Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

[edit] Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 12 June 2008

[edit] Allysse Wojtanek-Watson

Allysse Wojtanek-Watson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Can you please un-delete this article? Thank you.--76.235.133.37 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why? I'd have seriously considered WP:CSD#G10 instead of WP:CSD#A7 as the deletion reason. You haven't offered a reason to restore. GRBerry 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reason given to undelete. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. I agree with GRBerry that this was more credibly deletable under criterion G10 but the A7 deletion also appears valid. The page also falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS (though if that had been the only reason for deletion, it would have required AfD discussion). Rossami (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Goo Girls

German Goo Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|RfD)

I believe that the article on German Goo Girls should be restored. Since there are article for 2 Girls 1 Cup, Bangbus, Adam & Eve, and other article with such pornographic content, their should be no reason for it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanzhavegoodwiki (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 June 2008

• As with all the times it's been re-created (lots!), this is going to need third-party reliable sources before an article sticks around. Like, y'know, the AFD closer stated. Endorse. —Cryptic 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Considering the contentious history of both the German Goo Girls and at least one of the redirects of the same name, it would be much more prudent to start a new article within userspace, and then approach the proposition of establishing it in article space. Since the last article at that name was a redirect, it would make no sense to recreate the redirect without having the proposed, fully-formed and cited article ready to go. If this is an attempt to overturn the deletion of the redirect, I endorse deletion of it. B.Wind (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to proposer: "because there is an article on (XXXX) in Wikipedia" is not a valid justification for keeping an article here in the first place. There are many instances that have been shown that the indicated article in the "justification" was here by mistake. Also, deletion review is not Articles for deletion redux. It primary purpose is to review if the proceedings were properly done by the admin (and in the case where a new article is proposed for a title that has been deleted several times, it would be best to work with an admin for such a proposed recreation). B.Wind (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence has been presented here, in the AFD, in the RfD or in the deleted article itself that this organization meets any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards. I find no process problems in the AfD discussion. (I recuse myself from consideration of the RfD discussion because I participated in it.) Rossami (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B. Scott (closed)

[edit] 11 June 2008

[edit] Victor Allis

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

This article underwent a speedy deletion on an unfounded basis. The numerousness of articles that link to it is itself already sufficient testament to the person's noteworthiness, to say nothing of the fact that it should have made any possible deletion subject to a discussion. An appeal to the responsible administrator went unanswered. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• The sources within the article at time of deletion included his personal webpage, a company he used to work for and a company he currently works for, none of which demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted [[WP:BIO|inclusion criteria forThe page has been around since 2003 but even after all that time, it still read more like a resume than a biography. There are only 7 inbound links from the articlespace and all of them refer to the concept of Solved games (the other links are examples of the concept). Given the ever-increasing power of computers, it is unsurprising that more and more games are being solved and steadily less notable that they have been. Considering the age of the article, it probably should have gone to AfD instead of speedy-deletion. I don't think it would survive the discussion, though. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• The article didn't technically assert importance in any real way, at least not in the cached versions I can see. Inbound links are useful to consider but don't really prove anything. What is the actual claim of importance, and are there sources to back it up? If there's a decent answer to that question, this article should either be restored or userfied for improvements. --Rividian (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I see multiple possible claims, reproduced with intact red links. "he is CEO of Quintiq, a Dutch software company that..." "His dissertation introduced two new game search techniques: proof-number search and dependency-based search. Proof-number search has seen further successful application in computer Go tactical search and many other games". Quintiq was deleted almost 2 hours later by a different admin under A7, and I'd definitely have deleted it myself under A7. If the article on the company fails to assert importance, than being its CEO is at best a tenuous assertion of importance. So I think the real claims are the new game search techniques, neither of which has ever had an article, but might be important anyway. GRBerry 03:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Restore indicated some plausible reason for importance and that is sufficient. It does not have to show enough to pass afd -- in fact, it probably wouldnt pass at this point, but any indication of notability deserves a group view to see if either the editor or others can source it. But to pass speedy, it doesnt have to "prove anything" or have reliable "sources to back it up". DGG (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For AFD to be anything but an exercise in process, it would be nice to see that evidence at DRV, if it exists. --Rividian (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD. There is enough of an assertion of notability there to defeat an A7 speedy. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emarosa

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

Closer seems to have read only the bolded words, not the actual discussion. Had he done the latter, he would have seen that, of the only two users wishing to keep this article, the first had repudiated his opinion, and the second - the article's primary author - had been refuted. —Cryptic 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn (delete). The keep arguments were clearly unfounded because of misstatement by the 'keep' voters, and it would appear the closer was 'blinded by their science'. There is nothing to suggest that this band meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Only three people actually stated whether the article merited being kept or being deleted. Ironically, the person who brought this to DRV made two posts without stating whether he/she was recommending keeping, deleting, or something else. Neither did the IP who made a comment (and in terms of determining consensus, !votes by IPs tend to be discounted in this process). So, depending on the interpretation of Cryptic's comments, there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus. Either way, the seven days passed and there was no consensus to delete. B.Wind (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So if Esradekan had put magic <s> marks around his keep, to more explicitly indicate his backpedalling, that would make it ok? If I'd put delete delete delete in my comments, would I then have been counted thrice? There is nothing ironic in me not making a bolded incantation; I was trying to form a consensus, not to vote. And I succeeded; nobody thought this band meets WP:MUSIC except the article's creator. Utter disgust. —Cryptic 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Conventionally, it's taken as read that a proposer recommends deletion, except when it is stated otherwise. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we ignore !votes from IPs because they're from IPs. Usually they're ignored because IPs aren't familiar with the AfD process and the WP:ATA, and so make arguements that should be ignored. We don't ignore any arguements except by the merits of the arguement. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak endorse (or change to "no consensus") — there was not a consensus to delete. Also to Cryptic: It's customary to discuss the closure with the closing admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Change to Overturn and delete as the first keep "voter" had withdrawn his opinion. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen AfD. I don't read any consensus there, and with the low participation I think it'd be better to reopen and relist it rather than closing it as no consensus. I'd agree that the closure was incorect regardless of what it gets overturned to. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist with more participation hopefully some kind of clear consensus will be reached. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, needs more opinions. --Stormie (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Take back to AfD discussion could benefit from increased participation, possibility of a consensus being found. Guest9999 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Reopen, Relist Despite the apparent simplicity of the issue, seems the discussion was closed before a consensus either way took hold. Townlake (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 June 2008

[edit] Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008

Real_World/Road_Rules_Challenge:_2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I just wrote a properly sourced new article regarding the latest Real World Road Rules Challenge (which took me a couple of hours.) It was deleted minutes later because of the stated reason: "Recreation of deleted material." While it may have looked at first glance to be a recreation, it was not. If you compare the two articles (which unfortunately I can not) you will see the evolution of the article from when it was nominated for deletion on June 3rd to what I put forth today. The article uses multiple reliable sources, is pertinent and offers concise encyclopedic knowledge.

