Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent

Duck on a Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The deletion log says only "notability" - but this game is considered to be James Naismith's inspiration when he invented basketball. This should be sufficiently notable! (As well, I might have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an AfD for this article.) Ckatz^chat_spy 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I can't see the article or find a cache, but there would be no reason this article would have been created without mentioning that point. Even if that were the case, games cannot be speedied due to notability issues, so it was invalid no matter which way you slice it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, abject nonsense on a stick. Also fails WP:NFT and WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The second is not a speedy criterion. The third is patently false if it inspired a major sport. The first is certainly not nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, abject nonsense' is a speedy criterion, failure to assert notability is a speedy criterion (and this actually asserted non-notability, which is worse), and WP:NFT means it would likely fail at AfD even if we did waste our time by sending it there. What do you make of this: [..] It was returning to the throwing line with his or her dump, they became the guard. The guard could not tag anyone until he picked up a dump at his feet, nor could he chase anyone until he put the drake back up on its platform. Recent findings believe the bible may be based on this game. However, it does seem that the problem here was that it had been vandalised, and that was the cause of the deletion. An unvaldalised version exists below the delrev text, and that is unproblematic, so that can be restored. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. This wasn't nonsense (so that's out), not everything that fails to assert notability can be speedied (please read A7). That? That's a game, so it can't be speedied as either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except that the version I saw was nonsense. The problem was numerous successive vandalistic edits. And anything that fails even to assert encyclopaedic notability is fair game. Wikilawyering and rule mongering just wastes everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Again, it would be nice to be able to review the article and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the text. The notability, however, is undeniable, and WP:NFT does not apply. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Total contents of the page at deletion time was "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children’s game.", and a {{stub}} template. Nothing more. - TexasAndroid 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And I will note, I likely should have PRODed it instead of Speedy. But still, there was not even the slightest assertion of notability. Looking back through the history of the article, it appears to have had more information in older versions, but to have been slowly chipped away by anon edits until it reached the version that showed up on the Short Pages list and got my attention. Not sure why I did not notice the older versions in the history, I'm usually pretty thourough about checking them for vandalism. But still.... Anyway, I have no objections to it being overturned at this point, especially if someone will also restore the older versions that do have the notability claims. Not sure if I should do it myself, given that it's under review, so I'll leave that to someone else. - TexasAndroid 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Texas. As the creator of this article, I would be happy if you would be willing to close this thread and bring the article to AFD. That seems like a good consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Worth noting that this still doesn't meet any criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per JzG and TexasAndroid. Textbook speedy. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've undeleted the article up to the version of February 16, 2007. That version is sourced and asserts notability. Since then, it had been vandalized down to a substub, but we don't delete articles just because they've been vandalized. --Carnildo 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn - I created this article originally from an AFC request. As you should be able to see from the page, it is mostly certainly sourced with no less a source than ESPN; so I'm not sure how people can say it's "utter nonsense". What's more, the notability concern do not apply, as A7 only exists for people, clubs, and organizations. I beg of you to at least give this article the chance of an AFD and not to go rouge on us and decide to delete it without community consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear what happened: some anons nibbled away at it until it was a short unsourced paragraph of nonsense, then someone converted it into a substub consisting of the sentence "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children's game", at which point it was deleted. I've seen this sort of thing twice before, where an article was slowly vandalized to the point of being a speedy-deletion candidate. --Carnildo 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore currently available non-vandalised version. That version is not patent nonsense. Sandstein 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I think the version of Feb 16 will need some expansion, but I agree with Sandstein that it is potentially interesting enough to be used to build on. DGG 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This entry is well-sourced with not just one but two sources, one of them ESPN. Notability and WP:NFT concerns do not apply. I concur with Carnildo's assessment about what might've happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that is I think what happened. Previous versions going back some way were vandalism. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retarded Animal Babies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

There is no logic behind deleting it in the first place. The entire argument around deletion seems cenetered around wether or not the product has recieved notable reviews via newspaper, television, and other such media. Wether or not it has is irrelevant, as Retarded Animal Babies does in deed meet the criteria to have a Wiki site regardless of the content of ANY newspaper. I quote the third rule on Wikipedia's page for notability criteria. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Newgrounds.com is in fact an online publisher and it is in fact both independant of the creators of Retarded Animal Babies, and quite well known. It's also been featured in G4's "Late Night Peep Show" in an episode that originally aired on 7/18/2006. 69.235.157.150 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse, valid AfD just closed, no new information presented. Not liking the result is not grounds for overturning it. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted without any discussion or attempt to rectify anything which may or may not have been objectionable. Also it had already survived a nomination for speedy deletion. The controversy centers around 1.) Some find the humor objectionable. 2.) Similarity between B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A and a well known encyclopedia of similar name, ignoring the fact that the encyclopedia is spelled differently and is not an acronym. The Artical is not an attack on a competitor, nor is it a violation of copyright. Also The acronym appears on other pages without problem and is not deleted. The article was clearly marked as humor anyway, and there was no reason at all to delete it. If push came to shove it's not like the acronym couldn't be changed anyway. I'm sorry if the article offended an administrator, but I didn't make the acronym up, I was simply using an acronym that has already been in use on other pages. This Humor Piece was never given the five days of discussion required in the rules.Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cris! I withdraw the objection. The page just isn't that important. I would hope that somebody will move the page, undelete it, or at least allow me to change it, but what I won't do is make a spectacle of it, or myself. Do with the page as you will, I trust your judgements. I will go back to patrolling new edits, and when I become bored, perhaps write another article. Be well everyone, and thanks for listening. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• WTF? patent nonsense and/or trolling. Not remotely funny. We really don't need to debate this - take it away.--Doc^g 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:W.T.F.?. I could move it back to user space, seriously, what was the point of sending this to WP space in the first place? ~ trialsanderrors 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That will be acceptable- it was moved to WP because ALL of the humor pages it links to and links from are in WP space. As I pointed out, this is not a solo-page, or a solo-acronym, there are about 15 other VERY SIMILAR humor articles written the same way, and with similar content. My thinking was that if THEY are all in WP space, then so should this article. Move it to user space if that will save it from deletion, but I would much rather that the article get the same considerations as the other articles. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless it really is utter nonsense, I suppose it could peacefully co-exist with the rest of Wikipedia as a userspace sub-page. (I say that, as I got told off for using the word "userfy" earlier this week, silly me.) Chris cheese whine 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• WP:NOT The X Factor. There's no need to make a spectacle of it. Chris cheese whine 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• E.N.D.O.R.S.E. deletion, valid rationale for deletion. It's either G1 or G10. --Coredesat 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Not as funny as Sue thinks it is, sadly. 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Deletion endorsed As per Doc glasgow, the content appeared to be patent nonsense, and even borderline trolling. Humour is subjective. The deletion was valid. --sunstar net^talk 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Airforce-ti.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|IfD)

This was a free public domain image, published by the U.S. Air Force on their official website, of a female Military Training Instructor at a graduation parade. Image was used for approximately two months in the articles Drill instructor, Recruit training, and History of women in the military. On 22 March, the image was deleted pursuant to a WP:OTRS complaint. According to the deleting admin, the complaint originated with unspecified "people from the Air Force"; its general nature was that one of the persons depicted had undergone disciplinary action since the photograph was taken (explained in the edit summary of this diff by the deleting admin). This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the Air Force has since removed the photo from their official website as well.

I've been over and over the image policy and can't find a policy justification for the image's deletion, unless it's WP:IAR. The image was in the public domain and did not contain any negative information about the individuals depicted. The deleting admin did not specify whether the complaint came from Air Force personnel in an official or unofficial capacity - either way, I can't find a policy supporting an undiscussed deletion for these particular circumstances.

I'm no attorney, but I guess the question comes down to this -

1. If the request was made by the Air Force in an official capacity, can they withdraw an image from the public domain once they have already released it?
2. If the request was made by Air Force people in an unofficial capacity, who simply have some objection to the person depicted in the photo, can they have the image deleted without discussion via a WP:OTRS complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - I should have posted this earlier, but, in case anyone wants to see what the image looked like, here it is as hosted on another website. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2 - The deleting admin has apparently gone on a WikiBreak and is unavailable to answer questions - can another admin get the ticket number and take a look at the complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• What I think the question comes down to is "Is it worth the trouble to tell them that they can't have the picture deleted?". So if there's a picture that would work just as well, pleas use that instead and save the trouble. If there isn't, which I suspect, it's more complicated, but we still shouldn't get into unnecessary trouble based on the fact that it's not really valid. -Amarkov moo! 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Complications
• According to the edit summary there, they apparently dismissed her for posing for Playboy. She is (former) U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Michelle Manhart. The WP article is well sourced , including BBC, but has no image. The Playboy pictures appear (as obvious copyright violations) at various places in the web, (and perhaps the dismissal was well justified by the applicable standards).
• At present , the picture used for History of women in the military is that of Nicole_Malachowski, the WP article on her used a somewhat less striking picture. (It's the same person, as shown by http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pilots.html, which has the picture under question and her name). Her career seems to have been both distinguished and uncontroversial. It's a suitable replacement. For the other three pictures, an amusingly more stereotypical replacement was used, and is in fact appropriate.
• However, the US government probably has no right to withdraw an image except for national security considerations, and perhaps it is our responsibility as citizens to see that our rights are preserved, and some think this best done by exercising them vigorously. I do not know just what photograph we had--possible the one from the BBC story? The picture should be restored to commons, and belongs, in the right place, the article on the person. I don't really see how we can defend it being used under drill instructor. We should simply treat it as an ordinary editorial decision. DGG 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the problem is that the person in the picture is not identified as Michelle Manhart - though I agree with you the similarity in names is probably not coincidental. Has anyone established that this is, in fact, the same individual? I've searched for a reliable source, but have been unable to find one. And I guess the secondary point I wanted to make here was that, if other images for the articles were preferred, this was not the way to go about it - it should have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion despite the above original research - this is not worth the trouble. OTRS personnel are privy to private correspondence and have to make judgement calls. They should be left to make them unless there is incredible reason to do otherwise. This is not such a case. No, copyright holders cannot revoke free licences, but as a courtesy we routinely remove images on similar grounds - particularly when they contain identifiable individuals.--Doc^g 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand - I've never before had any complaint with the OTRS process. I'm not asking for the specifics of the OTRS complaint; I'm just hoping for someone to verify the deletion was in accordance with policy and to be informed (in a general way) of the specific policy applied. I don't think that's unreasonable. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When we receive complaints, we try to be helpful. When the request is reasonable and won't make wikipedia fall down, we try to comply. Wikipedia can have very negative effects on real people in the real world - OTRS operators use their judgement to try to mitigate that. It isn't always about citing specific policies by section numbers, it is about the spirit of the project and doing the Right Thing. It's often a difficult judgement call.--Doc^g 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - no arguments here. If there was the possibility of harm to an individual, or even if the person depicted in the image requested deletion, I would be first in line to support that. I'm just skeptical that this is the case here. (Although I do want to emphasize that I sincerely believe the deleting admin was acting in good faith, I just disagree with the decision.) RJASE1 ^Talk 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The image seems to have been removed from its original location [1]. Not sure if it has been deleted or simply moved, but if the former we should probably follow suit. ~ trialsanderrors 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No offense, but why? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of US government public domain images on WikiMedia, most of which are not currently displayed on a government website. This doesn't invalidate their public domain status. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because I'm guessing in this case it was pulled for a reason. ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Argh - I'm trying not to look like some psychotically-obsessed person by responding to every single post here, I'm just looking for a coherent explanation of what that reason could be. I should say I'm perfectly willing to drop this whole thing if someone could offer a substitute free image, of comparable quality, of a female enlisted Air Force drill instructor. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

as for identity, I think one of the not quite legit web sites has our picture as well. But after looking around a little in a scientific spirit, I can see why the Air Force would have wanted it removed. To describe it in words, one of the pictures had her wearing (only) a small part of a uniform similar to that of a drill instructor, and a good deal of fun was made with that concept in the legends. It wasn't the government being ridiculous--it was the govt being, actually, fairly sensible, though it may pain me to say it. Considering the readership of Playboy, legit edition and otherwise, it would have been a mockery to use her for this. We should pick another case to defend our rights. DGG 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. As a licencing and policy matter, the issue is clear: the image is PD, we infringe no laws that I can think of by keeping it, and it is of encyclopedic use (if only to illustrate Michelle Manhart - one can even read the name tag). I can imagine that the picture is mildly embarrassing to the ex-sergeant and the USAF, but since when is it part of Wikipedia's mission not to hurt the tender feelings of the U.S. military and the amateur pr0n stars it employs? We are, after all, not censored. Sandstein 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We are a educational charity not a free-speech campaign group, or a gutter newspaper, which will defend its rights to embarrass people regardless of the educational metits. (Use of this image to illustrate Manhart would clearly constitute original research, anyway). Your argument is unacceptable.--Doc^g 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper or a campaign group, but neither are we a charity (the Foundation is). We are an encyclopedia, "a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge". What matters is whether that information is notable and within our scope, not whether it embarrasses someone. I'd have no problem deleting the article on Michelle Manhart, since it's essentially a (marginally interesting) news story more appropriate for Wikinews. But as long as we have the article, us including this harmless picture can hardly embarrass the woman any more, given that the porn images she posed for are already all over the web along with her full name. It's also a good image well suited to illustrating various military-related articles. (As to OR, no: the name is right there on the name tag, no research required.) Sandstein 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Up to a point. It's a good quality image, but not really representative of what air force training instructors actually look like - if it was, there would be no need to advertise for new recruits, they'd have to beat them off with a stick. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per Doc glasgow. --bainer (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doc. When identifiable people are concerned, and free replacements are reasonably available where necessary, OTRS people shouldn't have to publicly state every specific of the complaint. That would sort of negate the point of OTRS. If this were a major newsworthy photo, I might be willing to fight for our right to use it per freedom of speech concerns, but that simply isn't the case. If we're Byzantine about simple deletions like this, it will mean we lose all our teech when a real free-speech issue comes up. Mak (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nobody is asking for the specifics of the complaint. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. My own experience with OTRS and my familiarity with the way Doc handles these things leads me to the conclusion that even when not all the details are public, the decision that was made was the most sensible. We´re not censored, but neither are we obliged to follow the lead of other websites that make decisions based on other grounds or standards than we do. --JoanneB 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Absolutely no reason that this image needs to be used. At times we need to make judgment calls that balance Wikipedia's mission and that of people in the image and the image's owner. I trust OTRS volunteers to do their job and make these tough calls. FloNight 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, as deletion is the correct tool to be used when a not-public person has found a picture of themselves being published by us solely because copyright is not involved. Jkelly 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. The picture isn't the least bit embarrassing or salacious per se (no matter what hyperbole Doc Glasgow offers up about the "gutter press"), it's public domain, it illustrates an actual existing encyclopedic subject (Women in the military or Michelle Manhart -- whether the latter is worthy is an entirely separate issue), and "because the Government wants to sweep this under the rug" is a lousy excuse for a pre-emptive deletion. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Including this particular image smacks strongly of WP:POINT. Are there really so few pictures of air force training instructors that we absolutely must have this one? I think not. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per Doc, FloNight, Guy, Jkelly et al... This image does not further the cause of the encyclopedia. We are not investigative journalists or tabloid press. OTRS was asked to do something, the trusted person that handled the ticket acted, and to undelete causes further needless drama. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. An image of someone who has now become someone specific and identifiable is no longer the best image to illustrate a generic article. Re: supposed censorship, WP:POINT. It's a judgment call, certainly, but I'd come down on the deletion side.--SethTisue 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Honestly, I appreciate the declarations of support for the WP:OTRS process - I share it, as I expressed above. But most of the votes above ignore and/or misrepresent my argument. Nobody is asking for confidential details of the OTRS complaint (Nobody has to, because the deleting admin already disclosed the reason for the complaint). So it boils down to one of two situations:

1. This is a free, public domain, photo of Michelle Manhart - a subject of a Wikipedia article and a public figure who is apparently notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia currently has no other free image of this person to illustrate the article. In that case the photo would be suitable for illustration of the article Michelle Manhart.
2. This is a free, public domain, photo of a person other than Michelle Manhart. In this case, I can't see any reason to delete the photo - even if not used as an agreed-upon photo for particular articles, it's certainly suitable for the Commons. Any reasonable person viewing this photo would agree that it couldn't possibly embarrass or demean anyone in any way.

The deleting admin is a teenaged high school student who is currently on a Wikibreak and is not anwering any questions regarding this undiscussed deletion. All I have asked for is a review of this deletion per existing policy (and I include WP:IAR and WP:AGF as part of that policy) to ensure it was the best thing for Wikipedia. So far, nobody has admitted to getting the ticket number of the WP:OTRS complaint and reviewing to ensure it was a correct deletion. I remind all that WP:DRV is not nose-counting, but a review of policy application, and respectfully ask the admin closing this case to carefully review all facts of this deletion (including the original OTRS complaint) to ensure this case was handled correctly. Thanks - RJASE1 ^Talk 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that Jaranda is a 'teenaged high school student' relevant? --Doc^g 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not hugely relevent, only a contributing factor in my request that someone with experience review the complaint, that's all. I'm more concerned with the fact that Jaranda is not present to answer my concerns regarding this undiscussed deletion. Calm down. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody patronising - I am perfectly calm. It is you that is engaging in the ad hominem.--Doc^g 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No ad hominem intended, as I stated in the comment immediately above yours. Are you going to address any of my other concerns? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. I suspect that a hypothetical decision to restore here would receive attention at the Foundation level, and I find the undue emphasis on this image to be inexplicable. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for your suspicions? RJASE1 ^Talk 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just the fact that OTRS-based deletions or redactions are often based on factors not appropriate for discussion on-wiki and therefore often are not subject to on-wiki review. I have no information beyond the public record concerning this particular deletion. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, no valid reason to delete what seems like a perfectly good public domain image. If the Air Force is embarrassed about it, there's nothing to say that we'd have to use it in the articles where it was used before. Maybe it should just go on Commons? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Laurence Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Still under discussion, information being added. Since its first entry, the very small piece on Laurence Scott has grown in information. It includes at least one citation, signaling that the subject has been written about by others. Further, more than one Wikipedian contributor had begun working on the article.

Finally, "notability" is not a black or white issue. There is a spectrum of "notability" that should correspond to the length of the article. Laurence Scott is not as notable as, say, Albert Einstein, but Scott is more notable than, say, my postman. There has been nothing that any rational person would label discussion about deleting this little article. Thus, we should let it ride as other people add information to it. James Nicol 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. There is one source, not the multiple required by WP:N. There is no way that any rational discussion could arrive at a consensus that one source is multiple sources. -Amarkov moo! 16:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As I said in the article's original AfD discussion, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. One article mentioning him as responsible for some paintings in a Harvard basement does not seem to me to establish notability. The article creator's continual recreation of it in the face of the AfD and several g4 speedies isn't very endearing, either. Deor 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keeping. We see in Deor's remark that this has more to to w/ personality issues than w/ the quality of the article. Sources that have used Scott's translation of Propp are numerous. Would you like them listed? If Scott is not here, then where would one go to find out about him? How much space are these paragraphs taking up? In other words, what is the harm in keeping this small article and permitting it time to grow? James Nicol 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  The nomination is your opinion, unless you choose to withdraw it. GRBerry 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Umm, you don't get to respond to your own proposal. I strongly suggest that you strike out the response above. Deor 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't this a discussion? I can incorporate this remark w/in the proposal, if you want. I'd love to see those questions answered. James Nicol 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If there's nowhere else people can go to find out about him, we can't have an article, because articles need to be based on sources, not original research. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Amarkov, for conceding my other points: These paragraphs take up very little space, and there's no harm in keeping them until others, like the "Relister" below, add to the information. As for notability? How about publishing Pound & translating Propp? James Nicol 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I didn't concede your other points. And there is harm in keeping them if they're unsourced, because they may not be true. And notability, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is defined as [[WP:N|having multiple independent reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
            • "Notability" is not defined as having multiple sources. "Notability" is defined as a contentious issue. Further, the Wiki-page on Bio says "The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion". As to truth or falsity, what are you disputing? James Nicol 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Notability normally is not defined that way, true. But Wikipedia articles don't just have to meet a definition of notability. They have to meet WP:N, which does require multiple sources. You're right that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but that isn't what this was. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting doesn't establish truth. Correcting establishes truth. We post what information we know about Laurence Scott, and others, who know more or different, add & emend. Behold: Truth. James Nicol 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

*Relist In the previous AfD there was no real discussion, nor attempt to improve the article. I usually spot these, but these was so little discussion I apparently didn't. Treat it as an appeal from my mistake if you like. Looking at the merits, Apparently Professor of Linguistic at MITs, student of Jakobson. The presumption is that Full professors at major universities are likely to be notable. It's true the article just says he taught at Michigan and MIT for all of his career, so he might possibly not have been a full professor--or possibly not even a professor but an instructor. Most likely a typical example of over-modest article writing from academic or their families--almost as frequent as overblown puffery from them. More career details forthcoming as soon as I check for them. (By my slip-up I posted first on the archived AfD page--I apologize.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs).

Thank you! A voice of reason, rising above the ad hominem and bureaucratic. We should be looking at facts, not rushing to dismiss. Give us a chance, please, to make the case for Scott. I resent having Nicol's sins, if they are sins, held against me. -- SocJan 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Reasons have been well covered by other participants in this discussion.--SethTisue 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Few !votes, but a borderline A7 anyway. Clearly fails the professor test. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse re-deletion. Neither the recreated article nor this discussion have turned up evidence to justify overturning the previous AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

One reason "the recreated article" doesn't have the evidence you ask for is that someone's too-speedy-for-comfort deletion caused my additions to the article to disappear just as I was uploading them. I had no idea that an entry could disappear in mid-edit! (See my comment, below, in which I sketch those additions.)--SocJan 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion A reasonably thorough search through a number of databases and catalog has turned up no additional book and no published papers--nor could those who had worked on the article provide me with any further information. He was apparently not a professor, but -- just guessing-- may possibly have been a language instructor such as many large universities used without having them actually on the faculty. There were quite a few ghits, and GS hits,and apparent database hits, but they are referred back to his editorship of Propp's seminal book--a book very widely cited. Delete and salt. It has now been thoroughly done, and there is no reason at all to expect anything else to turn up. I think the originator now realises this. I thank everyone for their patience while this was being double-checked. DGG 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please Relist. Is a small press publisher, book designer, and master printer not "significant"? Educate me about what counts on Wikipedia. I was thinking of working hard on an A. Doyle Moore entry (proprietor of The FInial Press, publisher of many important concrete poets), but perhaps I would be wasting my time.

I first visited the Laurence Scott entry a day or two ago, noted that it had been tagged for speedy deletion, and immediately went to work adding what I know about Scott (which I believed adequate to justify an entry for him). But when I tried to save my work and clicked on "save", I got a message that WHILE I WAS AT WORK on the page, it had already been speedy-deleted! I could not recover my work -- which was fully attributed to reputable published sources. I could not even view the page. So first let me thank someone for protecting the text. I have now been able to read it and, as I feared, to confirm that my changes were lost.

Let me summarize their substance here; then perhaps we (whoever "we" is) can decide whether a Laurence H. Scott entry is justified by Scott's "significance".

What little I know about Scott comes by way of my interest in the career of Guy Davenport (among many other things, a Pound scholar). As the protected Scott entry reports, Davenport and Scott printed a limited edition of Ezra Pound's CANTO CX. What the entry does not (yet) say is that theirs was the world's first edition of that Canto; moreover, that their version is NOT the version that made it into the Pound canon currently in print. Anyone willing to check the holdings of major research libraries will discover that the Davenport/Scott CANTO CX is a prized holding of rare book rooms around the world.

Scott printed two other Davenport pieces, Davenport's "Ezra's Bowmen of Shu" (erroneously listed as a Pound piece in the protected entry) (but would not be had my work on the entry been saved). The piece in fact published for the first time a drawing by sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, whose "Hieratic Head of Ezra Pound" is justly celebrated, and a letter Gaudier wrote from the trenches of WW I to John Cournos, another friend of Ezra Pound, using Pound's "Song of the Bowmen of Shu" to describe his (Gaudier's) own situation at the front, where he was soon to be killed. Almost two decades later, Davenport used the Pound poem and the Gaudier letter as elements in his own tribute to Gaudier, THE BOWMEN OF SHU. A third Laurence Scott / Guy Davenport collaboration was Scott's setting and printing of Davenport's poem "Cydonia Florentia", dedicated to the infant son of experimental film maker Stan Brakhage. I own copies of two of those three pieces and can attest to their importance as examples of fine design and printing and as pieces of significance in Pound and Davenport studies.

If given another chance to contribute to a Laurence H. Scott Wikipedia entry I would, of course, provide this information more neutrally and with proper attribution, referring to published bibliographies and appreciations. The Joan Crane bibliography of Guy Davenport's work, for example, covers Scott's work with Davenport in some detail. See ref at Davenport page.

I am just this week in touch with others who know other (non-Davenportian) aspects of Laurence Scott's careers as artist and as small press publisher of important poets. I have reason to believe that they would strengthen the Wikipedia entry on Scott, if allowed the opportunity to do so. --SocJan 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Can those supporting keeping the Scott page point to the specific language in WP:BIO (and/or WP:N and WP:PROF) that they think justifies Scott's inclusion? Some are arguing that Scott is an important and interesting person to some people, but I'm not seeing arguments that specifically address how Scott meets the specific requirements of WP:BIO. That's the real issue here.--SethTisue 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Scott meets this Wikipedia notability criterion: "The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance." His hand-printed limited editions of notable poets are found in the rare book collections of many important research libraries -- The Bodleian, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, NYPL, etc. Rare book collections are in the book world the equivalent of art galleries, no? (But, as long as it appears to me that the Speedy Delete Police are dead set against a Scott entry in order to teach Nicol some sort of discipline lesson, I ain't gonna do the work of listing his publications and the institutions that value them highly .)

I know only about Scott's career as friend and publisher of significant poets; he appears to have done other significant things that other people could document -- if only there were a stub they could find. Wikipedia used to allow people interested in an obscure figure each to contibute to that person's record, without first finding each other outside Wikipedia. Deleting an inoffensive entry that was not spam, that was not self-listed (Scott is dead), that did not violate copyright, destroys that potential synergy.

