Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 29

MyWikiBiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other related AfDs:

• Gregory Kohs - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (2) - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (3) - Delete

• DRV - Deletion endorsed

• Very, very weak overturn and relist. Should not have been speedied after surviving an AFD. Very, very weak because only one of the sources there is even remotely reliable, the other sources are either Wikipedia (WP:ASR) or a press release (not independent). If this is relisted, that needs to be made evident: multiple means multiple. --Coredesat 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, but unless some new information comes to light the decision should be delete. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are a number of related AfD's missing. Anyone can add them? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added all of the Kohs AfDs. There doesn't seem to have been another AfD for MyWikiBiz, so I'm wondering why this was the "2nd nomination". WarpstarRider 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Found it. It was MyWikiBiz.com ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, RESTORE. Regardless of why Kohs was LEGITIMATELY banned again, for legal threats, we'd already shown in DRV, AfD, etc. that MyWikiBiz for that article was notable. It was unilaterally deleted by User talk:JzG. - Denny 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Really, tired of unilateral deletions against consensus. WP:IAR is not a license to just ignore everyone else and do whatever you want. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Should not have been speedied. I suppose it is reasonable to relist a nonconsensus for another AfD soon afterwards, doing a Speedy is really deliberately defying the rules based, I suppose, on one's personal opposiution.DGG 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - if you're an admin and you're unhappy with the way an AFD turns out, you should be coming here, not just disregarding the community's discussion. Wikipedia is not censored, least of all for "things that annoy JzG", and JzG's personal interaction with Kohs should have made him stay out of the situation in the first place. This was in extremely poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Milto LOL pia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Aren't these deletions done with the approval of Jimbo? I know Gregory Kohs was blocked by Jimbo for refusing to stop spamming. Corvus cornix 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not according to the log. It had passed DRV + AFD. The deletion was IAR. - Denny 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, don't relist. Seems like we just can't figure out how to apply notability to people that annoy us these days. --tjstrf talk 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by desperate grasping at straws for reliable sources. This is worth all the trouble to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Relist - With a note that "sources" presented at the last AfD, which swayed editors towards saying it marginally met WP:CORP turned out to be obvious duplicates or derivatives of the one independent source we already had. Danski14^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I support the idea of the article's deletion as non-notable, but the closure of the AfD should have been appealed here, to deletion review, not undone by a unilateral deletion. It would be nice if we could treat this DRV as if it were an appeal of the original "no consensus" decision, in which case I would vote to delate, but I'm sure there will be people unwilling to look at it that way. So it seems that there is really now no choice but to start again. Put it back on AfD. Sigh. Metamagician3000 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDEL: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately can be invoked here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn yet another arbitrary JzG unilateral deletion, something he says he has no intention of stopping. I'll be glad when some admins have a little chat with him. He is driving good editors from the project with these ongoing antics. Jokestress 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times has he done this? Perhaps RFC if its an ongoing issue? - Denny 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic case of an admin coming under fire for making a hasty decision. It's easy for any good editor get the admin tools. It's a challenge for that editor to become a successful sysop. And once those tools get revoked for abuse, they're hard to get back. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; obviously out-of-process. Guy, I would have expected more of you. No opinion on relisting. Ral315 » 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Repasky McElhinney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb.

alderbourne 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see the deleted article, but if the article itself did not make any claims of notability, then the deletion was proper. If you want to rewrite the article to indicate what you said above, and can provide proof of your claims, then please go ahead. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Click on the "cache" link above. The article doesn't lack in assertions of notability, but comes across as a bit advertorial. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Autocoitus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the deletion is sustained, I ask an admin to post the content of Autocoitus as of its last revision before the speedy delete to User:saizai/Autocoitus for my archival use, since I don't have access to it, there isn't a gcache copy, and I don't want to look for the links again in case it comes up later. Thanks. --Sai Emrys 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Got it myself; never mind. --Sai Emrys 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:

• Reliable sources - Amateur porn is a reliable source for whether a sex practice is conducted or not. Additionally, the article at last revision had other (text) sources, e.g. LPSG.org threads.
• Claimed impossibility WP:PN - The sources cited conclusively prove otherwise. If the editors voting for deletion on this ground were not inclined to view that proof, that is their problem and not one of the credibility of the source.
• Neologism WP:NEO - Irrelevant. The article is about a practice, not the word itself. Also, see pegging and santorum; they are sexual neologisms but nevertheless kept.
• Censorship / revulsion - Irrelevant and inappropriate reason to delete on Wikipedia; it is a sexual act and can sustain an article just as much as autofellatio, anal sex, pegging, scat / coprophilia, etc. Yes many people will find it offensive or unpleasant. So what?
• ghits - Autocoitus = 65 (not 15 as claimed in VfD); self-fucking = 19,200; selffucking (no space) = 6,360; selffuck (no space) = 16,100; self-fuck = 33,100, including many forum threads about the practice.
• Rename - I'm fine with renaming the article to something like self-fucking. Autocoitus is simply the most obvious clinical term. Best would be to have one redirect to the other.
• Notability WP:N:
  • "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
    • About as much detail as autofellatio
  • "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
    • Multiple sources cited.
  • "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
    • Sources cited all specifically about the topic.
  • "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
    • Ergo Pornotube and [lpsg.org] sources are perfectly legit
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
    • In this case there is no need to rely on the honesty of the sources, since they are self-proving.
  • "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
    • AFAIK this is not an issue here --Sai Emrys 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Ridiculous" is not an argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible or a joke page? --Sai Emrys 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ridiculous as in patent nonsense, or more specifically a nonsensical attempt at an article. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was closed properly. In addition, there were absolutely no sources. PornoTube is not a reliable source. This may require a speedy close as the nomination pretty much defeats itself - we require that something be attributable to reliable sources as defined in WP:RS, not that something simply exists. --Coredesat 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pornotube was not the only source listed in the article. Additionally, it *is* a reliable first-hand source, given that it is not being used as some sort of social commentary but as documentation of a sexual practice. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. Neither is LPSG. --Coredesat 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "... in some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed," - this is one of those cases. This is not a case of citing a YouTube discussion as authoritative source for what they're discussing, but of citing primary source evidence for the viability and existence of the practice the article discusses. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • On the off chance that this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part, allow me to explain. In an article on a topic whose notability has been established by reference to reliable secondary sources, we may on occasion allow primary sources as references to individual facts. So if a video is hosted on YouTube, and does not violate copyright, and contains a section which verifies a fact, and if there is no better source for it, and if we can cite it precisely (time in and so on), then a YouTube video may be allowable as a source for a piece of detailed information. PornoTube and XTube, needless to say, are considerably more likely to host copyright violations, but that is beside the point: in this case they are being presented as sources for the main premise of the article, and in a way that requires the reader to join the dots. This is a novel synthesis from published sources, aka original research. What we do not have is reliable secondary sources which establish the notability and existence of this concept, and the terminology you use to describe it. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • As noted in the original UDR, the terminology is not under dispute nor a good reason to delete rather than simply retitle. It odes not seem to me that this is WP:OR; the article says "some people do X" and the source is a clip that clearly shows someone doing X. That's not exactly "analysis". How would it be more credible if, say, Savage were to write an article - citing those same videos most likely - that says "some people do X"? Can we then point to him and say that he is a better source - as a secondary - than the primary source? How does that make the article better or more authoritative? --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. You've managed to conclusively prove that it exists and is possible, and nothing else. That is not an encyclopedia article. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • On what grounds exactly? If it's something I addressed above please refute my comments rather than just reasserting it. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also, compare to autocunnilingus, which isn't even known to be possible. --Sai Emrys 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod. This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.DGG 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.DGG 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the consensus at its AfD was clearly delete. The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD. Just wanted to clear that up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• List as AfD per DGG. When a speedy is contested, use AfD to confirm deletion. As it is now only sysops can see it so I don't know if it actually does meet criteria. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • History restored behind {{drv}} tag for the purposes of this DRV. --Coredesat 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ugh! I'd vote delete BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • On what grounds? Personal disgust (i.e. censorship)? --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith and don't behave like you're the only one who knows that Wikipedia isn't censored. Resurgent insurgent 10:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • All zie said was "Ugh". That sounds like simple disgust to me, even in good faith. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The most recent version had zero sources. The most recent version which did have sources had zero reliable sources. Corvus cornix 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See below. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ridiculous... lack of reliable sources. Resurgent insurgent 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please use this version for comparison. Note multiple sources. Last revised edition had sources edited out for unspecified reasons without responding to the discussion about that on its talk page. --Sai Emrys 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Administrators: please give the same partial undelete to its Talk page as is on the main page, and post a link to the most recent revision here for reference (per above). Thanks. --Sai Emrys 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we know... the first admin who commented - before the history was undeleted - already mentioned your "sources". Sorry, they are not the type of reliable sources to base an article on. Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh FFS. A PornoTube video is not a source. An XTube video is not a source. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Some guy saying "bush bombed the two towers" on YouTube is a source, but not 'reliable' on *what it claims* because it has no editorial review. So you can't point and say "look, bush bombed the two towers, RandomVlogger92334 said so!". But you can point and say "look, some people thinkg bush bombed the two towers! see, right here!". Here it is being used for the latter. No different from any other primary source documentation of a practice; you're not accepting some random vlogger's word for something existing, but seeing proof of the thing itself. If you disagree, please rebut the *merits* of what I said rather than simply reiterating "but it's not a source". Note the quote above from WP:RS re exceptions. Just 'cause it's on YT (or PT) doesn't mean we're obliged to pretend it doesn't exist. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. BUT! I would say don't salt this... yet. The article is along the same lines as Autofellatio, Autocunnilingus, etc., and it's only a matter of time before a reliable source writes about the act and it becomes notable in the Wikipedia sense. And so, it *might* belong on Wikipedia in the future, but as we all know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- therefore, as of right now, internet forums and videos do not qualify as reliable sources, and it should remain deleted until actual Wiki-endorced sources emerge. Rockstar915 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That source might come in a month. Or one year. Or never. Why not just keep it deleted? Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstood me -- my point was that we should keep it deleted. But since it's a page with recreated content, often similar pages get salted. I was just saying that we shouldn't salt it. Rockstar915 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was read entirely correctly at the AfD, and not a single reliable source has been added to the article since it was recreated by the original author. Sorry, but 3 guys fucking themselves on pornotube does not an encyclopedic article make. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was deleted through AfD less than two months ago, and the article that was speedied was virtually identical to the article that was AfD'd. Valid G4. WarpstarRider 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment There is obviously some dispute about N and whether there are RSs, and the place to discuss this is AfD. WP should not be blind to the outside world, and material which would only be expected to be documented by blogs or the like, is appropriately documented by them. Using a little reason, In what essential way would the situation be different if a few porno books were found instead of the videos? Direct observation is not necessarily OR. Interpretation is: reaching a conclusion on whether the material is real or faked would be OR. . Saying this material is part of at least web culture and documenting that is appropriate use of sources.. The fact that there are a number of them is N. I already !voted to relist at AfD. where the above argument can be used. DGG 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion as reposted content. Neither the deleted versions nor this discussion have presented evidence that justify overturning the very clear decision of the AFD discussion. Nor did any deleted version ever rise above the level of an unsourced dictionary definition. Rossami (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Strongly so. Even with good faith in mind, many of the comments appear biased. Notifiability has been established, and the sources are better than for a lot of articles on WP. The presence of porn vids (VHS, DVD and downloadable, it seems) does not serve as a reliable source for the contents of such an article, so it can be stubbed if necessary, but it does document that this is a topic, and that the article has as much of a place on WP as other stubs, pages on music albums, pages on characters in fictional works, and so forth. I doubt a similarly sourced article about an equivalent topic that had nothing to do with sex would be as likely to end up being deleted as one that is related to sex. A "wtf?" topic? Yes. A non-topic? No. I concur with the points raised in objection to the delete. A move would be okay, if nobody objects to the unencyclopaedic tone of the article name. The article can be stubbed, just like a ton of other articles on WP. Any replies should be directed to my talkpage, if possible, as I don't watch Deletion Review (I hit the article via an internal link). Zuiram 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because that's pretty much what that argument is. This isn't censorship. --Coredesat 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• What the ... Keep deleted, nonsense, ureferenced, etc. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Europe_United (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Administrator who deleted this article did it without reasonables reasons Wadim 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Was previously AFD'd for reasons of notability. Deleted three times since as being a recreation of deleted material. Article has been around for years and yet has no sources other than the subject's Web site. I protected the article as a deleted page becasue the author claimed he would keep re-creating the deleted article from a saved file on his computer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not the original author. I had to recreate the article from material in Google's cache. In any case: Europe United is an active organization with more than 500 members. It's Web site is active too, just check it's forum [1] and this should be enough. All that deletions and protection is censorship for me. Wadim 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no evidence of notability given. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all unsourced articles about "emerging political parties" even if they have got 500 members. Which is fewer than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, by the way. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want info about big parties, buy Microsoft's Encarta. Wikipedia is different (or it should be). If you censor any info about small and new organizations, you are against democracy and freedom on Internet. Wadim 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:NOT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Censorship, democracy, freedom... but you missed the First Amendment! If you're going to do the whole freedom of speech thing, you have to do it properly. It doesn't work, of course, because Wikipedia is not free speech and never has been, but please at least check all the boxes! Guy (Help!) 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above, valid AfD, and - judging from the last comment by the nominator - as a WP:POINT nomination. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject deletion I stated it on the talk page on Europe United, but there is a heck of a lot more parties that are smaller and have done less yet still get a page on Wikipedia. Europe United's status as the first (or near first, there is also Newropeans which hasn't been deleted) pan-European party is also notable. The deletion is unjustified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebloke (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Are we getting any hits on google for this? Any reliable sources? I'm amazed at how just one person can bring a page down. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Judging from the look of the page, thanks to the cache, the page should be redirected to United Nations (Europe) since that what I thought it would be about. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BuickCenturyDriver, who are you claiming was the "one person" who "brought the page down"? The AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not blaming anyone in particular and I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm just amazed at how long ago the page was and yet it only took one user to knock it off. All it took was for one person to nominate for AFD and that knocked off the page. I'm also curious as to whether the one that was previously deleted was the old version. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The AfD was unanimous in 2005, 2 years ago!!! Europe United was created in 2005 and perhaps it wasn't notable that year. But today is 2007 and the party is still active, with enough members. I think that some administrators forgot what Wikipedia is about. If an organization exists and it is active there should be an acticle about it in Wikipedia. If you don't like this, use Encarta!!! Wadim 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand what Wikipedia "is about". We're an encyclopedia, not a web host. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • "We're an encyclopedia..." so... Wikipedia is your property. hm ok, ok Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a repost of properly deleted content. No actual evidence has been provided either in the deleted versions or in this discussion that this party has now achieved the notability that it lacked when the AFD discussion was held. No sources were provided other than a link to their own website (which fails to qualify as an independent source). Rossami (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AFD was valid, protection was valid. No indication of notability was provided. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Afd was decisive way bsck then, no new evidence was brought to the new article (google cached version), nor to this DRV. Google seems to bring up unconnected geographical locations when "Europe United" is searched. Still nothing obvious two years later, think that it'll have to wait a fair while longer before there are enough sources to write this from. _{And crying cenosrship rarely helps get an article un-deleted....} Inner Earth 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact is that Wikipedia's administratos try to delete information about this political organization. Maybe in USA that is normal, but in Europe we call it censorship. Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Deleting an article about a non-notable organisation has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey! We are not talking about "3 old men that meet every week in some bar to drink beer and play chess" (perfect example of a non-notable organization), we are talking about international political organization! Wadim 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You can convince me if you provide evidence of notability by independent third-party coverage (e.g. newspapers, tv programs) of this organisation. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In Europe (& in the USA, & the rest of the world), we don't scream censorship, we read the guidelines and try to make descisions based on reasoned arguments - if it's notable, it will have been covered in the European press - so show us! And international organisation could be me and some friends who come from different countries - we're not notable just because we're international (nor because we have our own website). Inner Earth 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. There was a straight by-the-book AfD in November, 2005; all participants voted to delete. Asking for a Deletion Review for an unsourced article is not reasonable until sources are provided. The article (at least the version of it on answers.com) still has no third-party references, though the problem has existed since the original AfD. Political parties, of all things, should be easy to find press coverage for, if they are at all known. Otherwise how will anyone vote for them? The version of the article I saw said that Europe United was just a political association, not a party at this point, so perhaps no-one has ever voted for them. The party's web site doesn't mention any elections in which they have run candidates. Wadim's suggestion that he will just keep recreating the article borders on disruptive editing. EdJohnston 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I said: "If you just ignore this note and delete the article, I will simply copy it from my computer again.". By the way, the note was ignored. In any case, I give up. I still think that this deletion is some kind of censorship, and I'm happy that Wikipedia's administrators only control Wikipedia, so people can find what they need on other Web sites.Wadim 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Notability not established. Previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion. Adambro 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Deleted without consensus: vote was 9-7 but closing admin claimed 12-7 James S. 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW it was 12-7, counting the nominator and counting an Archive comment as == Delete and counting a "Comment This kind of stuff is meant for blogs..." as == Delete. Also FWIW my closing was based, rightly or wrongly, on the theory that:
  • If most everyone agrees Entity X is harmless, Entity X is kept.
  • If some believe Entity X is harmful, but others think it's helpful, Entity X might be kept depending on the balance of various factors.
  • But if some believe Entity X is harmful and others think it's harmless but not helpful, there's no real reason to keep it, and that was the situation here in my view. Herostratus 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I'm not even looking at the item, haggling over vote counts is an insufficient reason to contest a closure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Vote count is not a reason for deletion, but that means it also isn't a reason for overturning a deletion. And as Herostratus said, if nobody believes that something is helpful, and some people do believe it's harmful, the logical thing is to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. It's not a vote. The closing comments state the reasons behind the evaluation of the arguments and the decision to delete. I see nothing wrong here. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - "voting" outcome alone cannot be determinative. It's not actually meant to be a vote. Metamagician3000 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Gonna have to go with this here, he's a sysop and he (other sysops) can read it anytime. I wouldn't say it's harmful though. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks the cache, I know this article waa a discussion. Not too many were interested. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The decision was within reasonable admin discretion and was well-explained on the page. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, policy and popular opinion both leaned towards the decision made by the admin. --tjstrf talk 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael S. Greco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