There was no discussion, and I was in no way informed of the decision to delete. I returned to the page to add additional sources and continue to expand the article, and it was gone. Zredsox (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• The prior version was Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II. That page has been deleted 4 times so far, once under speedy-deletion case G7, twice under A7 and once via PROD (asserting a violation of WP:BALL). It was then moved, deleted with the explanation "recreated content" and the left-behind redirect deleted under case R1. Looking at the content at the time of deletion, it was substantially similar though not identical. The critical difference is the addition of sources. Overturn and list to AFD. Since the prior deletions were all speedy-deletions (and a PROD), criterion G4 can not be used to re-speedy the content. (Case G4 is limited to deletions as the result of an XfD discussion.) While it still appears to me to be a WP:BALL violation, the addition of sources is sufficient that this needs community discussion. AfD is the right forum to make this decision. Rossami (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For some reason, the deleted page history doesn't show it, but Fram is correct that this content was discussed in a deletion discussion closed on 10 Jun 08. I withdraw the comment about G4 since it's no longer relevant. I'll comment below once I've had a chance to review the discussion itself. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Zredsox makes a reasonable case for a second look, and Rossami's argument appears sound. If the sources are inadequate, obviously there's no prejudice against sending it to AfD with this DRV linked. Townlake (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Now Zredsox is saying he needs more time to make the article passable. Therefore, no need to overturn the deletion at this point. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What I am saying is that with more time (a few days) more mainstream and independent sources will confirm the information (even though I personally feel the article is now effectively sourced.) However, I don't want to have to re-write the entire article again in 3 days just to have it deleted again without discussion. I guess my main point is the article as it stands did not have a chance to be reviewed by community. I rewrote the article, and it was deleted less then a day later. I got new sources, put up a new article and it was deleted minutes later. There was not an ample afD period to vet the sources (as there were none until I added them.) MM Agency is in fact a very reliable source in this genre being they directly represent the cast. They have also been vetted by google news and their stories are aggregated under the rules set forth under that syndication program.64.89.250.90 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • So wait a few days, gather your better sources, and perhaps run the improved version by an admin before you try reposting it. Fram's a fair minded admin; I am sure the deletion decision was well considered, especially having read the discussion in this DRV. Townlake (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think I am going to take another hour or two and write the article from scratch for a third time. No one here is saying that the content of the article should change. The argument is about sources and I feel that the discussion has not been fully fleshed out, especially in light of those that were added to the new version of the article which has not recieved a fair community review (in my opinion).64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Have you asked Fram to send you a copy of the deleted article? Admins can't always do this, but sometimes they can - never hurts to ask. Townlake (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think I will pursue this any further if the deletion holds without further review. It was the first article that I took the time to craft and the level of frustration that I have experienced is just not worth it - but I appreciate the suggestion.64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The G4 deletion was incorrect, AfD would be the way to go on this. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that Fram has shown that there was indeed a previous AfD I can't say whether or not the G4 was correct without seeing the content of the article deleted at that AfD. So am striking my overturn. RMHED (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin. First, when you read Rossami's summary, you may get the impression that this article never had an AfD. However, it was deleted at AfD the same day as this recreation was created and again deleted. The page Duel II had been deleted through AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II the fifth time, but had been moved to the new title "Real World/Road Rules Challenge:2008" (note the lack of a space before "2008") during that AfD. The new sources added after the AfD were closed were this messageboard[1] (i.e. not a reliable source) and this blog from a booking agency[2], which is hardly reliable and certainly not independent. If we allow this kind of recreation hours after an AfD discussion, then this can be prolonged into eternity by adding some new unreliable source to an already discussed article. If these sources were so crucial, they should have been added during the AfD, not hours later. I stand by my G4 deletion. Fram (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no significant differences between two versions, G4 applied. Rossami's mistaken presentation of facts is I assume largely due to User:Fram's misleading deletion summary, citing Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel II instead of Real World/Road Rules Challenge:2008. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I don't think Rossami deliberately ignored the AfD at all, just that he missed it due to the complicated history (three different names) and as you point out, my not too clear edit summary. Fram (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't imply that was your thought, either. No worries, deletions after page moves are often really confusing to keep track of. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, author appears to be using slightly different titles for substantially the same page in an end-run around consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment from article creator First of all, the original article that was sent to deletion and the one that was deleted were two different things. While the original story was in afD there were zero sources and it looks like people were just making up the cast before they were even selected. BMP (the show's creator) actually did cast selection only a few weeks ago, so any version of the article before then would be blatantly false. I rewrote the article from the ground up (24 hours before deletion) and then hoped that there could be meaningful discussion about the new source. The article was deleted before ample people had an opportunity to comment on the updated version (with 3 for Keeping and 1 against.) I understand that there were all sorts of versions of this article in the past, but that has nothing to do with the current incarnation and part of the reason I restricted the article to registered users (these type of articles are targets for vandalism.) Being that this article is about an event in progress and new materials were published yesterday, I created a new version based on those resources. The booking agency's article came out yesterday so it could not be added to the previous article. Secondly, the reason the article is significantly like the one deleted is because: That is the cast. It is not going to change with time and there is no way to alter that large part of the equation. Also, the location is Panama. There is is no way to change that, no matter what sources come online in the future. In an unrelated, but important point -I was in contact with the cast in Panama - which is why I took up editing the article in the first place. I know the materials to be correct. In other words, I am working to prove a positive through proper sourcing, and just need more time.Zredsox (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's not true, the version being discussed at AfD had sources, they were just not reliable sources. As is clear from my comments in the discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: There was only one source listed. I added two more, one which I feel holds enough water alone to keep the article. 64.89.250.90 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There were several sources, one of which was a webforum. Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • There was only one source (Vevmo.com) I even added the source area to the page template, so I should know. When I rewrote the page, I added more sources - although no one ever saw the new page I am assuming beyond the deleting admin. The article proposed for deletion (on June 3rd) was not the same article that was deleted (on June 10th) although there was minor discussion about the major rewrite that I did on June 7-8 - a Consensus was not reached. There was just not time. In fact, 3 out of the 4 commenters on the discussion page after the update wanted to see the article kept and improved (you being the 4th.)Zredsox (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to get into a "was too", "was not" argument with you. Admins can see the article's history. Corvus cornix_talk 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
            • You are correct. They will be able to see there was only one source on the old article and three distinct sources (external to Wikipedia) on the new revision. Where I think you are confused is that Vevmo.com was used as a source about 25 times in the same article (i.e. for each cast member etc.) That is true, but that does not make it 25 sources. Just one.Zredsox (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