Police should concentrate on real crime -- and be careful not to shoot bystanders. Does Wikipedia have a police training academy? If not, maybe one is needed.--SocJan 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Using your police analogy, the defendant (article) was arrested by me (bad cop) and sent to a judge (admin), where he had a bench trial (speedy deletion). The judge found the defendant innocent. The case was appealed and sent to a jury trial (AFD), where a jury gave their opinion to incarcerate (delete) the defendant, and a judge (admin) agreed. The defendant then repeated his prior violation and was re-arrested and sent to a bench trial again. That judge (admin) followed the previous ruling of the judge/jury and once again deleted the article. This was repeated two more times, and only now has the defendant decided to hire a few lawyers (you being one of them). The lawyers are arguing their case (this discussion) before an appeals court with a jury, and are on their way to losing. Now, tell me where did the "police" go wrong here? Maybe you should be the one attending a class of some sort. Betaeleven 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - as per all above. Betaeleven 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep for a time to permit article improvement, then relist if necessary. Good-faith articles should not be deleted based on an AfD with two !votes. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, O Sweet Lone Voice of Reason and Moderation.--SocJan 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I feel this was speedy deleted without sufficient discussion to reach consensus (only one reponse was listed). I have seen similar articles go through more thorough discussion, and in some cases kept, and I think an article originating from a major publication like this should be given a bit more discussion before it is deleted. 23skidoo 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse, copyright violations can not be undeleted, regardless of the merits of the content. No prejudice against creating an article about it, but any article which is the list should be speedied as a copyvio. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse yet another copyright violating "best of" article. Even if it were not a copyvio, it would be unencyclopaedic - we do not need an article on every single seasonal spacefiller. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a confirmed copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bikini Carwash Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This is a legitimate movie and the reason provided (Virtually everything in this movie is redlinked) seems odd to me? since when is it a reason for deletion. what are the criteria for inclusion of movies ? Hektor 10:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103812/ ImdB entry

• Send to Afd - probably crap, but needs a debate. IMDB is not indicative of notability.--Doc^g 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. What speedy did it qualify under? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• It was an unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is) but I don't care if it goes to AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, sending to AfD - may as well debate it there.--Doc^g 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse this course of action. Chris cheese whine 12:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • So, in other words, it didn't qualify for speedy deletion. Thanks for reversing yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No. In other words, it did qualify, but has been contested. Chris cheese whine 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UK Resistance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deletion log shows that this CSD "didn't match WP:WEB fully". I am appealing this CSD, as I rewrote some of this article, I know that I cited Edge (magazine) and Computer and Video Games (magazine) for certain passages. This did have third party sources, from very established reliable sources. It should have been prodded or AFDed. - hahnchen 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, "doesn't meet WP:WEB completely" is not a speedy criterion. And seeing as the article deleted in AfD had no reliable sources, a new AfD is in order for G4 to work. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - notability guidelines are not policy and certainly not speedy deletion criteria--Doc^g 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, appears to be an invalid CSD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hold on a moment, the deletion log for the article reveals it was deleted as the result a AfD a year ago, and the article was recreated without going through a review first. Wouldn't the speedy be justified under WP:CSD#G4? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, following Amarkov's comments above. I have recreated other articles without pandering to DRV such as Zen of Sudoku (although I did not originally recreate UK Resistance, merely tidied it up) - hahnchen 12:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• ((1st AfD))

Article was preserved on the basis that, amongst other things, the article was well-referenced, and notability was demonstrated. The references have since failed to stand up to scrutiny - one even turned out to be a complete misrepresentation (details on the talk page). Turns out that this is in fact Just Another Mailing List after all. Chris cheese whine 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. I think it needs to be made clearer that disagreeing with the consensus (or lack thereof) is not a valid reason to bring something to DRV. -Amarkov moo! 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  I thought one of the grounds for bringing things here is "new evidence", which there is - namely that the evidence presented was bogus. I believe this may have materially affected the outcome, and a significant number of the keepers would not have been so inclined. Chris cheese whine 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Um... I could be missing something, but I'm not finding anything explaining why any of the evidence was falsified. Could you clarify? -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. No problems on this one on my end. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Quote: On the one hand, ... there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed. Only the attribution later turns out to be fabricated, and this isn't a problem? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was acceptable to simply make up citations to put into articles. Chris cheese whine 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I see no need for this DRV, really. The article was not deleted, and would never have been deleted from the discussion that actually took place. If Chriscf wants to list the article for a fresh AfD he can, but I think he should probably wait a little while; this was an intense debate and repeating it immediately would be foolish. Mangojuice^talk 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse What parts of the evidence if any were bogus is being discussed on he article talk page, & I would not assume what the consensus there will be. I wonder what is so particularly wrong with this particular article that the AfD was thought worth the trouble of a Del Rev. DGG 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's the complete lack of valid sources, but I could be wrong :o) Guy (Help!) 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete rogue afd result - article has precisely NO external sources.--Doc^g 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• When the AfD was going on, it did. Version just after AfD. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  ... which is precisely what I said. They are all bogus - they are either false, circular, or do not attest to what they're being used to support. All of which is why those references are no longer there. Chris cheese whine 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. I find the analysis of sources to be a compelling argument for deletion, but it's obvious to me from the above that more discussion is needed. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, if not Overturn. The discussion was closed as "On the one hand, per trialsanderrors, there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed." The argument by trialsanderrors was that it is a "scientific mail list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions" -- the article never stated anything about "number of noteworthy predictions" and there were/are no references to establish it. Most of the Keep votes were thanks to the creator of the article dropping notices on talk pages, and provided no solid arguments to explain notability ("notable in academic circles" - no refs, "number of noteworthy predictions" - the article never stated that, "Keep per...", "seems notable"). Incidentally, the creator has possibly a COI ("I entered our "Natural History India Mailing List" in the Encyclopedia (Wikipedia the free encyclopedia on the web) yesterday. Please keep a tab on the Article, after few days waiting time for new articles it will put the Wikipedia Article on our List on top in Google and other Web engine searches."). utcursch | talk 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - A misrepresentation of information and subsequent debunking of sources/claims warrants another look at this. Also, canvassing is not acceptable and the COI is worrisome as well. Wickethewok 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I am not sure I would have defended it as strongly on AfD had I seen the quote above. DGG 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist on AfD where it's almost certain to be deleted in its current unreferenced state. Kudos for busting the fake refs. Resurgent insurgent 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist if not Overturn: The "citations" on notability all turned out to be trivial, one-sentence or less mentions of the lists name or list address. One of the "references" claimed to be from American Museum of Natural History, but my investigation showed it to be a page from an anonymous Indian web server. Under Wikipedia:Notability_(web), trivial one liners do not count as proof of notability. User:Atulsnishchal the creator of the page, also canvassed selectively to get keep votes in his favor, and misled the users by adding genuine looking, but misrepresented references, making a mockery of the AFD process. --Ragib 07:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do want to point out that I considered the canvassing claim in my closure and came to the conclusion that it wasn't especially damaging (not to say that we shouldn't have a new AfD). If you look, you'll notice that although Atulsnischal did ask for input from several users, including some that supported the article, s/he also solicited several delete !voters, including Lethaniol, Bluestripe, and Woohookitty, plus the solicitation was neutral on what view to endorse. Mangojuice^talk 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As nominator here, I have to concur. The on-wiki canvassing wasn't the typical "OMG GET UR ASS TO AFD AND KEEP IT NOW!", and there's no follow-up to suggest that the targets were chosen to be sympathetic. The canvassing isn't an issue here. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Given the discussion is leaning towards a relist, I will do the honours shortly. Chris cheese whine 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The article on Jeffree Star should be restored because he is a major celebrity. Right now, he has an EP that is #1 on iTunes dance. There is an article on this EP, Plastic Surgery Slumber Party, as well as it's single, Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?). Since both these two articles exist, I think this calls for Star's article to be restored. He has obtained celebrity status and has over one four hundred thousand friends on his artist page on Myspace. Nateabel 00:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The fact that someone created some articles on his songs does not mean that the article should be kept; maybe those articles should be deleted too. And notability comes from reliable sources, not Myspace friends. There was another DRV not that long ago, but I can't find it. -Amarkov moo! 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Previous deletion review here. Unless information not mentioned there is forthcoming, this should be closed. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• This kills me. When the hell can we update our reliable sources so we're actually up to date? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. Speedy endorse unless information attributable to reliable sources are presented soon. As far as I can tell, this is the seventh DRV on this subject (and the fifth one I've endorsed), and none of them have presented any. --Coredesat 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Coldsmith Briggs III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was under major construction and was deleted by someone who did not realize this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazeedriver2005 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

• Not for here. The redirect is not a deletion decision, and can be reversed. With such small input into the AfD and the fact that there's nothing really to review (nothing was deleted), there's nothing for us to do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The reasons are the following

This was a page about an online game that have been deleted some days before: 11:20, 20 March 2007 ChrisGriswold (Talk | contribs) deleted "Booty Master" (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7).

As I could not seem to understand why the page should have been deleted, I contacted the administrator through his talk page and asked why. He responded: The reason that article on your game was deleted twice is because your game is not notable, or if it is, you didn't show that at all in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I do not feel that this is a right reason for deletion and I have not found any rule mentioning that popularity of a subject is to define if an article is suitable or not. I mentioned this to the administrator but he hasn't replied to me again. You can check the talk at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisGriswold#Booty_Master

On to further defense of the article I posted, I have to add that the page was deleted without any prior informing. I believe that this is not right too as the page have been there for 20 days and there should have been some , even minimum, time for me to attempt to correct anything not assorted correctly.

Additionally, I find it weird that other articles that refer to similar types of games like mine, and that are far less "notable" and consist by a far less encyclopedic value, manage to stay undeleted, while my article was deleted. Its my first time to post an article in Wikipedia and I am trying to learn all the rules etc but I have to say that this type of administrating does not help.

Finally, I would like to get an answer on why my page was deleted as I am left uncovered by the administrator response. Also, I would like a restore as I clearly feel that this was an unfair decision. Lastly, if it is judged that my page was against the rules, I would still like the page as it was before deletion, in order to correct what should be corrected.

Thank you Panagiotb 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. You don't seem to dispute that the article didn't assert notability, and not asserting notability is a reason for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#A7. If you think that other articles should be deleted too, nominate them for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid WP:CSD#A7. Article makes no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this one is proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• (EC) Endorse deletion. Wikipedia just isn't the place to promote someone's webgame. The editor should probably familiarize him or herself with WP:NOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and maybe WP:COI. ~CS 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I read about the notability thing now. But since its a website, isn't it difficult to assert its notability? It has 300 unique visitors per day currently and growing every day. I guess I will re-write the article sometime later when many more people visit it daily. No way to get that text written eh ? thank anyways and I wasn't aware of the notability thingie. Panagiotb 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Number of hits are irrelevant to whether a website can have an article. Having multiple independent reliable sources to base an article on is what makes the difference. See also WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse The notability criteria for websites are located at WP:WEB. And are you saying that you're withdrawing this nomination?Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse pretty clear A7-speedy candidate, and would never pass an AFD vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Southern mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Erroneous claims of HOAX or doubts about existence of the subject. OR, ATT, DECDIF, COPYVIO and SYN issues addressed in subsequent rewrites.

• Endorse deletion. Assertions that the consensus was incorrect do not make it so, and nobody seemed to be convinced that your rewrites really did fix the problems. -Amarkov moo! 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD is valid and no reason to challenge it. The statement that it is not OR might be more persuasive if thie were not a monograph. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - rewrites completed late last night; deletion occurred early this morning, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version. --MBHiii 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• • *sigh*. Could we get it restored under a DRV tag? -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Everything from the AfD tag onwards is now in the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Request Could you do same for Unholy Alliance? --MBHiii 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was a strong consensus to delete this, author made numerous edits to the article during the AfD process in an attempt to resolve the concerns brought up but as the debate shows none of these edits succeeded in making this article any better. As with Unholy Alliance I would suggest to MBHiii that if he wants to create an encyclopedic article on this subject his best bet would be to create something in his userspace and have it reviewed prior to moving it to the mainspace - trying to contest an AfD decision when you were the only person arguing to keep it is really grasping at straws and dragging the issue needlessly out. Arkyan 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question If someone goes to Unholy Alliance or Southern mafia and finds nothing, what's the most direct way of notifying him of a proposed article? ... a note on the mainspace saying something to the effect that a proposed article, open for review, debate and edit, resides at XYZ? --MBHiii 17:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer There's a {{drv}} template; the standard usage is to undelete all the history, replace the page with {{drv}}, and protect (in cases where the history is requested, such as this one). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Request Could you do same for Unholy Alliance? (same reason: rewrites completed late; deletion occurred early next day, so no time for consensus to develop after changes. Please read latest version.) --MBHiii 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Done. Check the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Afd consensus was crystal-clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question How could it be without reflecting upon the latest changes made? --MBHiii 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy. Nevertheless, you have to understand that while the guidelines are just guidelines and not hard and fast rules, they have to be followed to a certain measure. From the time an AfD is listed it has about 5 days worth of discussion - 5 days is ample time to resolve the problems that had been brought up. It it highly unlikely that a last-second change would have swayed anyone, particularly given the volume of changes that the article had already undergone during the discussion. Finally, the closing admin has to excersize a certain amount of discretion - you cannot expect that a closure will be invalidated due to changes just prior to closing, otherwise a disruptive editor could drag an AfD out indefinitely by constantly making minor changes to prevent closure.

Please do not take the deletion of an article you created as a personal affront - remember that no one owns the articles they create, and the decision that the content did not meet criteria is in no way an assessment of you as an editor. The article as it existed was heavily flawed. I will reiterate - if you feel you have an encyclopedic topic and have the research to support it, start anew rather than trying to salvage the previous content. However if the consensus of the other editors is that it is not encyclopedic, there is no sense in endlessly pursuing the issue. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Admins please note a novel argument is presented above by a self-professed deletionist: "the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy." Please read the article(s) and decide for yourselves. --MBHiii 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've seen the argument of something "inherently" not being inclusion-worthy before, and I don't find anything wrong with it. Sometimes, the odds of something having enough reliable sources is so low that that they can just assume they don't exist. Furthermore, whether someone is deletionist or not doesn't affect how much their !vote should be considered, as long as they supply a good reason. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That one refers to "all the sources" being unreliable and that's not the case here, right? (for either article) I still say that those who take material positions before a debate should not engage when that position could influence and ought not to. --MBHiii 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So... anybody who has any opinion on anything shouldn't engage on any debate related to that thing? Then you should recuse yourself from this debate as the page creator. I'm not saying I agree with your policy, I'm just saying that it can work both ways. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a matter of degree that should be perfectly valid to discuss. It all depends on whether the position "ought not to" influence the debate and how material it is to the debate. Any page creator can be assumed to have an interest in developing it further. If that interest appears to become a hinderance, there's nothing wrong in saying so.--MBHiii 22:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure, but simply being an inclusionist or deletionist shouldn't preclude one from engaging in AfD and DRV debates. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from debate; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing the log, as a matter of WK policy. --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's kinda absurd. It's like saying "You're not allowed to vote because you're Republican!", which nobody to my knowledge has ever seriously suggested. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from voting; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing the log, as a matter of WK policy. For example, User:Akyan nit-picked both my articles to death using official WK policies (much of which I was unaware, so good on him, so far) but then when I'd addressed his and others concerns, he falls back and punts with "the consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy." an idea that was unexpressed by anyone, until now, and a misapplication of WK policy, to boot. As an expert nit-picker he would have known that the policy, Reliable Sources, defines as "unsuitable" those articles for which "all the sources" have "low reliability" which is clearly not the case, in either article. This is evidence of inherent bias, hidden agenda, (or incredible sloppiness) on his part. No one (including him) had made this argument, yet he asserts it as "consensus." His previously stated deletionist position should be given great weight by you all. --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Look. You completely missed the point in the criticism regarding the sources - I never said they were unreliable, merely inapplicable as none of them provided evicence of the existence of a Southern Mafia. I don't know how many times someone has brought the point up that bringing up examples of someone using a term, regardless of how many, regardless of how "reliable", is not what WP:ATT is all about. Demonstrating that people use the term "Southern Mafia" does nothing to actually attribute the material of the article - all you are doing is digging up evidence to back up the use of a term. The complaint being made was that none of your sources established anything regarding the definition, history, evolution, or any other material information about the term other than it exists. That something is true/exists does NOT an encyclopedia article make! Furthermore, accusing me of having inherent bias or a hidden agenda is precariously close to a personal attack and I ask you to refrain from doing so further. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Arkyan squirts ink like an octopus and retreats to another position. Rather than meet head-on the criticism of his baseless claim above "consensus was that the subject is more or less inherently not inclusionworthy" and its official interpretation, then acknowledging it was inappropriate for him to make, he moves on to ATT which was more than adequately addressed already during AfD discussions and rewrites:

Weak Delete - appears to violate WP:ATT, but if attribution and notability (and existence) can be established, I'd be inclined to change my opinion. --Mhking 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It does little more than establish the existence of the term - the point of WP:ATT is not to simply find quotes but to tell us something, which this doesn't. Arkyan 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Southern Mafia" simply does not exist beyond a mere term of use and just can't be expanded beyond a dicdef - nothing out there seems to support anything more than that, and no amount of sourcing in examples will cure that fact. ... Arkyan 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that, still, you don't believe it exists, so I added the case about which Hume wrote. --MBHiii 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that the Southern Mafia doesn't exist... without substantive statements discussing what the Southern Mafia is, where it came from, how it developed, etc. the article is nothing more than a dicdef ... Blueboar 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note ... addition of areas of operation and summaries of operation from key refs cited. BTW on the discussion page, you said "The issue is whether such a thing as a 'Southern Mafia' actually exists." ... --MBHiii 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

From the above it's clear that Blueboar argues like Arkyan, ignoring or brushing off recent statements they make and replies to them in order to keep attacking, using other (even previously addressed) critiques. (Again, see latest versions of both articles.) Arkyan's and Blueboar's opinions should be severely discounted by you all. --MBHiii 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist The AfD was noteworthy for detailed debate of the sort that would normally be found on a talk page. I think it is by no means certain what the consensus was. The fair thing is to relist and let people see if there is any progress.DGG 06:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you do the same for Unholy Alliance for the same reasons? --MBHiii 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Request display of latest versions of both Unholy Alliance and Southern mafia with protection from edits for six months, so all discussion can proceed normally on their talk pages. Arkyan, I'm afraid, shows no sign of reform (see User_talk:Mbhiii#Please_keep_discussion_impersonal) and is likely to keep repeating what he has done here. --MBHiii 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is simply not done. Articles that don't survive AfD are removed from public view for a reason. If the AfD did get overturned (which seems unlikely at this point), there is also no reason to protect the page from well-meaning editors. If you wish to continue working on the page, I again suggest that you create a working draft in your userspace, where it can be reviewed to see if it addresses the concerns of the AfD. I find it odd that you haven't yet done so.
  • Arkyan's comments in the link you provided seem entirely appropriate. I can only echo WP:NPA and his advice to comment on content, not on the contributor.
  • On a final note, since I have not previously expressed an opinion in this DRV, I must endorse deletion as the AfD was clearly valid. – Þ  02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - an editor who uses a bad form of argument, refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps harping on old, long-since addressed and now irrelevant points, should not be assumed to be well-meaning. Note, this last person, previously critical of both articles, seems to care nothing about Blueboar and Arkyan using bad forms of argument.

Repeat, these articles need protection from a couple of otherwise well-spoken, but seemingly disingenuous editors who abuse the deletion process with bad arguments to blank subjects they find "inherently not inclusionworthy." (Read the articles.) --MBHiii 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is drifting from the subject of the DRV, so I'm going to reply on your talk page. – Þ  01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, irrelevantly cites WP:NOT#IINFO and never addresses central point on the bad form of argument used by at least two editors. These articles need protection from editors who persistently argue in bad form for deletion after useful criticism is addressed. -MBHiii 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

John Stallings (model) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Overturn - the reason offered for deletion was that the subject did not pass WP:BIO. However, the subject does pass WP:BIO as a television personality who was involved with well-known television productions. The subject was a featured participant in the television show Manhunt and in two seasons of the high-rated show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency including the Christmas with the Dickinsons special. Stallings is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of him. The only rationale offered for deletion was failing WP:BIO but the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. No valid reason offered for deletion. Delete !votes were based on: "vanity spam" (in other words, WP:COI) which is not a valid deletion criteria and, since the subject was not involved with editing the article does not apply anyway; and on an incorrect understanding of WP:BIO suggesting that the subject must "offer (something) special" or be "prolific" or "establish a dramatic character" to qualify for an article, which is not supported by policy or guidelines. Mulitple independent sources were linked in the AFD and in the subject article. The AFD should be overturned and the article restored. Otto4711 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the sources presented in the AFD do not indicate notability (they're just interviews). In fact, the interviews are almost the same, and the second one assaulted my computer with pop-up windows, which makes me wonder if it's even a reliable source to begin with. --Coredesat 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• What, specifically, at WP:RS do you believe supports the notion that interviews aren't reliable sources or that interviews which are accompanied by popups are not reliable? Otto4711 07:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist, I don't really know why that AfD was closed with only three opinions, when none of the keep !voters commented after your sources. I'm not convinced that he's notable, but I'm less convinced that it's so clear-cut it shouldn't go through AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid close, allow re-creation if multiple non-trivial independent sources can be found. Two sources were cited in the AfD but one was clearly not reliable. The other was an interview, not a biography. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD, valid close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I think there's a good case for continued discussion. I think interviews may or may not be RS, depending on who does this interviewing and whether it is more than just an opportunity for the subject to display his own accomplishments. Might be a good idea to discuss this. DGG 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

A) It's not expired, B) Even if, it would be noteable because of a sounding history and because great technology often vanishes, a reason to keep in noted at least for one or two decades, especially if there are still hundreds of companies using it Metazargo 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Expired prod" means that some editor "prodded" (proposed for deletion) this article, and that at least five days had passed since the start of that "prod" without comments or opposition (the prod has then expired). It does not mean the product (the subject of the article) has expired. Having said that, I'll undelete the article (per WP:PROD: even after deletion, a reasonable undeletion request should be followed). The article is still a candidate to be deleted though, if someone decides to take it to WP:AfD, the formal deletion process. This deletion and undeletion have no impact on that discussion. Please check out WP:ATT (our general policy on sourcing) and WP:CORP (our guideline on which companies and products shouldn and shouldn't have an article) to see if this article does fulfill these requirements in your opinion. Fram 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I created this page, and I know my information was accurate, all photos used on the page were documented as being either a low-res screen shot or a low-res logo. I do not believe there was any major bias present as all information was based on 100% facts. I can find no reason for it to have been deleted. Xtorrent is a filesharing (bittorrent) client. It exists, plain and simple, so what's going on? Dreamwinder 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion- AfD was valid, nothing has changed since.--RWR8189 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The issue was not copyright or bias, it was notability. Not everything that exists should have a Wikipedia article, so we have criteria. There were no good reliable sources that proved that Xtorrent satisfied them, so it was deleted. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While notariety does help dictate what should and should not have its own article, a software stub article being created is much more usefull, dare I say appropraite than say, making an article about yourself. Just because a piece of software or product in general is still considered "niche" doesn't mean it should be deleted for lack of notable merit.
  • Comment When did autobiographies come into play here? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD, no new information. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If you have an issue with the fact that we are an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information, then get a consensus against those. Until you do, this is a perfectly valid AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

No consensus to merge or delete. Overturn Tim! 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand the objection. The decision was made to listify all the children of this category. There is already a category for Dr. Who lists, so this category is redundant. If Tim! is objecting to the listifying of the children, he should make that clear. -- Samuel Wantman 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merge, and speedy close per WP:POINT. Tim appears to be nominating this only because I disagreed with two of his closings earlier today, as his comment here indicates. >Radiant< 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Objection to speedy close What exactly is the justification for denying people the right to comment on this? I am in favour of the original decision, but not of this denial of the right to comment. Choalbaton 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no evidence Radiant!'s close was actually contentious, this is a private fight which I suspect both parties regret allowing to get to this point. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Bloggers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|VfD|AfD|AfD2)

Blogging Tories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

These two topics went up for deletion a year ago, and an overwhelming consensus was established that the two needed to be treated equivalently, either both kept or both deleted. Instead, what happened was that Blogging Tories got deleted but Progressive Bloggers got kept. It came to DRV and Blogging Tories was reinstated. More recently, they went up for AFD again, and the exact opposite result occurred; this time Progressive Bloggers was deleted and Blogging Tories was kept.

The issue, in a nutshell, is that these two blogging groups represent the two ends of the political spectrum within the Canadian blogosphere. They haven't had differing levels of media coverage from each other; they don't have significantly different levels of web traffic from each other. It constitutes bias to decide that one of them is notable while the other one isn't, because there simply isn't any valid criterion on which it's possible to say that they fall on opposite sides of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. People who voted to keep them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. People who voted to delete them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Lefties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Righties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently.

(ETA: I should add, as well, that equivalent sources, mostly from the same organizations, were presented in support of both groups; the result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources.)