administrator's only reason was that the page constituted copyright infringement, which is simply not accurate. ABAORG 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's national media office, and a practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by administrator SwatJester or someone using that member name. The reasoning offered for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and a legal expert on copyright infringement, I would like an explanation behind this line of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned and operated by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys from all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his national activities as president, his involvement in the Clinton administration, his work for the Dukakis and Weld administrations in Massachusetts, his work as ABA judicial reviewer for federal court appointees, and for and his work with Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association. The ABA has received several inquiries already re: the deletion of the page (why it was deleted, how students and other inquirers can now access that information on President Greco, etc.)

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. We believe it to be a valid and important addition to the growing Wikipedia.org family of knowledge.

Sincerely, J. Nichols

• Endorse and speedy close Copyright violation is of this page at his firm. GRBerry 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore If the ABA Media office claims they wrote it, then the page at his firm was probably copied from the article, not the other way around. However, why is the ABA "maintaining" articles on their membership? James S. 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. (1) if they copied their web page from our article, why are we not credited? This is required. (2) When they say they wrote it, they probably mean that they wrote it on their web page first and copied it to Wikipedia later. (3) If the material on their web site is not copyrighted, they need to make this manifest, otherwise we must assume its under copyright. No predjudice against anyone re-creating the article, written in their own words. Herostratus 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deleting editor I deleted it as a blatant copyright vio of that page. It was clearly a valid copyright deletion, the copy pasting being incompatible with GFDL attribution. Also, I should note the WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:USER implications of User:ABAORG's actions here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Obvious Conflict of Interest. They don't WP:OWN the article. alphachimp 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above but also there is no proof that J. Nichols is who he says he is. Consider the following posting that I made on WP:ANI.

  Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:abanews@abanet.org them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse If the text is released under GFDL and the images are multi-licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons, then there would be no basis for the article's deletion. The ABA must understand that doing so would enable the text to be edited by anyone. A disclaimer on the talk page or an update of licensing information on their web page should be sufficient. However, the article itself does not clearly establish the notability of the subject with verification from multiple third-party non-trivial sources. Killa Kitty 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The suggestion that they maintained the article sounds like they were using us for free web hosting - well we don't do that. Also, we have clear policies on using copyrighted material and its fine as long as the rights holder contacts OTRS and provides the relevant release. Surely not a problem for them to do if they are who they say they are. Personally, if the guy is notable, it prefer an independantly written and properly cited article but call me old fashioned in that respect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as per several of the above. If this is a legit communication (which i tend to doubt) and if the ABA is prepared to relase their text under the GFDL then it can be recreated. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dust (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unknown John Bolton MBICSc 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Koda Rohan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was speedy-deleted per {{db-bio}}. The original content might have failed to assert his significance but he is a notable author. For example, Britannica has an entry for him[2]. Kusunose 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The deleted article just said they were a Japanese author and gave no further information. As such it made assertion of notability and was rightly deleted. That said, the speedy deletion does not prevent a new article being started if any editor wishes to be bold and create one that does assert notability and is supported by reliable sources. WjBscribe 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The deletion was entirely proper as WJscribe says above, but I see what Kusunose means. Let's give him/her the chance to expand it before closing this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete Extremely notable author. I've undeleted for now, and added to the article a bit including a reference. Definitely an article Wikipedia should not be without. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obviously valid Articles-7 - remember that the question is not whether the author is notable, but whether the article asserted this, which it didn't. Close this review as moot following recreation with assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Friendship Circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Talk:Friendship Circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason given was "and the only contributor was 'Zalman613'" However you did not even give a chance for anyone else to comment. 12.26.60.132 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, the reason given was "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". >Radiant< 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Friendship Circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and the reason clearly given there, no reason was given why that is not of major importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.60.132 (talk • contribs).

• That was the talk page. Talk pages for pages that have been deleted are usually deleted as well. And it looked like someone was just trying to recreate the article content on the Talk, which is not what Talk pages are for anyway. (Though I'm only going by the snippet of content included in the deletion summary; I can't actually see the deleted page's full content.) WarpstarRider 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are an admin. than restore the talk page and you will see. The point that it said there was, that the organization is fundamental in changing societies look at the inclusion of special needs children. Knowing about that, through that post, is a part of people being aware of the this type of thought or at least to know that it exists in a large way. That explains clearly the importance and significance of the subject, the deleter does explain why that is invalid. 12.26.60.132 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I speedied this. This article does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It is also heavily POV, contextless (international? US? Israel?) and is a mission statement, not an article. having reread, I would still delete. jimfbleak 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement which would require substantial rewriting to be anything else) and G12 (content copied from another website with no assertion of permission, [3]). If you could fix those, you would still have the problem that it is an article on a specific group but under a generic title, and the possible conflict of interest - created by a user called Zalman, and Rabbi Zalman Grossbaum is a leading figure in the group. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Direct cut-and-paste from a website. Not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD G11 mainly and also A7. An attempt at a neutral, sourced article on this subject would be one thing, but this was a cut & paste mission statement. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• That's a copyvio, first rewrite it then we can debate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Central station metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Four lane ends metro station.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Haymarket metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Ilford road metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Jesmond metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Longbenton metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Monument metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Northumberland park metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Regent centre metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:South gosforth metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:St james metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:West jesmond metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (IfD)

Rogue result. Images have no encyclopaedic value, and are essentially textual content pretending to be an image. Last time I checked, we don't use images for this sort of thing (e.g. we don't use "" where "Longbenton" will do - particularly as there are implications for screen readers and users of large fonts). The closing admin decided that apparently despite the images being purely cosmetic, having no value, and the usability concerns, 3 ILIKEITs and a straight vote are apparently a consensus. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• XfD isn't the right place for this. A discussion about whether these are the logos of the stations or just text on a goldenrod background should occur at some relevant page, not IfD. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• (Comment from the closing admin) "No encyclopedic value," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The actual wording of the nomination is "serve no purpose, purely cosmetic," again fairly subjective claims, which many others did not agree with. The images are public domain and were being used. There was no reason to delete them. WP:IFD is not the forum for whether the images belong as the title for an infobox or not. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)}
  • Again, I put it to you that 3 WP:ILIKEITs and 1 straight vote are not a consensus, and hardly support the claim that "many others did not agree with" the nomination. As for the wording of the nomination, I think it's not a big jump to infer "unencyclopaedic". I still challenge anyone to defy this claim (it has not once been addressed, not in the debate nor in the accompanying talk). Chris cheese whine 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that a free image be used for encyclopedic purposes to remain on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • IfD begs to differ. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ifd is not a policy. But even at that, the images were being useful in the article namespace so they could be considered encyclopedic. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, now you're just making excuses. They were not being useful. They were being used where it would undoubtedly be better to use text, and purely to fulfull a cosmetic role. The WP:MOS is clear on the point that we do not blindly follow the styles of others, and the point that apparently we should use the same typeface as on the signs carries no weight whatsoever. Chris cheese whine 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here is my re-cap for non-deletion:

1. The images were being used
2. There was no legal reason to delete them.
3. There was no policy reason to delete them.
4. There was no consensus to delete them

Nv8200p talk 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The images should not have been in use. There was no real opposition to the proposed deletion. "UE" clearly is a policy reason to delete, otherwise it would not be listed in the instructions as a viable reason. Chris cheese whine 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Increasing the cosmetic appeal improves Wikipedia. I've seen templates that use images te recreate route maps which is much better than providing them in voluminous writing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Where were these used before they were nominated for deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The images were used in the infobox for each station such as in this example for West Jesmond. DrFrench 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chriscf keeps removing the image so, look in the history and find one of mine or DrFrench's reverts to see the image in context. -Nv8200p talk 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse decision The proliferation of those images is annoying (starting with this particularly obnoxious example) and some policy/MoS directive needs to be created to keep Wikipedia from turning into Geocities 2.0, but I can't read this from the discussion. This reads more like an "I'm unhappy with the outcome of the IfD" nomination to me. ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussion suffered from an overparticipation of those with an interest in using them, and underparticipation of outside parties, hence I'm unhappy with the outcome in the sense that I believe the closer failed to take the interests into account. Chris cheese whine 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A photograph of the place would be encyclopaedic, a mocked-up version of the station sign is not. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean overturn and delete? The original decision was to keep. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I don't see the value of substituting the text "West Jesmond" with a picture that says "West Jesmond". I know it might be typeset in a rare and non-reproducible typeface, but still it offers little enhancement over plain text. Replace with a photograph of the respective station if you must. (Oh, and the image server is having a bad day - I can only see the alternative text despite having purged both the article and the image description page.) Resurgent insurgent 10:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep; this is an editorial decision that should be decided by the contributors on those pages, not on DRV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It has. There is no consensus to use the images. Hence I proposed them for deletion. Chris cheese whine 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It has not. If so, please provide a link to the relevant discussion by the contributors to those pages. The definition of consensus is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community. The group that particpated in the IFD agreed that the images should be kept. No other group has discussed the text versus image issue in the infobox headings -Nv8200p talk 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • We do not need a discussion on the merits of text vs. an image containing the same text in much the same way that we do not need a discussion on the subject of whether or not grass is predominantly green. There is no consensus discussion anywhere which is so enormously compelling as to override this common-sense fact. Chris cheese whine 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank God you are here to show us the errors of our ways! -Nv8200p talk 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

        Also, as far as I am concerned, the user who created them and their buddies calling WP:ILIKEIT is not a consensus. Chris cheese whine 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

        • More so a consensus then one person saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and using the guise of "unencyclopedic" as a human shield.
          • Now I see the problem. For a while, I thought I was on Wikipedia, but evidently I've stumbled onto Myspace. Chris cheese whine 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • You are on Wikipedia, and generally speaking, falling back on insults when your arguments are failing isn't very convincing. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep The IfD result was fair, it just seems Chris is upset about that result. I cannot see any strong reason for deleting them. I'd also ask that he doesn't keep removing images prior to the IfD outcome, doing so is pre-empting that outcome. Adambro 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per User:Crotalus horridus. Deletion reason boils down to "I don't like them," and all User:Chriscf is doing to explain himself is to add exclamation points to that sentence. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Demented Cartoon Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know I have asked for this before, and I have noted your responses. You all said that the page led to nonsense, and what I claimed (that there was one a pretty informative article that was as good as any other article) was not true. (original request on January 13 2007) I know for a fact that somwhere in the history of the page you will find the version I was talking about. Full of true information about the movie, and quite a long article at that. tDCM is a very popular flash movie, and if you can find the proper version, I'm sure it would be a great re-adition to wikipedia! I am willing to work with an admin to halp him/her find the right version! Please contact me via userpage if you can help me get the proper page restored! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion, the problem wasn't that the page was nonsense, it's that there was no coverage of the animation in reliable sources or any other evidence that it met the notability standards. Until some one can produce reliable sources that prove otherwise, the page stays deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)