March 19, 2008 anti-war protest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Consensus was clearly in favor of deletion by a margin of thirteen to six, the arguments to keep were largely baseless in policy which means most of them should have been ignored, the admin claimed that there was validity in the reliable sourcing of the article however that only established verifiability not notability, the article clearly covers a very small protest and the article has a lot of original research and filler based on undeleted protests such as the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy, the article simply does not establish notability and makes uncited original research claims such as "interruptions at the IRS were evident" and POV issues with extended quotes favoring the subject such as "I'm letting the nation know that the troops are against the war, and that there's a whole culture of dissent and we're letting the nation know that exists." with no opposing quotes. Many editors cited that the article reads like a news article and it does, this was discredited by the administrator due to it being an essay, however it is a frequently cited essay and clearly a policy by precedent. This rationale to keep by User:SchuminWeb states "These events did receive significant news coverage, but this article needs a LOT of work to bring it up to standard. If it sounds like news, that means we just need to go through a few more rewrites." However the user fails to point out any of the claimed "significant" coverage. This argument by User:DKalkin makes no mention of policy whatsoever "I'm not impressed by the current state of the article, but it seems to me that it could be improved so that it would be worth keeping. The March 19, 2008 protests were a break from demonstrations on past anniversaries of the invasion of Iraq in that civil disobedience replaced the mass march completely as a strategy. If the article included some of the context, the debates in the antiwar movement leading up to the demonstrations, IVAW's call not to distract from Winter Soldier, Cindy Sheehan's unsuccessful attempt to put together a unified march, etc., I think it would go beyond a news piece and be worthy of an encyclopedia" And is entirely conjecture providing no policy arguments or any links to the claims he makes it furthermore exposed the protests as dysfunctional unsuccessful and not a single unified event which goes to show that its really minor in scope, User:Nwwaew makes simply asks this question "Does having an article about the event in The Guardian count as notable enough?" with a link to a guardian artile about the DC protest only which does not mention the any other actions mentioned in the article that appear to be coincidence and undeleted to the DC protest, the article she links to only speaks of the methodology used in the protests and shows that it was a small minor one as there wasn't even a march. User:Astuteoak's arguement is entirely as Stephen Colbert once put from the gut not the brain as it is entirely unsourced opinion "The protests in D.C. and other cities absolutely merit an encyclopedic article. The main protest took place on a weekday (3/19 was a Wednesday) and the traffic disruptions, demonstrations, and police arrests drew enourmous attention of people who work in D.C. including House and Senate members. The Iraq war and the protests are VERY significant. Since the protest many Congress members now appear reluctant to be seen supporting the war. On May 15, 132 House Republicans even voted "present" rather than "yes" for supporting war funding. This is unprecedented since the war started 5 years ago" and should be disregarded, User:ragesoss exclaims "Has enough significant coverage to firmly establish notability. The coverage goes well beyond "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate. Even if much less significant than other protests, this and other medium-scale protests are of lasting interest and merit encyclopedia coverage" but again the user herself establishes this as not a major event and calls it medium, wikipedia has no article son medium protests, wikinews does, an argument by 4.88.22.120 that was unsigned by a unregistered user simple said "keep the article" which is not an argument and even if it where unregistered users don't get a say. So off the bat the administrator should have ignored two of these keep votes and that leaves the tally of consensus at 13 to 4 a very wide margin (and broad consensus IMHO), and those are "deletes" based on solid policy and their associated arguments, these include that it fails WP:N, violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT, User:Ohconfucius argument probably puts it best with "The event seems not substantially different to any of the protests which have gone before; its scale is also not great; currently, there is a lot of superfluous detail which would only appear in news articles but is not otherwise encyclopaedia-worthy" Myheartinchile (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that two different users felt strongly enough to contact the admin independently due to this surprising "no consensus" result.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. Without delving into the entire nomination, I will re-iterate my position that while there was a majority of !votes to delete, it did not constitute a consensus. The nominator asserts that the keep !votes were baseless in policy - the same might be said for the majority of delete !votes that cited WP:NOTNEWS, which is an essay and not policy. As there were valid arguments in favor of keeping the material (and a reasonable suggestion to merge elsewhere) I felt that the argument to delete was not strong enough to constitute a consensus. Shereth 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • NotNews arguments by registered users are far more valid than WP:HOPELESS arguments and keeps by unregistered arguments.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that WP:HOPELESS refers to a type of argument to avoid when arguing to delete articles - it does not have the meaning that you are using it for. Shereth 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, but WP:NOT#NEWS is policy (a part of WP:NOT). Most opiners were citing the policy, not the essay, in fact, I can't see even one that linked to the essay. This makes me unsure how well you actually reviewed the discussion; please revisit this and comment. GRBerry 19:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Funny the difference a # can make, and in this case the difference makes for some egg on my face - thank you for pointing that out. In my defense, I did review the discussion with due diligence (at least in my opinion), as generally a single character doesn't make so large a change in the result. Allow me a little bit to reconsider. Shereth 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There was a clear consensus to delete, more than two to one. Whilst AfD isn't just a numbers game there was no good reason to ignore the clear consensus as the arguments to delete were well within policy and guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Relist at AfD. The article is now significantly different from the one at AfD. Benjiboi has expanded it greatly, so I think the only fair thing to do now would be to relist and see what the consensus is for this article in its new state. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - after reviewing the comment made by GRBerry I have concluded that the no consensus closure is still valid. WP:NOT#NEWS being policy notwithstanding, in the AfD an argument made by ragesoss stated "The coverage goes well beyond 'Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism', the types of news singled out in WP:NOT as inappropriate" in refutation of the argument. On the other hand, the vast majority of those citing WP:NOT did nothing to indicate in what way the article was in violation of the policy, and rather, they simply stated (paraphrased) "Per policy". I still interpret the strength of the arguments to delete versus those to keep to be insufficient to be called consensus and stand by my closure. Shereth 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse original decision. People need to remember that AFD is not a vote, so while the number of people of various different opinions might certainly be taken into consideration, it is not the end-all for deciding the outcome of an AFD. The flow of the discussion is far more important than the number of individuals involved. "No consensus" was a decision that was properly reached. Additionally, I question whether the nominator has acted in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, considering that within a day after the AFD closed with a no-consensus, the nominator added a PROD tag to the article, and attempted to add {{Afd2}} to the article (but failed in its implementation) prior to taking it here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How did i not act in good faith, i can't see why i shouldn't be able to relist it for deletion by prod, it was removed, the system works, i never attempted to add afd2 the article i simply accidentally clicked save instead of preview as i wanted to set up a second deletion attempt and wanted to write the argument first then list it, but i changed my mind in favor of deletion review when the prod was removed and decided that was not the way to go.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Here is the diff showing where you attempted to add the {{Afd2}} tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • ...and here is the diff showing where he immediately reverted his own edit. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. WP:NOT#NEWS leaves a very wide swath for editor discretion (it only mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as the kinds of things that are explicitly inappropriate), and the idea that most of the keep comments were "largely baseless in policy" a poor characterization of the actual comments. If wants to pick nits, many of the delete comments were even less policy based. The discussion was about the spirit of WP:NOT#NEWS and where the line should be drawn, and there very clearly was not a consensus that this article runs afoul of the spirit of it. (It certainly doesn't run afoul of the literal policy.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - notability is only an indicator, not a free pass. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn closure (delete). I think this was a good faith attempt to close the discussion but it does not appear that the closer gave consideration to the pattern of comments. All opinions offered after the relisting recommended deletion except 1 anonymous comment (which was properly discounted) and one early commenter who declined to change his/her early opinion. Those opinions were expressed in light of all the previous evidence and comments. The article itself did not change substantively during the relisting period, leading me to believe that that the later opinions are a more reliable indicator of the community's collective judgment in this case. This was clearly a close decision and I can not fault the closer but I do read the consensus differently. Rossami (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Zomg the IRS workers looked out of their windows!. Clearly a rack for hanging coat chaped anti-war slogans on. Completely non-notable as a separate article, which is what notability is all about. It warrants a few lines somewhere else, and that's all in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overtun and delete As I said in the AFD, "Wikipedia is not the news. Momentary headlines do not make for Encyclopedic notability. Just another anti war protest. It is not notable, and putative usefulness of the information is not sufficient to have an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anti War Movement Archive/Annals/News." In evoking "notnews," I for one was saying that there is no notability and that all there was to the article was a recap of the news. While the others in the discussion should have more carefully phrased and justified there arguments, the lack of notability is clear. Stating that we are "not the news" was a statement indicating a clear evidence lack of notabilityor significance. Furthermore, the "keep" arguments failed in their attempt to assert either notability or significant media coverage. While one make argue the weakness in basing deletion on WP:NOT, the keep arguments were weaker still. Finally, the original delete nomination argument-- lack of notability or significance, was not refuted in any of the keep arguments. Some made arguments of usefulness, or claimed a single mention by the Telegraph met the requirement for significant media coverage. It did not. There was an argument of some sort of inheritable notbility because other protests were notable that was not convincing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

comment, have i mentioned the Washington Times calls the protest "limited" "Protests marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war today included no Hollywood stars and drew only a fraction of the tens of thousands that typically come to the nation's capital to protest wars."[3]Myheartinchile (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when do Hollywood stars make or break a protest? Many notable protests have lacked "star power". Not incredibly relevant here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