Thus, I'm putting this up for DRV since the results have been inconsistent: do we keep both, or do we delete both? There's simply no case to be made that we can keep one and delete the other. Bearcat 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both And rename the second one to Tory Bloggers for similarity. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Blogging Tories" is the proper name of the thing. We can't rename things at random. Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion of Progressive Bloggers No Opinion on Blogging Tories-Unilateral restoration of Progressive Bloggers by Bearcat despite a valid AfD, and especially because of the fact he was involved in that AfD was unfounded. This article may technically be a candidate for speedy deletion under G4, as no new information to establish notability has been brought forward since the AfD was closed in February. In the February AfD of Blogging Tories sufficient sources were found for a keep consensus to emerge, such sources have not been found for Progressive Bloggers either in the AfD, or since then. WP:V is not negotiable, and to assert that a non-notable article must be kept for the sake of balance is not a valid argument.--RWR8189 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: what if deletion discussions resulted in the conclusion that United States Republican Party was notable enough for Wikipedia, but United States Democratic Party wasn't, or vice versa, because two different closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources? Don't you see how that could make Wikipedia appear inappropriately biased toward one political party? Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Build the straw man somewhere else. I have yet to see these equivalent sources you claim exist, and they are certainly not present in the article you restored or at the AfD. In the Blogging Tories AfD newscasts and newsreports that contained only information about the Blogging Tories were presented. We have yet to be presented with verifiable and attributable sources with regards to Progressive Bloggers. This wasn't a case of the closers making different determinations based on the same sources, it is different results based one having sources, and the other lacking them.--RWR8189 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm inclined to close this speedily because it conflates deletion decisions without evidence that individual deletions were in error. The underlying policy questions strikes me as one for WP:RFC. ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: an overwhelming consensus was established by virtually every participant in both rounds of AFD debates that the two had to be treated equivalently. Even people who voted to delete in the first round still viewed retaining both as preferable to keeping one and deleting the other. Even voters who were actually associated with one of the two groups agreed that deleting both would be preferable to keeping one and deleting the other. If you think there's a legitimate case to be made that Wikipedia can view one as notable and the other not, then you're going to have to overturn that consensus first. Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have to overturn anything. Are you challenging brenneman's closure or Yuser's closure? If so you should state this in the nomination. Instead you're simply creating a procedural mess, on top of undeleting the article out of process. ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Two different closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources, on two articles that already had a clearly established consensus around the necessity to treat them equivalently to each other because they represent the two ideological ends of the same fundamental topic and have largely the same sources supporting them both. If there's a procedural mess here, I'm not the one who created it. Bearcat 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm asking you for the last time before I speedily close this as an invalid nomination: Are you challenging brenneman's closure or Yuser's closure? From your actions you seem to be challenging brenneman's closure. If you get the ok to restore it here, you're free to joint nominate them at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Again: I'm challenging the inconsistency of these two results; I'm perfectly happy to accept deletion of both if that's the consensus that emerges. But when the same sources are being evaluated differently on two connected articles, the status quo cannot stand as is. So what other process exists to resolve the matter, exactly, if discussing it here is invalid? Bearcat 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I just explained it to you: Challenge the deletion and then joint nominate. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse both results, if one group has multiple non-trivial independent sources and the other does not, it is not our fault, and we are not obliged to include any article because an article on some related topic exists. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"One group has multiple non-trivial independent sources and the other does not" is not the situation at hand. They have equivalent sources which were evaluated differently by two different closers: one made a judgement call on the quality of the sources, while the other one didn't. The sources themselves, however, were equivalent to each other. Also, the raw numbers count on Progressive Bloggers was 5 D to 4 K, which hardly constitutes a clear consensus. Bearcat 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Both. It's not uncommon for AfDs on related articles to come to inconsistent results. I don't think that is something that's going to change. However, in this case, everything else being equal, we ought to have some consistency and, generally speaking, the default position is to keep. Agent 86 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Objection to this on the grounds of inconsistency is not valid in any way I can figure. So apparently these two groups have some similarity in the opinions of some editors - so what? This is irrelevant to our purposes here. The claim of bias is quite a stretch. Friday (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of equivalent sources, sometimes even the same sources. Why is Source X proof of notability in one case and not proof of notability in the other? Bearcat 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse both closures. I don't see a consensus that the sources are equivalent, but I feel like I'm missing something. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore both The two articles are different in quality; the Tories seem to have at this point a much higher quality job of editing, and their page is much simpler, more factual, and less devoted to internal arguments than the Progressives; perhaps this may have influenced the AfDs. .But the two are equivalently notable and article-worthy. Acceptance of a procedure that goes one way on one throw of the dice, and the opposite the next time, is like--well, like making decisions by throwing dice. Since the WP process has proven itself by clear example unable to be used objectively in this case, we should simply let the articles be, in the spirit of doing no harm--and hope that the two will refrain from using WP as a game of chance in the future. In general, if there is to be any confidence in the fairness of deletion procedures, the closers should try to decide equitable when there are multiple examples (I note that CfD usually does try to maintain consistency fairly well& unifies discussions as appropriate.) DGG 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that equivalent notability has been established between the two articles? I agree with your sentiments in principle, but it doesn't seem to be the reality of this situation. We have seen independent and non-trivial coverage of the Tories, as of now such sources have not been presented in regards to Progressive Bloggers.--RWR8189 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep both The two articles are about two very important parts of the Canada political scene. While they may not show up as exremely important on an international scale, they must be included if Canadian politics is to be treated seriously by wikipedia. Jason Cherniak 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So your basic argument isWP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL? WP:V is not negotiable, either we make exceptions for everything or nothing. The policy based reasoning for overturning the closure of Progressive Bloggers seems to be virtually non-existant.--RWR8189 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Both If closing admins would properly place the burden upon those seeking deletion in AfDs you would not see such inconsistent results. "When in doubt keep" should have a leveling effect. Instead we get wild swings. Edivorce 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Townsend-Warner history prize (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The information was based on the magazine 'Prep School Magazine'. The Townsend-Warner history prize is very well known throughout England, and I thought that Wikipedia might be improved if such a page was added. I'm sorry to realise that this was not the case. Kobayashis 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn the first deletion (another mistaken "no context," apparently), but not the second (I trust that it was a copyvio in that case). As you were the creator the first time, was the content the same in both deletions? If so, it's possibly a copyvio in both as well, and you shouldn't have a problem with making an article that isn't a copyright violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of copyright violation, allow new article which establishes notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice, just as Guy has it. DGG 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloodless bullfighting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Woa.... wait a minute!!!! I just got wind of this "so-called" deletion request by Fethers. What is up with this person???? "Bloodless" Bullfighting is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE from the Spanish style..... like the fact that it is "BLOODLESS"... the bull does not get killed. Fethers has no idea what he is talking about other than he has been hounding that particular article from the get go and the history can speak for itself. This should not even be here... nor should it be up for a debate. The aficions of the Spanish style will even attest to the fact that the "bloodless" style cannot co-mingle within the same realm of the Spanish style because of the "end" part of a bullfight.... where the bull gets killed. Contrary to anything that fethers has to say, the article is NOT any form of publicity other than making the public aware that there is another style to bullfighting. fethers is basically full of himself. The mere fact that you guys agreed to deleting this article served NO justice to the Portuguese people or to the art of this culture. This is un-real and I would like to request that the article be "undeleted" and bring respect back to it. I cannot believe that Wiki-admins made this decision solely on one person's request and did NOTHING to notify me to defend the rights of this article. This was an "unjust" decision.... I am at a loss for words.--Webmistress Diva 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Procedural DRV request on behalf of user by me fethers 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Does your article have reliable sources? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose to deletion -- Yes, there are and I had mentioned in the "discussion page" of the article that when time permits, I would include the source and I had also mentioned that I would fix the article so that it was within "Wiki" standards. This is a matter of a "power trip" by one particular user named ...fethers. Let's look at this "realistically", ok. For starters, I do not get paid to sit on "Wikipedia" all day long, so unfortunately, I cannot focus all of my time trying to get an article up to par with Wiki's standards. So for the upteenth time, who the heck is this fethers person and why is he/she so eager to delete an article that he/she has no clue as to what the subject is about. --Webmistress Diva 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No reliable sources other than those written by User:Pebs96 on her website. See the conflict of interest discussion linked in the AfD. fethers 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Fethers' argument. There were 0 sources that were independent of the contributor. From the linked-to diff on COI/N: "Ranch Cardoso website is really the only accurate "English" speaking website on the net." You'd think that something in the USA would attract more English-speaking coverage, even if it's about a traditionally Hispanic topic. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose to deletion and Against Fethers arguments -- Ranch Cardoso may be the only accurate "English-speaking" coverage on the net, but it DOES NOT mean that there are no publications and articles about bloodless bullfighting in California. It just so happened that I came up with the idea to putting all of the information under one roof.... what's the harm in that? And contrary to what any wikipedians say or think, Ranch Cardoso is NOT a commercial site.--Webmistress Diva 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If one person has the power to gather all the sources there are on a topic and put them on one site, there is unquestionably not enough coverage to even relist the AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose to deletion and Against Amarkov's arguments -- I think you are mistaken. I SAID, there are PLENTY of publications and articles that this subject can be sourced from. Also, when I said housing it under one roof, I didn't think I have to explain in details that I put it in my own words. Just because the information is on a website does not mean that there's no other sites that exist. There are plenty, but the Ranch Cardoso happens to have videos and other details that the other sites do not have. Just like Wikipedia, the Ranch Cardoso website is an on-going project, currently going through a face-lift and researching more information. This is extremely draining to have to explain over and over and over again! --Webmistress Diva 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) ← Only one bolded opinion please. ~ trialsanderrors 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Lack of reliable sources, and only a single source given, means that this article does not have enough coverage in non-trivial third-party sources. Add to that the conflict of interest factor, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason to relist the AFD. --sunstar net^talk 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per the original nominator's argument. If there's anything here, just recreate citing reliable sources this time. Perfectly valid AfD on both grounds of arguments and numbers. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tecumseh Fox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Nobody objected to deletion, but User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". CFD does not have a quorum, and regularly works on the principle that if nobody objects to a nomination, it passes. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per nom. Haddiscoe 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment there may not be a quorum, but the reason stated was not valid reason for deletion. Tim! 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was. Explicitly, even. Not that we have an exhaustive list of "valid reasons". >Radiant< 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom. Reason was perfectly valid. Mangojuice^talk 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Seems to me that the two book articles are short and completely unreferenced, so should be merged to the character article anyway. Overturn and delete very small category with no potential to be anything else. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, clearly did have a valid reason for deletion, and even if it didn't, Tim should have said that instead of a wishy-washy and misleading claim of "no consensus"! Xtifr _tälk 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - as noted, there were no objections to deletion. "No consensus" is unsupported by the CFD. Otto4711 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. If nobody objects, you can not close as anything but delete. Relist, sure, and that's actually a really good idea when nobody else comments. But admin discretion doesn't mean "Nobody else bothered to comment here, so I decide completely what happens". -Amarkov moo! 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Relisting would show contempt for those, like me, who passively supported the deletion by not commenting!  :) Xtifr _tälk 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, there was consensus at CfD. MaxSem 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, there's not much to say besides what the nominator at CfD said. Kusma (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - per everyone else. No objections to deletion, and the category clearly fails/passes? a deletion criterion. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Choalbaton 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Nobody objects to the deletion and Tim is unable to find any other result than "no consensus". This either means that Tim willingly ignored the stated consensus for deletion or that he was truthfully unable to determine consensus; and either thing would be very sad. CharonX/talk 21:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to relisting - I guess I'm the one-off here, but there was "no consensus" in the vacuous sense that there weren't enough people to have a consensus of. In the bigger picture, I think it makes no difference whether we have this category or not, given the small potential membership in it, although I would think that if it's kept, then Rex Stout, the author of both the Tecumseh Fox and the far better-known Nero Wolfe series, should be added. Newyorkbrad 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Air Bud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Has a reasonable debate with a clear consensus to delete; one of the original "keep" commenters even changed his mind as a result of the arguments. Nevertheless. User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". I'm afraid I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per Radiant. Consensus had obviously been arrived at here, I'm surprised that a closing admin would have failed to take note of it.

Xdamr^talk 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment no particularly compelling reasons to delete were stated in the debate. If you want to replace the category with a navbox, it would probably be a good idea to create it before nominating, so the two can be compared. Tim! 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, Tim, as a closing admin you're supposed to implement community consensus, not ignore it in favor of your own opinion. >Radiant< 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What like here ? You're just counting votes when it suits you. Tim! 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever objections you have to Radiant's conduct, or indeed to that of any other administrator/editor, do not give you carte blanche to discount clearly expressed consensus. The consensus was clearly to delete—disregarding this, subordinating it to your own desire to make a WP:POINT, is most unbecoming.

