irrelevant article by the website's namesake. --Coredesat 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to weak endorse per Guy. Didn't notice the COI, which does make this somewhat self-promotional. --Coredesat 23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sadly, Overturn and AfD. I don't think it's quite spammy enough to satisfy G11, but there's no way it'll pass an AfD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:SNOW. Since it has no realistic chance of passing an AFD, there's no need to invoke bureaucracy and send it there anyway. >Radiant< 10:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I was tagging this for lack of NPOV, lack of sources, spam linking and basically being an advert etc, and had just decided it was an unsalvageable mess which needed taken outside and shot when an admin deleted it anyway. No chance of surviving an AfD so there seems little point in bringing it back just to kill it again. StuartDouglas 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, clearly not an G11, and actually has a shot at surviving an AfD if another source can be found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of blatantly promotional article, user name is CMedia, website produced by Colton Media ([..] information contained on this site is exclusively copywritten © by Colton Media 1998 - 2006). WP:COI plus WP:SPAM = WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Was the page a copyvio of the site at hand? If not, what does their copyright have to do with anything - I source articles from copywritten texts regularly. COI, again, doesn't not require deletion, and while this may have been created with spam in mind, it's not written as such and may, in fact, meet our standards, thus not a G11. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing, it's the user name. WP:COI + WP:SPAM, like I said. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So there's really no reason to endorse this other than an equation that has nothing to do with how we judge article content. Got it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if there's no chance it'll survive an AFD, there's no need to waste time with one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per everyone. No chance this would pass AfD as written, so no reason to put it through the motions just for the sake of beaurocracy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's really only one source away from meeting the relevant standard at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • One source away from a legalistic inclusionist's perspective, perhaps, but from mine it is several sources, some Factiva hits and an independent author away. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. No prejudice against a rewrite based on independent, verifiable sources. Autobiographies are bad for the credibility of the project, even (maybe especially) when they are corporate autobiographies. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Perhaps not a G11, but the text exudes an advertising/POV motive, so it would probably lose in an AFD. YechielMan 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Black people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Improper Speedy Keep Jd2718 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CanadianCaesar speedy kept Black people, citing WP:SNOW. I object strongly.

• There was no claim that the article met any of the 4 criteria for speedy keep.

1. Support for the deletion extended beyond the nominator. While Afd is not a vote, we should observe there was actually significant support for deletion.
2. The nomination was neither frivolous nor vandalism.
3. The nominator is not banned.
4. This is not a policy, nor is it a guideline.

• The admin cited WP:SNOW, but I believe this was an uphill battle, not a place for snowball.

1. Snowball is not policy.
2. This AfD failed the SNOWBALL test: '"If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."'
3. A recently closed ArbCom case included the following finding: 'The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and also recognizes that there will be some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks. However, in general, early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.' This finding was endorsed by the Arbitration Committee 10-0.

Per SNOW (which I understand is an application of IAR): 'If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause and the action should, if possible, be undone.'

I believe this applies here, and ask that the discussion be reopened and allowed to run its course.