oh and lets not forget various users insist on considering the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Station Controversy with this article, and at that it is laughable, since the sources say that the police outnumbered the protestors![4]Myheartinchile (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one agreed with that removal on its face, because unless there was something special about the Berkeley demonstration on March 19 compared to other days, it should get a bye here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. As Iraq war protests go, this is fairly non-notable. As most it warrants a mention within Protests against the Iraq War. As a matter of perspetive, consider whether a similar individual protest against the Vietnam War would be covered in an individual article. The arguments in favor of deletion are well-founded in policy (including WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTE). Further, as 'a series of autonomous actions', rolling them into a single article is highly questionable. The arguments made to delete are sufficient in both merit and relative number (as compared to arguments to keep) to establish consensus. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and expand. This is more than news and the article would do well to compare how these coordinated protests paled in comparisons to the original massive worldwide ones. This is a good example of how wikipedia can cover a topic that paper encyclopedias would have to justify space for - a thoughtful look at the subject and meaningful content is available as the protests took place at least throughout the United States and likely elsewhere. It may make sense to instead move the article to Fifth anniversary anti-war protest as it seems the first, fifth, tenth, fifteen, etc anniversaries of events get extra media coverage as this did. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War and remerging the material into that already huge article seems also unhelpful but cleaning it up and ensuring content is relevant would be. Banjeboi 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)\
• Kill that article! The article was obviously kept under inexperience, bad judgement, personal bias, and/or, at worst (probably not), intoxication; consenus clearly pointed to Delete. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as no consensus; this AfD is a complete zoo; many people seem to be in favor of deletion, but others want to keep the article. In the original AfD, I voted to delete the article, but it doesn't appear there was clear consesus here. Some of the other voters here have said that the keep votes in the AfD were baseless. Some of them were, but others did have base and were contributed by registered users. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• So, was that comment phrased to be as incendiary as possible? If it was some attempt at humor it came across very poorly. Shereth 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note suggesting a rephrase. Dlohcierekim 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn closure (delete). I entirely agree with the comments of User:Rossami, who incidentally did not participate in the AfD. I believe a consensus existed to delete of 13:4. Of course, the views of an single purpose account and an anonymous IP editor's views are rightly automatically discounted. One also pointed to a Guardian news article as being evidence of notability, but that article clearly frames it in terms of the war's 5th anniversary. Whilst I agree that a lot hinges on the subject's plentiful news coverage, it was obvious to me the news reports were not sufficient to confer a real-life notability out of context of the Iraq War and the ensuing protests, whether sporadic or regular, whether concentrated or dispersed. The two arguments that the article "could be improved" should not be allowed to over-ride the landslide majority view - aside from neutralising its newsy tone, and severely pruning back into a stub by removing the original research and bias, I do not see any improvement of the article is possible by its existence independent of the abovementioned context(s).Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've just started doing some research and there seems to be little shortage of reliable sources for this - if anyone finds anything please leave a note on the article talk page and I will add it ASAP if no one beats me to it. Banjeboi 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was clearly to delete per WP:NOT NEWS, there was no consensus anywhere else. In this case the debate was misinterpreted by the closing admin. MrPrada (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & Relist I was going to vote overturn & delete according to AFD consensus, but my opinion now is heavily influenced by the status quo, as March 19, 2008 anti-war protest is currently a nicely sourced article and has been dramatically improved compared with the version that got nominated for deletion. I think the new version doesn't fail WP:NOT#NEWS, but that matter is for another AfD to decide. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete The consensus in the original AfD was to delete the article, especially as several of the keep votes were WP:CRYSTAL violations (eg, that the article should be kept as these protests may one day be judged notable). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• endorse close for now or barring that relist The article is well-sourced and I'm not sure there's enough of a NOTNEWS issue to justify deletion. PeaceNT makes a good argument for relisting. JoshuaZ (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. There's plenty of consensus to delete and both sides had several "votes" which could be discounted (e.g. by IPs). Stifle (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is deleted could you please userfy it to me so I can rename for 5th anniversary and repost? Thanks. Banjeboi 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Has anyone given the article a look-over again recently? Benjiboi has done a great job reworking the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual added detail about the actual protests that took place are just as insignificant as the ones there originally, and only serving to underline the lack of notability of this 'day'. A pink bed being rolled down a street? Come on. The rest of the additions are pure article bloat, with more free advertising for protest groups, more coatracked slogans and quotes, more backstory content which is duplicated in many other aticles, e.g. the bits on Sen. Feinstein, the bits about war spending etc etc. The stone cold fact is, the addtitions are not adding to the notability of the subject title, and merely starting to make it look more like an indiscriminate list, so the ultimate result might be merge elsewhere for some parts which don't deserve their own article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That bed being rolled down the street was one chapter of the national group Code Pink, and that action was one of dozens that day in Washington DC so it seems appropriate, it's sourced and simply lets the facts speak for themselves. ___ happened. I'm puzzled that it seems like an indiscriminate list, at all. These were coordinated protest events done to highlight the 5th anniversary and, so far, the only events I added all occured on the same date although significant events also were held prior to and after the same date. Banjeboi 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki WP:NOT#NEWS states that Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. There is nothing in this article that says anything about the impact of the demonstrations. And nothing stated in the keep votes indicates that there is anything to say. Even so, wikinews could likely use the article as, as the article has far more content than [5]. So deletion should not take place before a transwiki process has been carried out. Taemyr (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War and it also does delve into how the protests were widespread and more thoughtful perspective on what impact they had is likely given they were covered by nearly every major news outlet. Were they as significant as the 2003 protests, no, but the sources and thus, article delves into possible reasons for it. Banjeboi 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus closure and therefore default keep per fairly strong arguments to keep (it's not a vote). Organized and referenced article with real world notability and interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete It is always a pleasure to agree with editors of the caliber of Ohconfucius and Rossami, who (inter alia) have clearly expressed the reason for reversing this close. Eusebeus (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Wow, that really has been expanded since the original AfD. It'd be kind of pointless to delete it now I suppose. I need to put that rescue tag on all of the school articles that get nominated for deletion if it works that well! GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, I have reviewed the article since the AfD. No, I do not think that the changes have addressed the fundamental concerns raised in the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I rarely see the point of overturning a no-consensus close, since the article can be renominated; but this article had already been relisted, and all newcomers to the discussion had spoken for delete. So would I, except that I thought the deletion would be so obvious it would be unnecessary. DGG (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus since the article has changed a bit since the AFD, and is tagged for more work. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus because... it's clear that there wasn't a consensus. More substantively, I object to the characterization of my quoted comment as without basis in policy. The logic here seems to be that if an editor cites WP:NOT#NEWS to argue for deletion, that's based in policy, but if a second editor gives reasons why WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply, that's not based in policy. This makes no sense. Kalkin (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This would set a troubling precedent for what is a "Clear no consensus". Keeping an article like this, when you have 12 or so delete !votes (8 of which say the same thing, e.g. consensus, which in and of itself is rare), and only 4 keeps (1 of of which cannot be counted) and calling that no consensus? Meanwhile, you have notable biographies, articles with much more value then in this case, that have say, 7 keeps, and 4 deletes, and we seem to default to delete just because the four editors said "Not notable". This makes no sense to me. Certainly the widest standard of inclusionism I've yet encountered at two or so years at AFD/DRV. I still this the consensus was not correctly identified in this case, but if we are going to uphold the decision, then this will certainly set a precedent for future deletion debate that I for one will refer to both at AFD, and here if the articles are deleted. MrPrada (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/delete. The AfD looks like a consensus to delete, and the 'article' deserves no better. Relisting would only create yet more heat. dorftrottel (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage Under Fire (closed)

[edit] Pizza delivery in popular culture

Pizza delivery in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Hello! I have serious concerns with this closure. Closer originally said a "majority" in his closing rationale; it is NOT a vote. And as a discussion, the ending of the discussion is that the article had been cleaned up in such a fashion that editors now believed it should be merged or kept. There was absolutely no consensus to delete here and I strongly urge you to either relist or close as no consensus. Please note that near the end of the discussion a request was made to "Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did" after which two editors argued to keep and only one was still in the delete camp. Most if not all of the deletes were made PRIOR to the improvement. Once the improvement occurred the discussion changed course dramatically. Thus the actual discussion ended with a consensus to keep or to discuss further, but aboslutely in no way could that have ended in delete. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The word majority is not a bad word. At times, a majority is an important part of a consensus (while not in all cases). In this case, the number of !votes did not play a large role in my final decision. Mainly. The concerns addressed by the delete !votes that it was an article full of trivia and orignial research did not appear to be addressed (albeit through the inherit subject of the article makes it hard to address them). Even though references were added and cleanup was done, the consensus at the AFD, as it was, was to delete or merge/delete or merge in some way. In other words, the AFD appeared to be about the idea or concept of the article, and none of the keep !votes appears to succesfuly address these concerns. I stand by my orignial closure. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The consensus after the clean up was unequivocally to keep: "Keep per WP:HEY. The article as re-written by GRC in the last couple of days is in every way superior to to article that was nominated. The article everyone disparaged above is gone by virtue of the rewrite, and the rewritten article should not be confused with it or deleted in its place. Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did" and "Keep per excellent improvement. The newly-added refs show coverage from credible sources and verify notability needed for a detailed article, as opposed to a section in another (already long) article." Sure you had your initial pile on deletes, but once the article was improved, the consensus was unquestionably to keep at that point, with some minor suggestions for a possible merge, but aboslutely was there no consensus to delete and if as you say you think the consensus "was to delete or merge/delete or merge", then that meets there was not a clear consensus, as that's three different possibilities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I view Delete and merge/delete as effectivley the same thing. If somebody wants to merge it, I am ok with that, I will provide a copy of the article, I do not have a problem with that. Lets see what the rest of the community thinks though instead of just you and I going back and forth. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If someone wants to merge than the article also would have to be restored per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • IF somebody wants to merge it, I will kindly do a histmerge as well. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Which would still also need a redirect as it is a valid search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some of it already was merged before it was deleted. I favor just restoring and redirecting, but if you want to histmerge that's fine too. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Quite a reasonable close. That anybody can source the various "pizza delivery occurred in X" claims for all sorts of media X is neither surprising nor relevant. To avoid being original research, an IPC article needs sources that are about the phenomenon in popular culture, rather than about media X, Y and Z. No sources with significant discussion about pizza delivery in popular culture were found and added to the article or mentioned in the AFD. The article remained original research without relevant sources, and was quite properly deleted. GRBerry 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Relevant sources were found and so in was improperly deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I looked at the sources. They weren't the type of sources needed, which I describe more fully above. The ones that were added range from a low of sales sites for a specific movie to reviews of a specific movie. None contained significant discussion of the article's topic. GRBerry 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Which are at least sufficient for a merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per GRBerry, the closure seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Shereth 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A discussion that concludes with near unanimity after a major improvement to either keep or relist is not a reasonable closure as delete when even the closer indicated that it was a possible merge, i.e. if that's possible, than there was no consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist as a error, because the closer did not show any indication at all that he took any account of the drastic improvement in the article. When something changes this way neart he end of the 5 days, a relist should be the usual way of dealing with it. Had the views not changed, we'd be spared the DRV. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• A relist sounds adequate. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist There was a clear change in opinion after the changes were made to the article. This makes a relist of the debate to see what the consensus is on the new version the sensible course of action. Davewild (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist article had been improved and sourced. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist There were 5 !votes after improvement, 4 keeps and 1 merge, that's reasonably enough to tell which outcome the debate is heading towards. It doesn't seem to me that this AfD was forming a consensus for delete; closer could have been more careful and looked at the timestamp. Also, considering that all delete voters (except the nom) gave no real argument and expressed clear discrimination against this type of article, not "I tried to find sources but nothing turned up" votes, there's no evidence (or even assertion) from the debate that the content is unsourcable, which makes User:GRBerry's point about sources, though fair in general, invalid in this case. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. There was no consensus established to justify the closing decision. MrPrada (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• While all articles with "in popular culture" should be deleted in my opinion, the improvements to the article during the AFD suggest that relist would be appropriate. Were it not for those improvements and judging all "votes" as they came in, I would endorse. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Close was reasonable and the issue of sourcing remains a concern, as does the general unencyclopedic, trivia-attracting quality of the IPC genre. Eusebeus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The close was unreasonable and the sourcing issue was adequately resolved regarding this encyclopedic article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn closure and list to AFD. Comparing the versions as they were on 5 June and 9 June, I would hardly have called the changes "dramatic improvements" - they seemed like pretty incremental changes to me. Nevertheless, the pattern of comments at the end justifies at least some additional discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• No opinion on the closure of the AfD itself, but it appears that NickPenguin merged some of the content to pizza delivery, and merge and delete is bad. So, in order to keep in line with the GFDL, we should, at least for now, restore and redirect to pizza delivery. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In this case, I'm that is not necessary. The article under review was removed from pizza delivery in the immediately prior edit of that article. If you go back one more in the history to get the two edit diff containing the removal and Nick's restoration of content you get this diff. Checking, the new paragraphs in Nicks version of pizza delivery were not in the deleted article; they are Nick's work in that merge. So no contribution history is lost. GRBerry 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Arbitrary popculture topics are not what we're here for. dorftrottel (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish_auction (closed)