Xdamr^talk 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now this is just bad style Tim. Radiant's conduct is not of importance here. Yours is. And by pointing fingers you do not improve your status in my eyes. This is only a minor issue, but if you do not see what the problem is maybe you should consider filing a self-RfC for some soulsearching. CharonX/talk 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per Radiant. A navbox would be better. Dismas|^(talk) 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, consensus was clear, and if Tim disagreed, he should either have added his own comments to the discussion, or at the least, have specified his actual reasons in the closing. Claiming that this was "no consensus" is false, misleading and utterly inappropriate. Xtifr _tälk 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There was a clear consensus here, and Tim ignored it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - I hate to bring this up, but the closing admin and I have been on the opposite side of a number of deletion discussions (both articles and categories) and I have some concerns that the admin has some issues regarding my nominations. I hate the idea that conflicts between the admin and me are disrupting the project so I hope, if that is an issue, that the admin will dialogue with me about the situation. Otto4711 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, I really hate it when people misuse admin discretion to mean "I get to decide that the arguments for deletion are invalid against consensus!" -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - per clear and entirely reasonable consensus at the CfD. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - the consensus was clear: to delete. I find it worrysome that Tim decided to ignore that and close it as no consensus. CharonX/talk 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as the guy that changed his mind. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Scott (pastor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Notable individual; Wikipedia needs to have a page about her. Simply getting rid of the article is an "easy out." Badagnani 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural comment The de jure status quo for this nomination is the last consensus decision (Keep) as determined by the Afd closer (Mangojuice). Unless there is majoritarian support to overturn the closure it with be reinstated and possibly sent to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - Notable individual and Wikipedia needs an article for this person. Badagnani 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion article was fairly deleted under WP:A and WP:BLP. Plus lines like "saved by God's grace, unmerited favor, through faith in Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice on the Cross." are highly inappropriate, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm familiar with your favoring of deletions, which are well known. That aside, the solution should be a re-creation of the page with "just the facts." Of course I don't agree with the quotes you present; the solution to those is simply editing to make the article NPOV, not an "easy out" by deleting entirely the bio article of a notable individual. Badagnani 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per WP:ATT and WP:BLP concerns. The article appeared to be heavily POV, with unsourced claims. WP:BLP overrules the AFD result. A NPOV, sourced version can always be written in userspace. --Coredesat 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Of course, the editors who haunt deletion-related pages always support one another in deletions, whether they are justified (or logical) or not. In this case, however, you are incorrect. The deleted page says nothing about the page being able to be recreated; in fact, it says entirely the opposite. This is a notable individual and Wikipedia needs to have a biography page about her. I have already stated that I do not agree with the former POV text in the article; that is what editing is for! Deleting was an "easy out." Badagnani 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please assume good faith and be civil - don't make accusations against other editors. The article actually contains no such assertion, see WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - When I see illogical actions made, then supported, I reserve the right to be critical. You are wrong in stating that the Melissa Scott page states that it may be recreated. In fact, it states the opposite: "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." Badagnani 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If the oblique comment above is an assertion that this individual has no notability, why is it that she is constantly on television (the NBC network, throughout the United States)? This is getting just ridiculous. Badagnani 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Hold on -- it seems that the result of the discussion was KEEP -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Scott_%28pastor%29 . The deletion of the bio article about this notable individual, as well as all relevant discussion, appears to have been a mistake. Please take care of this immediately. Badagnani 08:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restub. The BLP concerns should be approached by editing or a second AfD, not by unilaterally overturning a consensus keep on a previous AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See above -- the result of the vote was KEEP. There seems to have been a mistake in the deletion of the article because I can find no discussion leading to a Delete vote. You state that "editing" might be used; however, in case you haven't checked the page does not allow that, and in fact states "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." All the comments below notwithstanding, it remains extremely embarrassing that a major encyclopedia would not have contain an article or, in fact, any information about this individual who is constantly on national TV--and, in fact, ban such information. That isn't the stamp of a "free" encyclopedia, it's more indicative of the efforts of a small group of delete-page-regulars mandating content (or lack thereof) for the WP community as a whole, and the world. This bad decision cannot stand. Badagnani 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the two "bad decisions" we have to choose from, which is the worse? Creating a biographical article with nothing in the way of decent source to create it from, an article which we already know will be a magnet for POV-pushing, WP:BLP-violating anons? Or failing to have a biographical article for an individual upon whom it seems every other major news source has also failed to report? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's clear that not to have an article about a notable individual (on television all the time, all over the country) is very detrimental and embarrassing to our encyclopedia. The result of the last vote was KEEP. If there is a worry about unsourced or defamatory text being added, do what we do to Bill O'Reilly or similar pages: protect so that new or anon users may not edit. It's amazing that I need to even explain our core principles here. Badagnani 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Badagnani keeps complaining that it is ridiculous that such a "notable" individual should not have their own Wikipedia article. Well, if she is so notable, why has no one, including those who are most insistent that we have an article on her, been able to provide us reliable sources? God knows I've looked for them myself and can't find any -- not so much as a small-town paper fluff piece. The closest we have ever come for having the reliable sources we need -- and by "closest", I mean "not close enough by a long shot" -- is anonymous editors angrily asserting that if we just looked at the correct court records (none of which we have been given citations for) we'd know for ourselves that it's true. And we definitely do not have sources reliable enough for the major defamatory allegation made against Melissa Scott, which anons still keep trying to sneak in to other articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. First, there are no independent sources cited. Second, it reads as part resume and part advertisement for her charity gala. Third, "keep and source" is not an option for WP:BLP articles - no sources means delete because as Jimbo says we don't have articles on living individuals based on "I heard it somewhere". Fourth, I am having a hard time seeing what the claim to notability is supposed to be anyway. Married to a couple of guys. So what? Few !votes anyway, if this individual is genuinely notable then a much much better article can be written by applying WP:FORGET. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion There are no reliable sources for this article and honestly the number of people committed to keeping this article neutral are far outnumbered by the people that interject tabloid quality material about this person. If the article is undeleted, it is unavoidable that we will be back at this same position in less than 6 months. . -- Kurios555 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, revert and relist WP:BLP says in relevant part "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." (emphasis added). It took all of 60 seconds to find a NPOV version, namely that from 31 July 2006 by fuddlemark. It was easy to find because it is explicitly mentioned in the last AFD. I don't know what the right answer for this article is, but I do know that the deletion was contrary to policy, and that is enough reason to list it at AFD. We don't have to revert that far back however, there are newer acceptable versions in the history. I think the version of 17 October 2006 would be fine, and there may be even newer ones (the history was restored while I was doing further investigation). GRBerry 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion at this time - I tried to source this article reliably before it was deleted, and found it impossible. I have added the only RS sources I can find to the talk page, and would suggest leaving the talk page open for more sources as they come available. Then we can revisit starting up a new article. There isn't enough RS sourcing to have a standalone article, and she can be mentioned in the Gene Scott article. There isn't anything else that can be reliably sourced about her except that she took over for her late husband. The previous incarnation of this page was fraught with poorly sourced negative info. As more RS become available, my opinion could change. - Crockspot 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - "Internet-only" sources are not the only sources we may use, or rely on. Even so, this is a figure who appears on national television throughout the U.S. all the time, and should have her own article. Badagnani 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a url is not a requirement for a proper cite, but the source still must be reliable and secondary. The problem was there was quite a bit of unsourced and poorly sourced, and originally researched negative info. The BLP problems were too pervasive. If you have other reliable sources, cite them on the talk page, as I have done. Crockspot 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)further comment I would just like to add that I have seen her on television several times this year, probably the most religious programming I've watched in my entire life. I do find her interesting, and would like to see an article when we can write one that is well sourced, and not defamatory. When there are enough sources, I will be the first person to bring this back here for another review. - Crockspot 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and re-list for AfD. If there are more sources, let's see them. DGG 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if everybody knows who she is, but she's on TV all the time, sometimes on two channels at once, at least here in California. Presumably her church buys the air time for the programs, which are lectures on linguistic analysis of Bible passages. I don't feel compelled to research this one, so I have no opinion, but I wanted to throw this tidbit out in case it's not clear from the article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was deleted out of process but not out of policy: WP:BLP and WP:ATT are completely failed here. I would change to "allow recreation" if reliable secondary sources were shown, but between Antaeus Feldspar and Crockspot, I think we've done our due diligence, and the article cannot remain if unsourceable. Mangojuice^talk 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist stubbed version, per Amarkov below. The stubbed version is okay, but if that's all that can be found now, the article might still need deleting for notability concerns (or for worries of future violations of WP:BLP), but that's for a debate to decide. Mangojuice^talk 10:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. With an article on a living person, the decision is not "Are there any sources someone can find?" According to WP:BLP, the decision is "Are there sources that either are in the article or can be found and added within a short time?", which the article did not meet, seeing as nobody actually added much of anything in the way of sourcing. Keep the talk page open for a while, in case some sources do turn up, but until then, it should stay deleted. Regardless of how much she is on TV. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have written about all that can be written in this article, based on the sources, at the bottom of Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor). It's short and sweet, and those seeking the salacious aspect can go read the RS article cited. (The OC Weekly article even mentions this article being locked down.) I would not object to recreation of the article with this text (or something similar if the wording needs tweaking), and full protection, pending more sourcing and discussion on the talk page. Just a suggestion. Crockspot 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Relist the stubbified version, then, but the article still does not demonstrate notability, as defined in WP:N. I hate that name, because even experienced editors sometimes mistake "notability" for Wikipedia's purposes to be the same as the normal definition. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think what you mean is endorse and unprotect, unless you want to preserve the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion OK, I sampled the edit history and couldn't find a single sourced version, and quite a couple we want to banish from the history altogether. The only thing I could find from an acceptable source (ocweekly.com) just repeats the rumors (an excellent read though, Wikipedia is mentioned). Edit history is still open if someone wants to take a crack at writing a sourced article on her, but I haven't seen much that looked useable. WP:BLP concerns override WP:N concerns, so until we find a decent version in the history the article should stay deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You can't possibly object to anything in the new stub? She is a public figure who is constantly on television throughout the country, giving weekly appearances to hundreds of audience members, and the information given in the stub is easily available. Badagnani 05:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I think she meets the active notability requirement, she's done something that put her in the publich consciousness and given encyclopedic sources she should have an article. So I'm not objecting to posting your stub and running it through AfD, I'm just not recommending keeping the edit history. Some articles are better started from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree that the previous edit history has to go, whatever happens. - Crockspot 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - And if it turns out that documents in the public record do indeed elucidate other things about this individual and her past history before assuming directorship of her late husband's ministry? Wikipedia does not rely strictly on Internet-only sources, I am fairly sure. Badagnani 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are these elusive public records? Write up a cite. - Crockspot 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Good question. They were discussed in the history but to get new copies I suppose one would need to pay for them, then scan and post them online. The very basic information would of course be her date and place of birth and birth name. Badagnani 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Those would be primary sources, and we don't do investigative journalism here. - Crockspot 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion BLP wins out - if someone wants to have a sourced neutral article, they are entitled to write it and then notability can be handeled at afd. However, simply reverting to an earlier version isn't good enough as it still leaves potentially libellous stuff in the history. Aggressive, invasive surgery is required for this type of thing.--Doc^g 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No, you are incorrect. As stated above more than once, the tag on the deleted article clearly states that a new article may *not* be written! Badagnani 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Articles that are protected from recreation can be written in userspace and then presented here for discussion whether they're appropriate to move into article space. ~ trialsanderrors 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Doc is clearly wrong here. WP:BLP only authorizes deletion when there are zero neutral versions in the history. His claim that it requires deletion when there is at least one failing version is exactly contrary to WP:BLP; so long as there is at least one good version the admin is supposed to revert to that instead of deleting. GRBerry 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - What is this, some sort of "delete page club" with secret rules? If what you say is the case, it needs to be stated on the tag. Badagnani 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given that the very first revision, from which all other revisions appear derived, contains unsourced controversial statements, there is no way to revert to a version later than that and delete the offending material without severing the page history and thus causing copyright problems. If someone creates an actually new stub that is well-sourced and intends to maintain it against the warring lovers and haters of this person, then there would probably not be a problem. Otherwise, the page was originally and is heavily littered throughout with potentially libellous statements, and was and will be the subject of this warring that will add further such statements. —Centrx→talk • 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Five clicks to jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

SWATJester decided that it was inappropriate, and I object. I at least want a review. He even deleted the talk page where I defended the existence of the page. PhoenixFire296 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as deletor. Article was speedied, recreated, speedied again and salted. Original speedy was as A7, but really should have been A1. Also, was GFDL incompatible off of facebook. Actually, upon further review, it would have qualified under A7 anyway, as "web content".⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: would you please write in normal English instead of "delete page-regular jargon-abbreviation-speak"?--thanks. Also, how may other editors give input here if they don't know what the page consisted of in the first place? Badagnani 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:see above under instructions.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Second request: would you kindly write in normal English instead of "delete page-regular jargon-abbreviation-speak"?--thanks. Also, how may other editors give input here if they don't know what the page consisted of in the first place? Badagnani 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - yet another variant on the Wikipedia game, see Bad Article Ideas. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse OK, let me explain. The article was deleted without a full Articles for Deletion process, because it did not assert the notability of the subject. Then PhoenixFire296 recreated it, at which point it was re-deleted, and re-created with the intent of protection so it could not be re-re-recreated. A7 means deletion because of a lack of claim of notability; A1 is deletion because it's nonsense. I can see the content here because administrators can view deleted content. Also, deletion of talk pages when the main article is deleted is perfectly valid (and is speedy deletion reason G8). There was no real 'discussion' there, just a comment by PhoenixFire296. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• make visible. I'm glad Veinor can see the article, but this discussion is open to non-admins as well, so would he let the rest of us look? I probably will agree with him about the merits, but I do not think I should be prevented from seeing it. DGG 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Check the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you. I think the "Discussion" page should be visible so that the discussion that led to the deletion is known to the community of editors. Right now I don't see anything there. Badagnani 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the history of that page; I just restored the comment into the history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Certainly there must be discussion at that page's "Discussion" page that led up to the decision to delete? I still see nothing there. Badagnani 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Check the history. There's just one comment. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - An Internet search shows that this is simply a "homemade" variation on the Wikipedia game, or Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Granting it a Wikipedia article with no evidence of notability vis-a-vis any other homemade Wikipedia games would allow the creators to gain instant notoriety via having its own Wikipedia article, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Badagnani 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse deletion, even though technically A7 doesn't apply. A7 is for unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content, and this is none of those. And A1 (no centext) seems a bit of a stretch as well. Nevertheless, I think it's obvious that this unremarkable, unsourced, unsourceable example of something made up in school could not possibly survive AfD, and sending it there would be procedure for procedure's sake. Frankly, I'd like to see A7 expanded to cover "works" and "activities" (at least), but that's a discussion for elsewhere. This might be reasonable as something briefly mentioned on a user page, but clearly has no place in the main namespace. Xtifr _tälk 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, absolutely justified A7. MaxSem 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Eh? Whether technically an A7 or not, it is an excellent use of WP:CSD X27 "What the fuck? Nuke!"--Doc^g 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Doc, to the letter. No reason for us to break our own backs with more bureaucracy over a case of patent NFT. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I appreciate the temporary undelete by Veinor, and as I suspected it might, the article certainly shows the total absence of N, RS, Encyclopedic content, and all other factors. It might have saved a little trouble to get rid of it by a prod. But i can't see how it could seriously be defended. DGG 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Stuart Little (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Overturn closure and delete - of three comments expressing an opinion, two were to delete and one was a weak keep specifically noting that deletion was also acceptable. How this can reasonably be construed as "no consensus" is a mystery to me. At the very least this should be overturned and relisted but it seems abundantly clear that a CFD that closes with no one opposing deletion should be closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the nomination was based on something that was fixed almost immediately. Endorse and relist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• To clarify, there were two issues raised in the CFD. One was the use of the cat as performer by performance, which was corrected, and the other was the lack of need for it as a navigational hub because of the interlinking of the various articles. Otto4711 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per nom. CalJW 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13 so we can have some more discussion. Tim! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Charlotte's Web (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Overturn closure and delete - of four comments, three were to delete. There is no reasonable way that 75% in favor of deletion can be construed as "no consensus." At the very least, this should be relisted to allow additional comment but I don't know how much more clear it has to be made to the closing administrator that this should have closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per Otto4711. CalJW 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The keep argument was a general statement nearly amounting to WP:USEFUL, and not necessarily an argument for keeping the category. Otherwise, there was consensus to delete. --Coredesat 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 13 so we can have some more discussion. Tim! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Latitude and wealth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was started under a poor title by Futurebird (talk • contribs) and immediately sent to AfD (after a prod was removed). Within a day Novickas (talk • contribs) turned into a high-quality article on the macroeffects of geography on economic development, referencing the pertinent literature, roughly following the survey article by Jeffrey Sachs et al. in the Scientific American, and discussing both causal factors (climate, disease) and exceptions (natural resources, political regimes). The nomination nonsensically claimed this was a POV fork of latitude, and most of the delete !votes roughly fall into three categories: 1. outright unsupported dismissals ("NOR bullshit"), 2. hang-ups on the title ("Where's the latitude?"), 3. comments that made clear the commenter had no grasp of the subject matter ("there are exceptions so it can't be correlated"), and should have been ignored by the closer. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Comment The article itself is in the Google cache DGG 21:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the full history can be viewed at the article title itself behind the TempUndelete notice.
• Overturn. This is a rare instance where AFD got it wrong. The deletion claims were based on an assumption that this was original research. It is not. The thesis may ultimately be wrong but the bulk of the content is well sourced to independent, published articles. Rossami (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist Agree that many of the Delete votes should be discounted. Laughhead 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Clear failure of AFD. FCYTravis 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, the nomination here clearly spells out why this was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's also worth noting that of the related articles, Development geography#Geographic variations in development has one reference, and North-south divide has zero. So the fourth kind of argument, that this topic is covered elsewhere, fails to convince. ~ trialsanderrors 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - I just viewed the text in the page history, and this seems to be a well-written, well-sourced article. I have no idea why it would have been deleted in the first place. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Crotalus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, the article changed significantly during AfD. I do think the original article was problematic, and I'm pretty sure it was cut whole cloth from a contentious part of the Latitude article, which is where my POV fork argument came in. The title is still a problem, IMHO, though. Mak (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. Wimstead 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Some background: I saw this in the new articles list and was unaware of its contentious history. Took me a while to realize that someone had used it as a place to stuff the cold-makes-your-brain-bigger theory; this is easily dealt with since everyone with a basic knowledge of anthropology knows the original brain expansion took place in the Great Rift Valley, see [2] etc etc. (This particular reference attributes it to fish, yuck). Yeah, it needs some work. About the title; latitude is a fair proxy in the sense that tropical and temperate are usually defined using latitude. Also it would seem that permafrost in the highest latitudes also impedes wealth, but since Siberia and northern Canada are not independent countries it's harder to source. But the discussion on the proxy issue, title, and so forth could be continued. Novickas 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I disagree with the above description "poor title" - it's debatable but not poor. Novickas 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Poor" in the sense that at least 1/3 of the delete opiners tripped over it. It also implies a causation whenit's really just a correlation, so yeah, I would recommend changing the title. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I was a delete voter in the AfD, nom puts it well. Pete.Hurd 15:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per the nom, from another delete !vote. I remember this one well, and the nom here makes some good points. Under the circumstances, I think putting it back will be acceptable - but it would need to be made to feel unlike WP:OR if it doesn't change. (I do remember that it felt a lot like original research, thus my own !vote.) --Dennisthe2 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How about geography and wealth? [3]Novickas 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To expand: this reference, a Purdue University release citing the Toronto Star, uses the phrase "geography and wealth" in the course of a feature covering the SciAm piece that is, as trialsanderrors pointed out, roughly followed here. Novickas 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Someone has an itchy trigger finger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nricardo (talk • contribs).