• Comment Just let it run. If it'll be kept, it'll be kept, and we'll live. But us editors learn to follow Wikipedia's rules and policies. It is not easy. Why hold admin's to lower standards? Jd2718 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, invalid speedy keep. Nom is correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hm, WP:SNOW is fine when a debate is unnecessary. However, as we are now going to have a debate anyway, I'm minded that we should simply reopen the AfD for a day or so anyway. Otherwise we have a debate here about having a debate there. Suggest closer reverses it for a bit.--Doc^g 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy closure Since when do two votes constitute significant support? JuJube 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy closure, no real claim was made in the deletion nomination or arguments that the article topic itself is not an appropriate one for an encyclopedia, only that the article currently is not in good shape, and there was no realistic chance of this coming out any other way. WP:SOFIXIT, and if there's a dispute, there's a resolution process for those. AFD is not cleanup or dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is absurd. Yes, it was an invalid speedy keep, but this article will not be deleted. There are eighty-six sources. Absolutely no good will come from a discussion about it, while much bad will. Oh, and the nomination did not cite a single even marginally valid for deletion, or, for that matter, anything logical. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse speedy closure, there was no point in that debate at all, and there's no point in this one either. Someone please end this before we waste more time on this. Mangojuice^talk 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DELETE It's an silly topic for an encyclopedia. I proposed to either rename it or just delete it. It can be re-written as a general topic that covers many subjects in history to world relations, AA, civil rights, challenges, racism, views, accomplishments, notable persons, slavery issues, that can include the different 'blacks' around the world. Or to African-Americans in Slavery. see my proposal on talk page. As it is now it is nothing but a message board type topic where people share their opinions, views, politics, and racism. It is a forum. It is a joke, as it is right now. It's always going to be controversial, always! The topic Black people too broad. Awww. UGH I give up. This is sad. Jeeny 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Deletion Review is about process, not about content. The chance to comment on the content of the article was back at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Nomination was frivolous and did not meet any standards for AFD other than "I don't like it". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure. The AfD nomination was flawed, and the speedy keeps were piling on, and would have kept piling on. --Ezeu 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This is just silly. – Steel 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: while it seems that there is legitimate room for debate about the future direction of this article and similar articles, it's clear to me that articles for deletion is really not an appropriate forum for them. --bainer (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. That nomination was incomprehensible. None of the editors advocating deletion gave reasons that were even remotely grounded in policy. Even if the closure doesn't fit WP:CSK exactly, I'm perfectly willing to ignore it. That AfD was downright silly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Virtually all the people who voted to keep the article had little experience in maintaining and developing it, and thus may not have been aware of how difficult the article has been to maintain up to wikipedia standards. The article has required repeated protection, repeated tagging, has over a dozen pages of inflamatory debate archived in the talk page, has lead to numerous editors being blocked sometimes permanently, and has given rise to hundreds of personal and racist attacks. It has demonstrated no ability to achieve long term stability and limited ability to achieve neutrality. Based on extensive experience at this article and research into its history, I've come to the conclusion that the topic is simply too controversial to be maintained to quality standards. Shortly after the nomination was closed I caught an editor once again removing cited content that did not conform to his POV and replacing it with original research that did. This occurs on daily, sometimes hourly basis and appears to have done so since the article's inception. I think this article was a fascinating experiment in the type of topics that don't work in wikepia and I think we should learn from our mistake in creating it, rather than continuing to damage wikipedia's credibility. I don't think you will find a credible encyclopedia that has a topic as nebulous as black people in it, and with good reason Iseebias 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been involved with that article for a long time, and I am quite frustrated with it too. But that is not a reason to delete it. The closing admin was absolutely right to close the AfD. There is no way an article like that will get deleted on the grounds that people cannot get along, or that it is a cause for discontentment. --Ezeu 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I sympathize with Iseebias, but Ezeu is right. If debate is getting too heated or editors are acting inappropriately, we do have ways of helping that out: see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But we can't delete articles on controversial, important topics just because (unsurprisingly) the editors of those pages have a hard time getting along: no matter how heated discussion gets, we should have an article on Evolution and we should have an article on Abortion. Black people fits in the same category. Mangojuice^talk 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It wasn't my nomination, but it closed before I could digest and comment. The admin certainly seems unaware that the article has been a magnet for well-sourced non-encyclopedic information. I suspect... but it doesn't matter what I thought, as the discussion was closed after a mere 4½ hours. Jd2718 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... it doesn't matter if it's a magnet for non-encyclopedic information. That's not a reason for deletion. If you'd like to revise policy so that we can delete things because the attract unencyclopedic stuff, go ahead and try, but until it happens, doing such is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why are you arguing about whether it should be deleted? That debate was closed (improperly). The point is, you don't know what else was going to be said, and neither did the closing admin. I have more to say; may I argue for deletion here? I don't think that is appropriate. Jd2718 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This is silly, but please don't speedy close it. It's never worth it to speedy close a DRV of a speedy keep. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure No consensus will ever come to delete these articles and I think speedy keeping it was the right move. — Moe 04:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• And the pile on "keep" votes on the other AfDs, AfD:Caucasian race, AfD:White people and AfD:Asian (people), all by the same nominator, certainly show that the closer made a good call. --Ezeu 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Those have now all been speedily kept. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious speedy keep. Ral315 » 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, being a problematic article is not a valid reason for deletion. MaxSem 08:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention Major article. Honbicot 11:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse retention/closure/etc Beyond the fact that this will never get deleted, both Black people and White people sort of pass the bar for notability without trying too hard. any further arguments are just stupid. Also WP:FORTHEPEOPLE: we shouldn't delete stuff for the possible good of the people or because a extreme minority of users will be stupid and/or disruptive later. If they are stupid and/or disruptive over any given article, it is a problem with those users, not the article--sanction the user who has no self control, not the valid article. - Denny 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy close. There genuinely was no realistic chance of consensus to delete and the AfD was far more likely to be a cesspit than to reach a consensus to remove an article on such a clearly encyclopaedic topic. Resolve your content issues on the talk page, you'll not remove a term which has this much support in academic references and other sources. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy keep, relist at AfD. Since the AfD debate was closed prematurely due to WP:SNOW, I think that procedural correctness requires that a full AfD be allowed to run. I express no opinion on the merits of the article. SNOW is only allowable if its really snow. If a lot of people come by later and *reasonably* say that it's not SNOW, then you should rerun the process in full. Those !voting here to Endorse Closure must be assuming that all the complaints *raised in this DRV* by people like User:Jd2718 were unreasonable, and that it's unreasonable to expect the criteria for speedy keep actually to be observed. The full AfD may well result in *Keep* but that will go into the Talk page record and may serve as a useful reference point. The language of the original AfD nomination suggests that the nominator had limited experience with WP but, as said above, it was not frivolous or vandalism. Also this is the *only* AfD nomination ever made for this article. EdJohnston 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Close this was a patently rediculous nomination, nominated inappropriately either as a gross misunderstanding of policy or as a disruptive reaction to editing problems. It had no business at AfD. WilyD 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy Closure. While I agree that even one "delete" vote in agreement with the nomination technically means you can't speedy keep an article, this is a case of common sense and not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Let's not get too hung up on technicalities. Kafziel ^Talk 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy closure. No one presented anything remotely resembling a valid reason to delete this article. When someone nominates a page for deletion because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, it's far more disruptive to prolong the unjustified debate than it is to speedily close it (especially when the article pertains to a contentious issue). We don't follow the rules purely for the sake of following them. We do what's best for Wikipedia. —David Levy 21:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Even if the AfD is invalid, re-opening would be policy for policy's sake. Controversy is never a reason for deletion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy closure It is perfectly possible that a nomination of United States might fail to meet any of the 4 speedy closure criteria. What this suggests to me is that additional criteria are needed. Haddiscoe 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nope. All we need is to continue to apply Clue when the outcome is really really obvious, as it was here. And perhaps apply Cluesticks to those who bring such cases to deletion review... I am soooooo tempted to snowball this review! Guy (Help!) 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, would be a nice dot on the i. --Ezeu 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as a common-sense application of SNOW, even if it failed the technical criteria. YechielMan 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy closure If the current rules make this speedy controversial, it is the rules that need to change. CalJW 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A Week in the Woods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Improper A7 by User:Xiner of a well-known children's book in the United States by the author of a number of the most important books for the age group he writes for over the last 10 years. One, books are not A7 candidates, so the deletion reason is invalid. Second, it's a noteworthy book by a highly notable children's author, thus meeting the significance portion of WP:BK even in the off chance that A7 did apply to books. Is now protected against recreation for absolutely no useful reason whatsoever, to boot. Should be undeleted immediately. badlydrawnjeff talk 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I must be blind, I see nothing in the criteria about the notability of the /author/. Nardman1 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read CSD A7 recently? You're the one who tagged it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant WP:BK. You wrote "a noteworthy book by a highly notable children's author, thus meeting the significance portion of WP:BK". There is nothing in WP:BK about the notability of the author. Instead it demands the same reliable sources any other article would have. In any case read my tag, I didn't tag as an A7. I just wrote in a reason. Nardman1 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok I re-read it, and it is in there. I still don't think he's so notable that his books are notable without sources. He's not a household watchword like Isaac Asimov. Nardman1 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Eh? Why was this speedied? I'm hoping the deleting admin had some good reason I can't fathom, 'cos this looks like a terrible judgement call. AfD it if you want - undelete immediately.--Doc^g 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Even after speedy deletions by two other admins over the past few months, the again-recreated article did not assert notability. The infobox contained minimal info, and the full text was "A Week in the Woods is a children's book by Andrew Clements. Part of his School series, it was released by Simon & Schuster in 2002." Xiner (talk, email) 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice (nor would I have cared) about prior speedies in this case. Regardless, books simply are not A7 candidates. The article was created this afternoon, still a stub. Your speedy was incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeff is entirely correct here. The fact that it was badly deleted in the past is no excuse - we don't speedy because one editor sees a lack of notability. What amazes me is that when Jeff challenged this with the admin, he was forced to bring it here. Given that there was no CSD justification, and given that there has never been a debate here - why on earth didn't the admin undelete and send this to AfD??