[edit] Daniel Boey

Daniel Boey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV1|DRV2)

I am submitting this article for review and reinstatement based on the edits that were discussed in the previous deletion review. Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Succisa75

• Note: fixed malformed DRV nom and added links to previous DRVs. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Second note: Succisa is asking if the userfied version here can be put back into mainspace, in case that isn't obvious. Cheers, everyone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• not yet The only real references for notability seem to be the pages in http://www.danielboey.com/img/press and I can't tell the actual sourcesDGG (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I repaired some of the links. Was that the problem with notability or is it something else? If so could you explain in more detail what you are looking for? Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Succisa75

• Keep deleted, very little non-trivial media coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Thornton

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

I am submitting this article for review and reinstatement based on the edits that were discussed in the previous deletion review as well as new news found by google on Mr. Thornton. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.46.67 (talk) 16:20, June 10, 2008

• Comment - Could you provide a link to the prevoius DRV? I seem to have lost it. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close. No reason provided to overturn. Previous DRV can be found here, but I removed it since it lacked a reason to overturn. Nom doesn't tell what the "new news found by google on Mr. Thorton" is or why it overrides the AfD. You may feel free to open a new DRV if you can provide sources to establish his notability or have found fault with the closing of the AfD, but please at least provide a valid reason. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9 June 2008

[edit] Dickipedia

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

Speedy Delete carried out without discussion and despite changes in web coverage Although the Dickipedia was deleted in Dec 2007, I recreated in this spring and made a clear note on the discussion page that 1) I hadn't been involved in the original article and 2) that the reasons for deleting it in Dec 2007 didn't apply at this time given the greater notability of the topic. The article was deleted today by a bot. When I went to the bot page to start a discussion on this speedy delete, I read that I was not supposed to start any discussions there. So, I'm here. The process of engaging in AfD discussions with a bot is quite frustrating. This is the first time I've requested a Deletion Review and am feeling my way, but I have to note that the process is cumbersome, to say the least.Interlingua 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually, the page was deleted by Orangemike, not a bot. A bot only notified you of the speedy. As for the speedy itself, I've no opinion, not having access to the new and old deleted contents. I've notified Orangemike of this DRV. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet the only references at the present are

• Zjawinski, Sonia. Huffington Post Helps Launch Wiki of D%@ks, Wired Blog Network [9]
• Welcome to Dickipedia, SFist February 6, 2008 [10] there's also other material in Huffington Post, but they're the sponsors of the site. DGG (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Per DGG. MrPrada (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• I assume the place you've been looking at that discouraged further discussion might have been the second AfD that had been opened and then been closed after the speedy deletion. The discussion there confirms as well that it should stay deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, not notable and no process violations. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Steal their editors a lot of it seems to be quite well written and intelligible. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anya Kamenetz