• Endorse Speedy Deletion - Article did not assert why the company was notable. Perfect candidate for CSD:A7. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion no reasons have been shown as to why the article shouldn't have been deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• resorted and placed on AfD even though I disagree about the A7. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree. Editors need to be given a chance to to amend deficiencies in articles. This can hardly be done if they are deleted with no warning whatsoever. --Nélson Ricardo 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has been undeleted and is now on AfD, so I think this deletion review can be closed. --Conti|✉ 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Overturn: This is an anthology compiled by noted cartoonist Ted Rall. It was deleted as "advertising" (CSD g11), though last time I saw the article it was nothing of the sort. Articles on the other two books in the series remain and I am lead to wonder if it was deleted because it is about webcomics. The previous two wer about political and alternative cartooning and remain as of this post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse this deletion, which made no assertion of notability and was supported solely by a press release, but without prejudice against another go (you can have the deleted history if you want). I find the list of redlinks worrying, mind, since there is a lot of webcomic material on Wikipedia - if we don't have these articles, I'm inclined to think there is a reason for it. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fairness, of the 21 strips included in the book, we already have an independent article about the strip and/or the creator(s) for 18 of them. I don't think we'd be opening the barn door particularly wide here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. My assumption is that the style is similar to the first two, and thus shouldn't have been deleted as such. Without compelling evidence to believe it was spammy, best case scenario is to overturn. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Reasonable book stub, and Rall is notable enough that his work deserves coverage. It looks like there are a LOT more mainstream reviews of the first two volumes, however. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Google cache of the deleted page here. Seems comparable to the other two to me. All need further attention, but what on the site doesn't? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After seeing the cache, I have no clue how G11 is warranted here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Editorially Merge the three into something like Attitude (anthology) or Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists; The page on the first notes "two sequels and three spin-off titles", so I'm calling Chicken Soup for the Soul on this one. Nifboy 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The articles may have been created by a User:TedRall, but they weren't CSD material. Nifboy's idea is pretty good though, for editors to consider in future. - hahnchen 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn an obviously inappropriate use of speedy. DGG 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn not written as an advert, and has suitable content as per the other books in the series. I would also support a merge for the whole anthology. -Dr Haggis - Talk 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This article was obviously deleted due to it being about webcomics. Yikes! Webcomics will take over wikipedia! Anyways, my prejudice aside... Ted Rall is notable enough to warrant a (long) article on Wikipedia, and thus I think a book by him should be considered notable on that merit. The fact that the book hasn't warranted a lot of (online) reviews is probably due to the fact that it was just published and is about comics, which generally don't garner book reviews to begin with. Considering the fact that the editor who deleted this has a noted history of being anti-webcomic, and the fact that the previous two volumes of this serious have Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, I think this one should be allowed to stay. That said, I like Nifboy's merger idea. Tedzsee 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedzsee (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
• Comment: I'd also like to point out that Sandstein also deleted the book's cover image as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking at the comics linked to the article, Sandstein deleted Fighting Words 5 minutes later. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion of an article whose only sources was a reprinted press release, though history ought to be undeleted and redirected to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists as per Nifboy, Hahnchen, Dr Haggis, Tedzsee, etc. --Dragonfiend 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Which speedy criteria is that? By the way, Editor and Publisher isn't a press release. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if it is a reprint, that still doesn't answer the first question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Badlydrawnjeff, you write above that you "have no clue how G11 is warranted here," so I think you're already aware of which speedy criteria this was deleted under. If you're still in doubt, just check the edit summary on the article's deletion log. --Dragonfiend 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. Being cited by a press release does not make a G11. I know full well that it was incorrectly speedied. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Royal National Theatre Company members (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No consensus supports this closure. Although it was argued that no information would be lost by replacing categories by lists, this argument is not supported by current deletion policy which relies solely on consensus, the purpose of categories being navigational not informational. Tim! 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Thoughtful, well-reasoned close. Changing a category to a list is not deletion of information. Also, consensus is not determined by counting the votes, but by weighing the arguments and whether these rely on policy/guideline or on personal opinion. >Radiant< 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, as Radiant! says a thoughtful close. Listifying in this instance allows for more contextual information; if we kept these we'd soon need to split them into various subcategories for people who were famous before, famous as a result of, and not famous despite, appearing in a production by one of these (and why only these?) companies. 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs).
• Overturn and recreate A clear-cut abuse of administrator power. Deletion of the category is deletion and is sophistry to pretend otherwise. The discussion was moving firmly towards retention. The closer blatantly acted on his own opinion rather than on consensus, introducing (weak) new arguments at the point of closure which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge. CalJW 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is nothing within this debate that justifies ignoring the continuing consensus that performer by performance categories are a Bad Thing and should be deleted or listified. The case for an exception was not made here. On the broader issue, turning a category into a list is improvement, and preserves the information contained in the category. No sophistry involved, and unsupported claims of "abuse of administrator power" never make for a very convincing argument. The purpose of categories is indeed navigational, and that purpose is not served by the addition of performer by performance categories. Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent, but not wilfully so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There was nothing arbitary about this inconsistency, it was deliberately chosen on the basis of real world facts. Honbicot 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore The referee didn't like the way the game was going, so he picked up the ball in extra time and put it in the net on behalf of his preferred team. These are career defining category for British stage actors, and once this was made clear a consensus to keep began to develop. Haddiscoe 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The decision clearly did not comply with the relevant criteria: "Categories that have been listed for more than five days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." Wimstead 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus for deletion. If the closer was not happy with the outcome, the appropriate course of action was to leave a decent interval and then renominate, not to over ride the outcome of the discussion, which was moving towards retention. Honbicot 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• overturn we should have another chance to think about it and attract more people to the discussion. The closing admin said very clearly that in the absence of consensus he was deleting it based on his own personal view of them matter, which he explained in detail. Closers are supposed to be neutral so they can fairly judge the discussion. DGG 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Clearly the closure must have been a misjudgement on my part (although I thought about it very carefully before deleting it). I have restored and repopulated the categories. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like no-one to imagine that I reversed my deletion because of baseless accusations of "abuse of power". I object very strongly to comments by CalJW questioning my motives ("…which he thought no-one would get a chance to challenge"); I perceive accusations such as these as part of a trend towards confrontational discourtesy by many Wikipedian editors, a trend I deplore partly because it is so unnecesary and counter-productive. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, so can we please collaborate? --RobertG ♬ talk 06:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as there was no consensus to delete. Choalbaton 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• neutral There were good arguments presented also to show why lists were more suitable here. Overall, I think the closure took a fair balance, and it would be justifiable to endorse it. However, the discussion here has shown that what was thought to be consensus might not have been so, and probably the question should be discussed some more. There was nothing antagonistic about the discussion, and if people think we should have exchanged views some more, there's no reason not to. DGG 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think RobertG made a good well-reasoned decision. I'm sorry I missed this CFD, my comments would have been similar to the closing comments. Closing xFD's is not about counting votes, it is about trying to reason through the comments as best you can. RobertG acted in good faith. It looks like CalJW's incivility and lack of good faith in response has driven a valuable admin away from Wikipedia. I find this distressing. -- Samuel Wantman 09:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - this is a textbook example of a situation where consensus is not all about the numbers. The reasoning for listifying it was solid, the keep voters (and vote they did) did not address the issues at hand. WP:CCC, but five users asserting that the companies in question are notable does not overturn the consensus that already exists. Too many users fail to understand this. Chris cheese whine 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  PS - I think that the wording of this nomination is a nasty case of putting process before product. Chris cheese whine 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Penn, Schoen & Berland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Notable company article with legitimate critical commentary Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Extended rationale: The Google cached version of the article clearly had its problems, including a PR-boilerplate lead and overview and a "contact" section. But there were also separate sections on controversies in which the firm has been a party and the external links led to a number of news articles demonstrating notability such as [4] and [5]. In any case, the principal Mark Penn (official bio) is known as a pollster closely associated with Hillary Clinton going back to international work done for the Clinton administration. I believe this shows at least the possibility of an appropriate article and I believe an AFD is in order rather than deletion. If the whole of the article had been advertisement I would not challenge. From what I can see, it is possible that the article was only recently turfed with sections at the front and back, and the history should be examined to determine how much editing work was really promotional. (Note: Mark Penn was speedied a year ago, I have no knowledge of the contents of that article. AFD may wish to decide whether the firm or the man is more notable.) -- Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, not a G11, as it wouldn't require a fundamental rewrite to meet our prose standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Request History only undeletion to enable restoration of unquestioned portions (no middle paragraph) with last version on the discussion page for reference. Tried to do some of that, but network failed and had to reboot. --MBHiii 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close as there is already a DRV discussion on this article that has not yet been closed. Arkyan 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

G.ho.st (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

New External References that validate novalty, please see http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=341908011 213.6.46.103 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• There are two previous DRVs from 6 February 2007 and January 16. The Amazon link doesn't change a thing. Speedy close as been there, done that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse as above; the piece is written by them, which makes it useless for showing notability. I'm not quite sure it's that clear-cut, though, so I'll leave it for someone else to actually close. -Amarkov moo! 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixity of species (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Redirect to History of evolutionary thought#Pre-evolutionary Thought. Content was moved there according to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_16. "Fixity of species" gets 14,500 ghits and 648 google book hits as well as is referenced in every biology text book I have ever read. 199.106.86.2 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The decision in the referenced DRV debate was "endorse deletion", which means that content can not be moved to another article according to it. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Red wings (Sexual Act) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted for CSD#A5 before any AfD consensus had been reached. (CSD#A5 requires an AfD consensus of "transwiki") Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This one took a little time to track down, but basically:
  • AfD started on Mar. 4th.
  • Transwikied as a dicdef to wiktionary on Mar. 7th, subsequently deleted by wiktionary admin.
  • Speedied via A5 on Mar. 10th. [6]
  • Article re-created and re-speedied via A1 on Mar. 16th. [7]

  I don't really have any opinion on it, but it did appear to be a straight-up dicdef and was correctly transwikied, but wiktionary rejected it. Not sure what normally happens in these cases, just wanted to provide the background so no one else had to go digging for it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Background - The phrase "to earn your red wings" may be a slang term used to describe performing cunnilingus on a woman when she is menstruating.[8]. -- Jreferee 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The AFD discussion ran the normal period and had clearly reached a "delete" consensus. The fact that the deleting admin put the wrong reason in the deletion rationale doesn't mean we have to revisit the decision. Furthermore, every version was a mere dictionary definition. The fact that Wiktionary decided that they don't want it doesn't mean that we have to take it. If Wiktionary with their skills and resources for researching words concluded that it's unsourcable/inappropriate, that confirms that the decision to get rid of it from Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD - The subject matter of the March 4, 2007 AfD apparently was deleted from Wikipedia before the closed of the AfD. The AfD then appears to have been closed because the content of the article already had been deleted. Since the ability of editors to effectively participate in the March 4th AfD ended abruptly when the Wikipedia content of the article was deleted while the AfD remained open for comment, the article should be relisted at AfD to complete the AfD process. -- Jreferee 05:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - No substantive new information and no reliable sources cited, so there's nothing to suggest that it would pass a new AfD. Therefore, there's no reason to send it back through again for the sake of process. FCYTravis 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse transwiki and delete. Looks like a valid outcome to me, regardless of people's determination to preserve in perpetuity a Wikipedia article on anything that has even a tangential relationship to sex. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The AfD was open for the usual five days and was pretty much in favor of deletion. Even without the speedy, it still would've been closed as a delete anyway. WarpstarRider 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. If you want to take this up with anybody, it should probably be Wiktionary (not that I blame them for deleting it). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deleting admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I tend to want to keep such articles, but not this one, and the consensus was clearly to delete. DGG 19:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Inappropriate speedy deletions all over the place, here. If the consensus is to delete or transwiki, AfD is the forum to do that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was not a speedy deletion. AfD consensus was transwiki or delete (i.e. "not on Wikipedia"). The fact that Wiktionary didn't want it either is not our problem. Only one Keep at AfD, which acknowledged that the article had only a single source indicating no particular wider significance; AfD was registered 23:09, 4 March, listed 09:21, 5 March 2007, article was deleted 19:13, March 10 - more than 5 days. Not even the most legalistic interpretation of deletion policy makes that invalid in any way. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse—given that Wiktionary didn't want it (as evidenced by the fact that they quickly deleted it), and given that the obvious consensus at AfD was delete (with transwiki an option), overturning this would be nothing but a pointless excercise in bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, even if there was some minor procedural problem (which I'm not sure there was, given Guy's comments). Suggest nom might find Wiktionary Deletion Review a more appropriate place to review this matter. Xtifr _tälk 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I've defended (and WP:HEY'ed) sexual slang terms before, but this one is of marginal notability and pertains chiefly to biker gang subculture, and it's already in a couple of those articles. I see no reason to overturn consensus. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The page was was deleted and protected because Lasse Gjertsen was regarded as not notable. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a well documented article that states that he is notable. Hogne 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please see inclusion is not notability. We have silightly different standards from other language projects? Not a surprise. Vive la difference, and endorse this deletion of "a musical/video artist whose work has become popular on youtube", as ever. Anything that vanishes when the power goes out, and all that... Guy (Help!) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse AfD closure, but relist. I can't read Norwegian, but it seems like there are some substantial links and attention the subject has recieved. It's worth a look while weighing the evidence we have now and didn't at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid AfD. As noted, each language's version of Wikipedia sets its own policy and guidelines, so it's absolutely possible for a page to exist in one and not the others. Besides, the Norwegian article has only existed since January 31, and only two editorshave worked on it, so it's certainly possible it just hasn't attracted enough attention to get deleted yet. In any case, it certainly isn't anything that would override our own solid AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we may be misunderstanding the nomination. The assertion of notability, one would assume, comes from the multiple sources that are linked in the article. The issue appears to be more that they're difficult to read, but being in a different language doesn't preclude WP:BIO - multiple, non-trivial sources don't have to be in english. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's quite possible that he is notable to a Norwegian-speaking audience, it's likely there are very few Norwegian YouTube "celebrities". Where are the on-trivial English sources? Guy (Help!) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why do we need English ones? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What the multiple norwegian interviews says is also presented in the wall street journal interview with him - Hogne 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I have requested help from the Norwegian Wiki. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am lost in admiration for your determination to save an article on some pimply teenager who has never, as far as I can tell, sold a single record; God alone knows what titanic feats you would perform in support of a subject with some objectively provable merit :o) Guy (Help!) 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I heart the obscure. My recent appreciation for old American lower-than-b-movies has given me a lot to play with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Money isn't everything. There are many peopple who have spent much of their time on this guys work (over 10 million hits on youtube). Several tribute works to Lasse Gjertsen is released. The fact that there are 400.000 google hits isn't an argument for this article, but one of the first google hits is of cource to the deleted page here in Wikipedia. I think therefore that this article should, as the Norwegian page do, site the (few) non-trivial articles that exist. Hogne 07:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Translations of those Norwegian sources would be nice, but the WSJ article is enough reason for me to want it relisted. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. I created the Norwegian article, after he appeared in most of the main media in Norway. He has been on television on NRK (the Norwegian public boardcaster a.la. BBC). Now he is nominated in the category Most Creative video at YouTube's 2006 Video Awards 2006 Video Awards. Nsaa 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He will probably start working for MTV producing 8 animated films. [9]. Nsaa 11:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That might count, but any award from YouTube for YouTubers is equivalent to Navel Gazing Weekly's Special Award for Helping Navel Gazing Weekly to promote navel gazing in an attempt to increase the circulation of Navel Gazing Weekly in my book. Incidentally, I prefer Joel Veitch myself :o) Guy (Help!) 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's winning? We're all winning! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Do I have a "vote"? if so I vote for relist.....of course.