--Doc^g 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • To make it even weirder, the original version, though needing cleanup, was more substantial and contained a plot summary and list of awards, and that version was deleted as a G1!! This is a bit of a "WTF?" case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Damn, I would have used that if it was there. Good catch, thanks. Saving that info now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I looked in Google...I can find nothing of awards or multiple reliable sources, the type we'd expect of any other article. The original version of the article mentions some "awards" but there's no articles about them in Wikipedia, leading me to suspect they are mere fancruft awards. Nardman1 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That still doesn't make it a valid speedy. Please, again, read CSD A7. If you felt that way, you should have AfD'd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Simon & Schuster's site lists a number of awards for this book. You looked on Google but didn't find the publisher's website? In any case, dismissing state reading list awards as "fancruft" is downright insulting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Simon and Schuster does not a independent reliable source make. And yes, they are cruft awards. WP:FANCRUFT says "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". The California Young Reader Medal is run by the California Library Association [11] which is simply a consortium of libraries. The Kentucky Bluegrass Award is similarly awarded by a consortium of libraries. [12]. Similarly with Keystone to Reading [13]. These organizations don't even have Wikipedia articles. They are non notable in themselves. Their opinion does not confer notability on an otherwise non-notable subject. Nardman1 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
              • So the awards are invalid fancruft because libraries in several states are supposedly staffed solely with diehard enthusiastic Andrew Clements fans?! Ooookay, well, that's certainly an interesting opinion you have there, although I'm not quite sure I agree with it. Besides, sorting out what awards are valid or not is exactly the sort of thing an AfD is good for--the mere fact that it won so many awards pushes it well out of speedy territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion completely non notable book, even my schoolteacher wife has never heard of it. Nardman1 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• list at afd I agree it's not a valid speedy, but I still believe it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nardman1 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a wind-up vote, right?--Doc^g 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm so holding my tongue right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete per Jeff. Books don't make good A7 subjects, and besides this is a notable book, part of a significant series from a major publisher. I'm positive it would survive an AfD, although expansion is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said I was deleting it under A7. If you must find a rationale, it'd be A1, and the author is not historically significant. Please see the relevant notability guidelines for books. Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • • Notability guideline DO NOT constitute grounds for speedy deletion. Please review the the WP:CSD. I am currently going through your deletion logs and I have to say I am far from convinced of you comprehension of deletion policy.--Doc^g 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I was afraid of that, but I couldn't tell from the little I could see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Your deletion summary was "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" - that's A7 language. If you meant A1, it's still invalid - the context of the book is expressly clear. Remember, "[L]imited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to your opinion, but I strongly disagree that author Andrew Clements "is not historically significant". He has an enormous amount of awards and press coverage, and several of his books are bestsellers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep (first choice) or list. Well-known book title by a well-known children's author. At an absolute minimum, there should be a redirect rather than a deletion, and in this case there should be more than the minimum. Newyorkbrad 01:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. If someone wants to list it they can but I don't think we should. There is a REASON that not all things can fall under A7, and this is why. Mangojuice^talk 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've undeleted this as a patently bad deletion. I invite someone to speedy close this DRV. The deleter can go to afd if he wants. I'm afraid I have big questions about the competency of the deleting admin, who seems to misunderstand and misapply policy. Deleting itself was bad (but we all make mistakes), refusing to see the error when challenged was worse and continuing to defend it here is simply incompetence. A quick look at his deletion logs gives me further cause for concern - and I invite others with more time on their hands to go through and review that in more detail. For now I'd ask the deleting admin to stick off deletions for a while until he reviews policy and gets a handle of the CSD. Speedy deletion is not a licence simply to unilaterally delete stuff without a debate, because you can't see its notability.--Doc^g 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• List on AFD, "product with no assertion of notability" isn't part of A7, even if it should be. Go easy on Xiner though, that's an easy mistake to make, especially as the article really does make no assertion of notability whatsoever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed an easy mistake to make. But when pointed out, it should also be a quick one to notice and correct. You just have to read the CSD.--Doc^g 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) I agree with Doc about the merits of the deletion, but would prefer not to focus on the "competency" of the deleting administrator, who has been an admin for less than a week. I suggest that further concerns about his overall deletion record be taken to his talkpage for future guidance. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, I used my previous teaching connections and called up a trusted reading specialist friend of mine, and was told that this was a high acclaimed book. But y'all are right, that doesn't really matter. Sorry I got certain guidelines messed up in my mind. Xiner (talk, email) 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy is susceptible to accidental misuse & I too don't consider this error blameworthy in any personal sense.DGG 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody is suggesting any actions be taken against the deleting admin. Given the brevity of the article and the fact that it had been deleted twice before, it was an easy mistake to make and is now undeleted with no harm done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Already overturned by the deleting admin. Let's speedily close this. Kla'quot 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)