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

AfD closed before five days on minimal discussion by non-admin shortly after I revised my deletion proposal. He suggested I ask for deletion review rather than undo his edit. My current proposal One of my current proposals is to move the page to Generation Debt and reverse the direction of the redirect. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse my closure, as two established users supported the retention of this article, and no users besides the nominator supported its deletion. Furthermore, the citations provided by Captain-tucker provided compelling evidence that one of Anya Kamenetz's books has been the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, thereby establishing a presumption of its notability (and, by extension, the notability of Anya Kamenetz herself) pursuant to our general notability guideline. The timing of the closure was correct, as the AFD discussion was initiated on June 4, 2008, and closed on June 9, 2008, approximately five days later. The exact hour at which the discussion was closed today would almost certainly not have affected the outcome. John254 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note. The editor that closed this AfD prematurely has a history of doing so. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore. I do not state this as a personal attack and I am sure he is a fine editor. I only wish to explain my dissatisfaction with an early and apparently pointless closing of a debate that had not finished. My account is pseudonymous but not a sockpuppet (see my talk page) and although I cannot make an appeal to status as an 'established user' under this identity, I am not an untrustworthy editor myself. There was not yet a decisive Keep consensus on this AfD. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• If a reference to a seven month old AFD closure is the best evidence that you can provide to support your position, then your argument is without merit. Even a cursory review of my recent edit history would indicate a large number AFD closures, none of which have been overturned at DRV since the reversal of a few closures seven months ago. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina, which I closed under circumstances quite similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz, was recently endorsed, unanimously, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 26. John254 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Furthermore, I identified the users favoring the retention of this article as "established users" not as an implicit disparagement of the manner in which you are editing, but rather to distinguish the participants in the AFD discussion from the "single-purpose accounts and/or single purpose ips" about whom you complain [11] in the AFD nomination. John254 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This request for review is not about your record, although it would have been fair for you to say above that the Marina Vernikina deletion was in fact a 'procedural nomination' that was opposed by the AfD nominator himself! For Anya Kamenetz, I offered a new proposal in the middle of the debate, one that would improve Wikipedia in my judgment. This proposal, along with the discussion in total, was cut off prematurely for no reason I can discern. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina was initiated by MusicBizLady -- the fact that Celarnor actually completed the technical aspects of the nomination is immaterial here. The reason for concluding the AFD discussion is quite sound -- the nominator initiated it alleging in relevant part that "the subject's book has received limited attention by people other than the subject... Thus no WP:RS to sustain notability". When this claim was quite successfully rebutted by the citations provided by Captain-tucker, Antiselfpromotion conceded that the book "may be notable", but nonetheless asserted that Anya Kamenetz wasn't, and suggested moving the article to the title of the book. However, the nominator's prior incorrect assertion of the book's non-notability strongly suggests that Antiselfpromotion nominated the article for deletion without a thorough search for sources, and calls his later assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability into question. More fundamentally, however, since there was no longer any support for the deletion of the article by anyone involved in the AFD discussion, there was no reason to continue it. AFD discussions may, on occasion, be employed to debate deletion-like dispositions of articles, such as redirection -- however, given the lack of comments responsive to Antiselfpromotion's attempt to employ the AFD discussion for this unconventional purpose in the course of the three days since he proposed moving the article, it did not appear that this usage of the AFD would be productive. John254 03:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are making this a personal attack, and that is not appropriate. My search was thorough. Why do you assume that it was not? The reviews that were found by Captain-tucker were in fact not found online, but in a private database. In any case I dispute a subject is notable only because she has written a reviewed book. If the debate were finished nearer to five days after it started than four, perhaps there would have been more comments and the AfD been productive. Why was there was a rush to terminate the debate by fiat? You could have re-listed it or allowed my re-listing to stand if you did not think enough comments had been made. There was no consensus. There was certainly no Keep consensus. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• A through search for sources would have included using a commonly available database accessible from many academic libraries. If you're not willing to conduct such a search, but are instead nominating an article for deletion solely on the grounds that a cursory web search provides no sources, you should at least state your claim of non-notability as a possibility, rather than as a definite assertion. Furthermore, it should be noted that AFD discussions are conventionally employed to request the deletion of articles. Where no one participating in an AFD discussion continues to support such a result, there is a consensus to keep the article, in the sense that it is not administratively deleted. Where an AFD discussion has continued for nearly five days with such a consensus to not delete the article, and no ascertainable consensus to do anything else, it is properly closed as "keep". John254 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Of course, if my claim that your assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability is questionable as a result of the circumstances under which you brought this very article to AFD constitutes a "personal attack" as you allege, then your previous attempt [12] to introduce a seven month old AFD closure as evidence weighing against the correctness of the closure of this AFD discussion is likewise a personal attack, but to a much greater extent, since the relevant incident was quite old, and did not pertain to this particular article at all. John254 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I did not abandon my nomination for deletion. I asked if I should change it to a debate about a redirect, all the while maintaining that I thought that the subject was not notable and that the page should be deleted. Nobody had answered that question before you closed the discussion by fiat. I see that as evidence that not enough people were yet paying attention to the debate, not that there was a Keep consensus. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Nobody had answered that question" because you proposed a pagemove at AFD. While I do support the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and would concur with a pagemove conducted as a result of an AFD discussion which evidenced a consensus to do so, we can't actually require users to discuss matters at AFD which are outside its formal purview. John254 04:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I additionally wish to observe that inadequately prepared AFD nominations can be somewhat of a nuisance on Wikipedia. So, if someone has actually had to visit an academic library to obtain compelling evidence to support the notability of a book whose non-notability was unequivocally asserted in an AFD nomination easily prepared from the convenience of one's own home computer, I expect that to be the end of the matter, and the AFD nomination to be graciously withdrawn. To continue to pursue this AFD, by means of an assertion of Anya Kamenetz's non-notability which is likely no better researched than the assertion of her book's non-notability is tantamount to a claim that your time and effort is more valuable than ours, such that you may insist on the elimination of our article concerning Anya Kamenetz unless other users are willing to conduct the research which you refuse to perform. Such a position is disrespectful towards the Wikipedia community. John254 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop talking down to me and treating me as if I have been disrespectful. I strongly disagree with that characterization. You are talking as if my AfD was 'inadequately prepared' or overstated, but it was not. I am still not persuaded that the subject is notable. You cannot decide unilaterally that nobody else will agree with me. The article is about a living person. We are not to assume even as as default position that it is properly sourced and that the subject is notable solely because the article exists. Recall that it looks as if the subject herself created the page. Preparing the AfD was not disrespectful. Waiting until it runs its course rather than terminating it by yourself would have shown the respect that you are alleging I lack. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• AFD closures are intrinsically unilateral -- they are not performed by a vote of a committee. The process is far from perfect, and oftentimes produces heated disputes, repeated listings at deletion review, and even outright wheel warring, where there is little agreement as to the correct interpretation of an AFD discussion. Fortunately, however, Anya Kamenetz is no Daniel Brandt. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Kamenetz clearly favors retention of the article as a matter of policy, and is unanimously supported by all users who have reviewed the matter except yourself. While it is considered to be a conflict of interest to create an autobiography in the main namespace, articles may not be deleted solely on this basis. Autobiographies substantially unchanged from their original authorship receive great scrutiny; however, Anyaanya (talk · contribs)'s creation of this article nearly three years ago, in a form substantially different from its present character, is largely unimportant to the disposition of the present article. John254 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously I know AfD closures are made by individuals. But there is a process. This was a non-admin closure well before the 5-day period was up. It was an early and inappropriate non-admin closure under WP:NAC. All the guidelines there explain why I am unsatisfied with your closure. It was not a 'unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period'. There was debate and a new question, a resolution to which would have required admin action because a live article cannot be moved to a redirect by a non-admin. It was not a 'snowball' keep, and I was still making my case and introducing new questions and concerns. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fortunately, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure contains a prominent tag explaining its status: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Before quibbling about whether an editor's actions are consistent with the technical details of policy or guidelines, one should ensure that the page one is citing actually is a policy or guideline. Your claim that the AFD closure was "well before the 5-day period was up" is untenable: the discussion was initiated on 21:08, 4 June 2008, and closed on 00:19, 9 June 2008. Do you seriously contend that it is insufficient for an AFD discussion to be closed on the fifth day after it is initiated; that this AFD could not have been closed until 21:08, 9 June 2008? Of course, the discussion was a "unanimous keep", excluding the opinion of the nominator (which, if counted for this purpose, would render a "unanimous keep" impossible except in the case of withdrawn and "procedural" nominations). John254 06:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I knew you would harp on the word 'guideline' and I regretted using it immediately. I did not mean the word in a technical manner although as I say on my user page I do not claim to be an expert on AfD policy. The page nevertheless is consistent with my opinion. Do you disagree with it, or alternatively do you think that your non-admin closure is consistent somehow with it? All I expected is a full and fair discussion. You cut it short and denied me the opportunity to relist so that the AfD could get more than 2 comments and my question could get an answer. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

*Comment - the relevant guideline with respect to Non-admin closures on which the mentioned essay elaborates, is Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was reasonable to consider the course of the AfD as indication that the nom withdrew the deletion request and suggested a merger. As nobody else was arguing for delete, a non-admin can reasonably close in such circumstances. But he may have been wrong--bringing this Deletion Review suggests the nom had not really decided what to do. But I still do not see what antiselfpromotion wants--he does not need deletion review to propose his merge and redirect. For an author of a single book, it's equally reasonable to have the article under the book or the person. DGG (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The fact that this is being brought up here at DRV is a good indication that the closure was somewhat improper, and the closer should probably have left for an admin to finish off. Nevertheless, overturning it seems a little unnecessary at this point, because in the end the keep result is what ultimately would have come about. It's one of those cases where the closure was correct but the fact that (s)he is a non-admin is the only reason it's showing up for review. Discussion regarding a merge/redirect can proceed without the intervention of a review. Shereth 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close - while it might have been better to leave it for an admin, it being a close decision, looking at the arguments brought forward by those two editors opining keep provide a pretty good basis for the decision; the author's book has been written up in various and diverse notable publications, which would seem to me to add notability. A merge (or rename and refocusing to make the article about the book instead) is still possible, of course, but the discussion should be held on the talk page, not here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Seeing that no one who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, was ultimately seeking deletion, I'm not sure why this is even up for review here. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close, strictly a no consensus, but no harm done. Closer is strongly counselled to avoid closing deletion discussions other than unequivocal keeps. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Insufficient time on AfD & should have been allowed more time/been relisted for further input given the AUTO and COI issues raised in the nom. I second the concerns raised by Antiselfpromotion and, echoing Stifle, suggest John254 restrict his efforts at AfD to obvious closures. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, nom for a Pulitzer Prize is sufficient notability, the close was premature but not that premature. Though there might be two articles here, or else write an article about the book and not the author. It seems like the article is rather schizophrenic. Corvus cornix_talk 18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Every year there are 2,400 Pulitzer Prize noms. [13] Every pub. can make them. That part of the bio is just vanity too. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks (closed)

[edit] 8 June 2008

[edit] Ulteo

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

I think that the deletetion of my new article about Ulteo was not justified

Hello - following the deletion of the original Ulteo entry on Wikipedia which was very poor, I wrote a full article to cover this Open Source project, with all the references.