I read some place that I like him isn't an argument. Why is I prefer another... an argument? Would this article be deleted today with the documentation that is presented now? Hogne 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This is a common enough game to be listed in Wikipedia. This is of course a subjective comment. Looking at articles objectively, "The Game" needs no more justification as an article than Tag (game). This article is tagged with not citing sources, which is part of the problem with The Game (game). "The Game" should be undeleted and a tag added calling for sources. These two articles should be treated with the same objective standards. Personally, and subjectively, I'm a camp counselor and "The Game" has been played at every camp that I've worked at where "Tag" is played. I personally hate the game so you can't blame me for teaching it to them, but the game exists. Perhaps it's a Northeast/Midwest thing that hasn't made it to the deep south or west coast, but if it spans the country from New York to Chicago I think that's significant enough for listing. 5000 is the current number for significance, right? I'm sure that more than 5000 children in the state of Illinois alone play this game. In Defense of the Artist 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Notable Resources/Shouldn't have been deleted PinklBabe 11:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. The consensus of a previous deletion discussion disagreed with this - there are no new notable references that significantly change this. You should not have recreated the article - and it should be speedy deleted. Soap On A Rope 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The article was previously deleted by consensus, and the sources in the article do not substantially change the article's status since the valid deletion. Leebo ^T/C 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think the phenomenon has not gained enough notability to overthrow the AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the G4 deletions were valid (article was a repost) and the original AfD also looks sound. No credible reasons given for overturning the AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid Afd, no reason given to overturn. In case anybody's wondering, it got 106 unique Google hits at the time of the AfD, and more than 6 months later it has 119 unique Google hits, so it can't be said to have exploded in popularity since the AfD or anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, with no reason given to overturn but a vague assertion of notability. -Amarkov moo! 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Reliable source: Washington Post article about the game and its creators published Dec 24, 2004 http://www.kingsofchaos.com/post/ 129.174.184.3 08:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. The only keep argument appeared to be WP:USEFUL, but there was not much input in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure That's a great source, 3rd-party, non-trivial, and detailed. However, it will take more than one such source for it to have a fighting chance on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. If the same thing happens, oh well, some people spent 5 extra minutes. But I'm not convinced it will stay deleted with a Washington Post article. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly worth finding out, anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Relatively little input in the discussion, and since the primary objection was a lack of reliable source information, a WaPo article like this one could tip things significantly if incorporated into the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. One outdated human interest story in the local paper isn't enough to overturn an AFD even when your local paper is the Washington Post. There has been no follow-up in the 2+ years since that article was printed. Google News turns up a number of hits on this phrase but zero relevant to this subject. Rossami (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, the new information may change some minds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This page was provided, as a result of adding Wikistock to the list of other Wiki's on the List of wikis page. Wikis listed on the List of wikis page, each have an interlink providing further information about the wiki.Rovo79 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Is there another reason why it should be included? We don't allow articles just because someone added the name to a list. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7 (article simply says what it is and that its content is relevant to stock traders, and that's it). No prejudice against writing a new article that asserts attributable notability. --Coredesat 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikistock fits in no less perfectly than 80% of the wikis listed on List of wikis. Such as: Wipipedia, ZineWiki, Wikinfo. As with wikis listed on List of wikis, each wiki has a seperate page providing more information about the wiki, thus the creation of Wikistock.--Rovo79 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Those articles all contain sourced assertions of notability - this one didn't. --Coredesat 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Coredesat since I was deleter.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. True enough, a fair proportion of the others should perhaps go as well, a good number have already been nuked. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability? Who deems this worthy of notice title? Wipipedia, is notable? By whose standards? SkipperGuide, a cruiser guide is notable? Where do you draw the line on what is notable and not? --Rovo79 12:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also see Wikipedia:Notability. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If this is the case, I would highly recommend avoiding the headache of such events in the future, and strip the list down to the essential kin of Wikipedia, and lock the page. According to Wikipedia:Notability,"The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works." is the main criteria. I doubt the majority of those other wikis have been published in anything of merit. Hmm, merit, another term subject to....subjectivity, which the page on notability claims is avoiding. It seems a transparent claim.--Rovo79 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The other wiki articles you are slagging have references. Corvus cornix 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eliot Bernstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was deleted initially by an editor that failed upon request to disclose if conflict exists with this subject matte. It was edited by several editors who failed to disclose if they had conflict, when requested. Although the reasons for delete were stated and changed to comply with wikipedias rules, several of the editors continued to move for delete. Certain of the comments made by editors were wholly false, ie that there were no sources other than press releases when several news articles were cited. Those editors claiming such had removed the news articles although being informed that they were from highly reputable sources and were unbiased articles on the subject not press release. Many of the editors, although all were asked to disclose any conflicts, refused such courtesy, casting a negative light on the whole review as biased and possibly jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia, these authors claimed even that editors are not under conflict rules themselves. Several of the editors were trying to work on the article to make it work and it originally was worked on and approved by the initial editor of a related article Iviewit, also under deletion review. Iviewit was also removed by the same editor who fails to disclose conflict here under repeated requests. If Wikipedia has no rules for editors to disclose conflict with their edits when requested than Wikipedia has lost its credibility and integrity and that will be a shame for all who use it. I request that these matters going forward, due to the nature of the issues involved and reasons already stated in the discussions, begin and end by editors willing to disclose conflict prior to action or opinion. No conflict, should equal no reason not to so state publicly, it is not an insulting request it is a request to insure integrity in matters where conflicts could prevent unbiased edits and editors removing significant source material and then claiming it is not there. I would also like a rules committee to review the editorial conflict rules and assess if under extraordinary circumstances as these require, this is a viable request, upfront conflict disclosure upon request, to maintain the integrity of the publication. Since these statements have no harm if no conflict exists, and greater improves the integrity of the publication it seems only prudent. --Iviewit 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse my deletion. The AFD had a valid consensus to delete, and the nominator of this DRV made no attempt to solve conflict of interest, POV, and sourcing problems presented in the AFD. Instead, he went on a tirade and accused all editors arguing for deletion of having a conflict of interest against the subject of the article (the nominator initiated a dispute with KPBotany and accused him of anti-COI, among other things), thus not assuming good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not a battleground, either. --Coredesat 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Iviewit (talk • contribs) has falsely claimed on my Talk page that a) I closed the deletion discussion, which I did not; and b) that "After reading your biography, you certainly should have stated if you had conflict with Eliot Bernstein or Iviewit prior to and after your opinions." This is, of course, nonsense, and similar claims about other editors probably have equal merit. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse: Iviewit is not assuming good faith by accusing all users of having a conflict of interest unless they explicitly state otherwise, and twisting my words to make me sound homophobic. We tend to assume a lack of COI unless otherwise stated. Iviewit has also claimed that I closed the deletion discussion, which I did not, as I participated in it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse all DRV nominations that start with "The person who deleted this had a conflict of interest". People whose nomination starts with that do not have any valid reason. And in this case, there isn't even an attempt; not once does the nominator actually interrupt his long diatribe to explain what was wrong with the deletion, other than all these supposedly COI editors. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse pending any concrete demonstration that anything went awry with the deletion debate or closure. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Amarkov and Luna. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AFD, and suggest that Iviewit might do better by assuming good faith on behalf of the editors who participated in the discussion. I *did* state that I had no idea who the person was prior to my comment on the AFD, but that doesn't seem to have mattered; after that, Iviewit questioned me regarding my "credentials" on my talk page. I read the required guidelines, and opined that the article didn't meet them. That should be all the credentials needed in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Interesting that User:Iviewit should assert conflict of interest on the part of the deleting admin without mentioning that www.iviewit.tv is run by Tony Frenden & Eliot Bernstein. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse deletion and salt this title and Iviewit. (Eliot has this thing about COI so: I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Bernstein and am one of two people who deleted Iviewit.) Nothing has changed in the brief time since the AfD closed. I am sorry Eliot, but we just do not find you, your company or your claims in the slightest bit notable. -- RHaworth 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, we find mostly the same nonsense from editors. I stated my conflicts with the issues in my first response and repeatedly throughout and explained the need for such conflict. I never accused a single person of conflict, except stated that refusing to disclose if one existed seemed ridiculous when asked and remains jeopardizing the process. In fact, RHaworth who initiated still refrains from confirming or denying if one exists. On those who stated if they had conflict or not, I stated their comments stood and was willing to work further. I tried to explain that in highly contentious situations such as Patentgate that centers on the Iviewit inventions and where car bombings in attempts to kill inventors of killer apps is the center of the article being discussed, conflict checks amongst editors is typical, customary and non-offensive in almost all press organizations. Conflict check is only offensive to those that have conflict, read carefully these responses from most of the editors, some continuing to influence without disclosure and you find they are upset about being asked. Clearly, with nothing to hide, it is against "good faith" to fail to disclose when asked. I did not state that anyone had a conflict, nor did I accuse anyone.
  To see the full discourse on this subject please include the discussion of article Eliot Bernstein and all those comments where many of these issues were discussed in full. Again, the damage to a publication of Wikipedia to fail to have editors disclose conflict when requested and hide behind the request, claiming they are accused of something, will have damning repercussions on the integrity of the publication. In fact, I think due to the fact that Wikipedia utilizes the Iviewit technologies across its video applications, was reason to request COI from anyone within the organization, not in an accusatory tone, just to maintain integrity. To all of you editors crying that you have been accused of COI, this seems like a way to hide behind the inadequacy of your edits on both articles.
  Again, I stand ready to work with any of the editors who confirmed or denied and let their edits and works stand in getting the article done correctly. To close these articles now with perhaps conflicted parties may very well have the kind of bad faith this valuable resource tries to distant itself from. Clearly RHaworth speaks for others, many of who stated nothing of notability to endorse his views:

  "I am sorry Eliot, but we just do not find you, your company or your claims in the slightest bit notable. -- RHaworth 09:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"

  when in fact other editors have found it notable or did not so state. This is the bias that could have been avoided had RHaworth in good faith stated if he/she is conflicted.
  I would ask that this debate start again with the original documents and that all authors in good faith going forward either state conflict or no conflict and let the debate begin again. Good faith works both ways. In this instance, where conflicts have been found and ordered for investigation in Supreme Court bar organizations, etc. in these matters, it is very reasonable to start the process with acknowledgement of our good intent. --Iviewit 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Regarding your comment that other editors found you or your company notable: I see zero people who disagreed with RHaworth in the AfDs and DRVs for this article and Iviewit, so your claim lacks proof. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who has supported your position. And if you think that a conflict of interest should preclude people from participating, then never edit any page related to this or Iviewit again: you have freely admitted (see above) that you are the owner of Iviewit, Elliot Bernstein, so you have the largest possible COI. Oh, and for the record: I don't have one. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The AfD was closed properly. There is no evidence that the removal of the citations occurred in connection with the AfD or were not otherwise available to those participating in the AfD. Although Eliot Bernstein may be important and/or have fame, there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Even if edits were made by editors having conflicts-of-interest or by editors who failed to voluntarily affirm or deny conflicts-of-interest in response to a request, that does not create sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. Comment: There was a similar article entitled Biography ~ Inventor Eliot Ivan Bernstein - Iviewit Technologies. -- Jreferee 06:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I was also falsely accused of being the one who deleted this article, among other false accusations. The only issue is this debate and the article should have been deleted sooner. This sort of baseless, continual, neverending accusations against anyone and everyone who came near the article are what wind up happening when editors, in good faith, attempt to make a good article out of an autobiographical COI resume--they get maliciously attacked for everything under the sun. We're all the bad guys for failing to comply with a policy that doesn't exist, while User:Iviewit does not acknowledge his own assumed risk in doing precisely what Wikipedia advised him not to do: write his own fluff piece for Wikipedia. This could have been prevented, or ameliorated a bit, had the article been deleted in a speedier fashion. I do not wish to be further involved in this matter in any way. Please, Iviewit, do not post again on my talk page. Thank you. KP Botany 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)