My article was soon deleted for the following reason: "repost of a deleted article".

I'd like to clearly state that my article was not a repost, but a new and documented article about the Ulteo project with links to press reviews in well-known websites. Please do a diff of the two articles to understand what I mean.

Additionally, the Ulteo project has really taken off those past 5 months with the release of 4 different products and that's a very interesting project which has gained real notability, and many dedicated reviews on well-known software news sites such as CNET.com, Slashdot.org, ZDnet and many others.

So please consider undelete my work, because I think that Ulteo really deserves a page in the Wikipedia English version like it does in several other languages.

In short: I'm pretty sure that my article meets all Wikipedia requirements in terms of notability of the project and in term of references.

Getupstandup1 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• As one of three admins who deleted it (log) I recommend undeleting for broader discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. — Athaenara ✉ 07:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, for comparison:

• April version which was deleted after the first Afd (before an undeletion following a user request to move it to User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo for improvement)
• June version which user Getupandstandup1 argues should be undeleted.

(Added links for admins considering undeletion for 2nd Afd.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD. The most recent version was substantially different from the previously deleted version (by AfD), at least enough to justify overturning the speedy. As it's a different article, the outcome should be determined by consensus. Shereth 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly: re-determine consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete, based on Athaenara's comment. He She was the most recent admin to delete for content, so I think he she could just reverse himherself. DGG (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The "new" article has the same wording, the same WP:RS issues and the same WP:N issues. There may be an argument that the article is different but that is on the surface. The content of the article is the same. I would completely understand if this was overturned and brought back to AfD. I suspect that the end result will be the same.--Pmedema (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Answer to previous I disagree with the former argument about WP:RS issue: the new version as I read it in the cache provides several links to external sites that are trustworthy or I don't know who you can trust. I can see a distrowatch.com which is one of the most resespected information site on Linux systems, and several reviews from Linux.com, CNET.com, Artstechnica, CRN, sys-con and Slashdot.org which are well established and respected tech-oriented web sites for a long time. They have covered extensively the latest Ulteo releases, and talk about Ulteo features that, yes, are also explained on the Ulteo.com main website. I've checked wikipedia pages of Ulteo in various languages and they confirm at least parts of information provided in the English page that is in cache. So from my point of view, that's really what I call a reliable sources or a big part of Wikipedia should be wiped out too. Regarding the WP:RS supposed issue, I disagree for two reasons: the information newssites that cover Ulteo are not small ones, they are the biggest ones in their category, and at the time of writing Googling shows 600,000 entries for Ulteo. In my opinion, that's not hype, just a project that is catching attention and growing. As a result, my feeling is that the most recent version should be restored. Vautnavette (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC). — Vautnavette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• As per my own inclinations and as per DGG, Shereth, and to some extent Pmedema, I restored the rewritten version of the article and created the 2nd Afd page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination). — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Bormann

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

Entry was all correct Bonfire34 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know who had deleted the article on Michael Bormann, but I only noticed that it was gone today when I tried to make a link from a band's article that he was in to his own entry. There is nothing in the My Talk for me about it and I had no idea there was a problem that still existed with his entry. I had provided and thought I cleared all the problems that had existed with the entry months ago. Since I had no notification, I had no chance to copy the article as a text (as it was long) just in case this would have happened and I would have asked to reinstate. So why was it deleted and why was I not informed since I was the original author? I would also like to know if it will be reinstated as all the information was provided by Michael Bormann himself, the music groups he belonged to, various web site news articles and the most recent information where he was nominated for several Grammys was directly from his management and the Grammy Acadamy. I think that is pretty much reliable sources.

• The article was deleted under CSD A7 as not asserting the importance of its subject. Regardless, you cannot verify information from the man himself or his management, as that does not satisfy WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. You're free to recreate the article, and given what you've said above I'm sure it will not be speedied again (with reliable sources, you've given more than enough to pass WP:MUSIC). Usually this is a much faster course than having simple speedies overturned, especially when the page in question is not protected from recreation. As for the lack of notification, while it is bad form it is not enough for an overturn of a speedy all on its own. I wish you the best of luck on this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion as valid. If the nominator is certain a sourced and verifiable article can be written on the subject, they are more than welcome to do so. Shereth 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the article wasn't backed up by reliable sources, just personal information from the subject and management, from the looks of it. I'd suggest rewriting it in userspace and ensuring that it's fully backed up with good references, then ask some admins to review it before reposting it live. Note that the Grammy thing is not necessarily notable - pretty well anyone can submit to the entry lists. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse valid speedy deletion; some citations from reliable sources might convince me that it should be reversed. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inventions in the Islamic world

Inventions in the Islamic world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The closing admin makes two fundemental errors, 1. he asserts the POV problem is part of the article text and thus not deletable, it is not, it is part of the article name, i.e. the topic of the article, and thus inherent; and 2. he asserts that the Islamic World is a defined geographic location in the same way that the U.S. the country is, which is a patent nonsense; the idea that this is a defined 'country' that supercedes the established wikipedia naming convention of 'things by country' is not supportable, and is a clear violation of NPOV. The admin has failed to give any more detailed reasons for his keep other than these, despite requests, so there is no choice but Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) -->

• Closing admin: I am not asserting my own opinion; I believe that I have interpreted the consensus accurately. The arguments for keep were stronger than those for delete. At the very least, it is a "no consensus," but definitely not "delete." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close accurately reflects the consensus of the AfD. The delete rationales were mostly based on content issues, not deletion ones. Editing and possibly moving the page should take care of all the problems with it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorswe, at worst this might have been a no-consensus keep, but I have to agree with the closer in his determination of consensus here. There was certainly insufficient will to delete. Shereth 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. When looking only at the second nomination, you could make an argument that this should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than a straight "keep". When considered in light of the additional comments from the prior AFD, a closure as "keep" is well within normal admin discretion. I can find no interpretation of the discussion that would have closed as a "delete" decision.
  That's not to say that the article must stay in its current form, title or even remain as an independent article. Decisions to modify, move, prune or redirect the page should continue to be worked out on the respective article Talk pages. Disagreements over those decisions should be worked out in accordance with WP:DR (not WP:DRV). Rossami (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Rossami covers well each of the points that I'd have raised (and more cogently than would have I, to be sure). Joe 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• endorse proper closure - the delete comments were all related to the pov of the article, pov is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The neutrality violation is the idea that making a list based on the manufactured correlation of inventions made in the Islamic World is worthy of an article, which ignores current categorisation conventions. Just how do you fix that violation without deleting the article? MickMacNee (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Move the page, perhaps? Narrow its inclusion criteria? Perhaps split it into two smaller articles, and there's already a discussion going on about that. I also fail to see what's indiscriminate about this list; it only lists things verifiably invented by Muslims. Granted, reading through there seem to be some subtle jabs at Europe, but I'm pretty sure everything can be taken care of through normal editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't list things invented by Muslims, there is a difference, there are Muslims all over the world. It is as indiscriminate as if you listed all ships constructed in the Muslim world, defineable (ignoring the vague nature and borders of 'Muslim World'), but not a notable intersection. Not one person in this entire debate has attempted to address the POV violating assertion that an invention made in the Muslim world is separable over and above inventions by country/person/defined civilisation (e.g. Roman, Byzantine etc), which is the standard practice on wikipedia. As said above, the closer even makes the incorrect assertion that saying 'Muslim World' is the same as saying the 'United States', a blatant POV violation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a flaw in the title and lede, then. Looks like that's what it is listing, anyways. There are ways of fixing these problems other than deleting the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• endorse closure -- As others have said there was a strong tradition of real science in the Islamic world when Christian Europe was crippled by superstition. As others have said deletion decisions should be based on whether the topic itself merits coverage, not based upon whether a current version of an article has POV problems. Further, how is it meaningful to call this an "indiscriminate list" when the criteria for inclusion are so plainly stated? Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You've just justified the topic itself using an extremely non-neutral statement. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And List of country and western singers with blue eyes would also have very clear "criteria for inclusion", it would still be an indiscriminate list. And Muslim world is hardly a specific definition either, compared to an actual country (the standard method of listing things in Wikipedia), which again just marches this topic directly into POV-land by default, before you even examine the indiscriminate information it contains. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, both by looking at the AfD and by looking at the topic. I find Mick's nomination nonsensical. Islamic world is a well-understood term. It is not a well-defined geographic location - so what? Neither is Germany, or the US, for that. Was Tecumseh an "US military leader"? Sam Houston? The current article may suck (although it is not that bad), but the topic is notable and has oodles of sources. Even WP:AGFing, it looks like quite some of the (few) deletes are motivated by anti-islamic prejudice, and not by a neutral evaluation of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, closer interpreted the debate correctly. This is not a place to further discuss the article or its merits. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:SlimVirgin

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

I ask that SlimVirgin's talk page history be undeleted (see deletion log). I want every revision, without exception, restored in such away that non-admins can find it in coherent page histories and in user contribution logs.

I collected evidence to support this request at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/SlimVirgin arbitration evidence/SlimVirgin's talk page. Briefly:

Precedent prohibits active users from deleting their talk pages.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted his talk page history many times, but other administrators undeleted it. User:Animum explained: "please do not delete your own talk page. If you have left, please email me and tell me so." User:The wub explained: "page histories should be kept intact (barring exceptional circumstances) especially if you are still using your admin tools."

Many users questioned the deletion of User talk:SlimVirgin.

1. On June 19, 2007, User:Piperdown questioned the deletion on the Administrators' noticeboard. [15]
2. On July 23, 2007, User:NathanLee asked User:Crum375, the administrator who deleted User talk:SlimVirgin, to undelete it. ElinorD and Crum375 responded. [16]
3. On August 2, 2007, User:Kelly Martin wrote on her blog: "it's likely that my response [to SlimVirgin] is currently a deleted revision which I, being a lowly non-admin peon, am not permitted to see. (This bothers me somewhat.)" [17]
4. On August 10, 2007, User:Night Gyr asked SlimVirgin why her talk page had been deleted. [18] ElinorD replied. One day later, ElinorD undeleted some history, but the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted.
5. On August 12, 2007, User:Derktar wrote on Wikipedia Review: "It still amazes me how much information can be wiped off the face of Wikipedia to the average user or casual observer, and without much fuss to boot. ... my comment on Slim's talk page was removed after due course, having no place in the history of her talk page though the evidence of the run-in is still present." [19]

The reasons for deleting User talk:SlimVirgin are invalid.

The reasons given by SlimVirgin, Crum375 and ElinorD to support the deletion are:

1. Individual revisions contained information that harassed SlimVirgin by trying to expose her real-world identity.
2. In order to remove these revisions, it was necessary to delete the entire page history, then undelete all revisions except for those containing harassment. However, isolating individual revisions to keep deleted requires substantial effort.
3. Undeleting thousands of revisions would disrupt the performance of the website, so all of the revisions stay deleted.

These reasons are not valid because:

1. In June 2007, when Crum375 deleted SlimVirgin's talk page, SlimVirgin's real-world identity was not known. In late July 2007, Daniel Brandt published his opinion regarding SlimVirgin's real-world identity on Wikipedia Review, and his opinion was reported elsewhere. Regardless of whether it is true, the speculation is readily accessible from a Google search for "SlimVirgin," so keeping prior speculation hidden from page history serves no useful purpose.
2. Oversight should have been used to remove individual revisions. On the thread Piperdown started (linked above), User:Cla68 wrote: "I would suggest that anyone, admins or "regular" editors, who desire "outing" or personal attack edits removed from a page in the project ask an oversighter to do it instead of an admin clumsily using the page deletion function. The page deletion function obviously doesn't work well for surgically removing offending edits and it appears that this is what the oversight function was created for."
3. Instead of undeleting thousands of revisions simultaneously to one page, smaller numbers of revisions could be undeleted to separate archive pages if this will improve website performance.

With non-administrators such as Cla68 and myself reviewing SlimVirgin's history of activity for a current arbitration case, the need for a full, open archive acquires an added relevance. However, even if there were no arbitration case, SlimVirgin's talk page archives need to be preserved for public accessibility for the same reason that we preserve the talk page archives of Jeffrey O. Gustafson and all other active users. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support undeletion. The horse is long out of the barn on the "outing" stuff, and the mass deletion conceals possible evidence of use to an ongoing case. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete for transparency and accountability, especially considering the current ArbCom case. As Shalom says, Oversight should be used for revisions that include harassment, outing and threats – not page deletion. EJF (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete All contributions are GFDL, this is not how you deal with privacy/harassment concerns. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, please. There are many thousands of edits to the page, which ElinorD is very kindly in the process of undeleting and moving to individual archives to make them easier to manage. The reason the page was deleted at all was that someone posted some abuse, which was deleted, and then the whole page was undeleted by mistake, which also undeleted a lot of previously deleted posts, something that often happens in error when admins delete and undelete. Some of it was very provocative sexual abuse. Therefore, the whole page was deleted again, at which point ElinorD suggested breaking it into archives to make it easier to handle in future, and that's what she's currently doing. Anyone with a genuine reason to find a post can look at Daniel Brandt's website; I believe he has posted copies of all my archives there. Alternatively, any admin wanting to check posts by individual contributors can look at the deleted edits. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - as per above, archives minus abuse is being put together by ElinorD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• keep deleted I see no compelling reason to undelete if Elinor is going through the ok material. MickMac's comment about the GFDL is in error; nothing in the GFDL requires us to continue to make this content available. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Per above. Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Slim's reasoning makes sense. IronDuke 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now, please. Shalom is incorrect in saying that the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted. A week ago, I did another big spurt of undeletion, and brought it up to the middle of February 2007. This is a very complicated process, as there are many abusive versions in the history, which is why the admin who deleted the page last summer was afraid to restore the whole thing, since he was unable to work out which versions were harassment free. The restored history is in separate archives and can be seen here. The history is most certainly not being suppressed in order to conceal records of SlimVirgin's "misbehaviour". SlimVirgin was happy and grateful for me to do this: while the idea of restoring bit by bit in separate archives came from me, I did not have to force her or "persuade" her, as I read somewhere. She has on more than one occasion offered to help, or to take over, but it's the kind of job that can be much more easily finished by the person who started, and who knows what they're doing. My recent contributions will show that I have done almost nothing else on Wikipedia recently. I am recovering from surgery and am not, at present, comfortable spending long hours in front of a computer screen. I do not want some admin who is unaware of the need to check individual versions to restore the whole history indiscriminately (as happened before when Crum375 had deleted it); that would completely ruin the careful work I have been doing. (I can quickly judge which versions don't need to be checked; an admin closing this DRV might not be able to.) I restored several thousand versions in the last week, and would appreciate not being pressurized into changing my pace. And by the way, would it not have been courteous to have notified SlimVirgin of this discussion? ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ElinorD, could you please provide a copy of everything I ever said (ie labeled WAS 4.250; there may be some editing from IP 4.250.* that I label "(WAS 4.250)") at SlimVirgin's user page? She attacked me on the talk page of Animal Testing for being against her so I mentioned that I had said some nice things to her but she insisted that I did not. Place it anywhere you choose; a subpage of my user talk page would be fine with me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elinor, but I have a hard time with this. Certainly I can't pressure you to change your pace if it is something you are not in a position to do; however, as far as I can see, the parts that are missing are from approximately February until August of 2007. Is this not something SV can do herself? I'm not sure I understand the risk of undoing your work when those reversions have already been trasnferred to separate archives. As with WAS, there is at least one post where I pointed out the many articles to which SV had followed me, while she was falsely accusing me of "stalking" her in part of a long series of attacks that she leveled against me from December 2006 through March of 2007. She has recently made this accusation again in attempting to have false and damaging accusations retained in my block log, while my comments to her have remained unavailable. The period from February to August 2007 is also from my knowledge the most relevant in terms of the current arbitration case. It seems to me that if you are unable, some other way of returning this on a schedule should be found. Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To ElinorD: I prepared this DRV request about two weeks ago, but I had second thoughts about posting it because I knew it would cause drama. (You can confirm this by looking at the page history of my draft page, which I linked in the second paragraph of the request above.) I decided to post it on Sunday. When I wrote that you had not performed any administrative actions on that page since last August, I was working with information as of two weeks ago. It did not occur to me to double-check the deletion log before I posted the DRV because the deletion log had not been changed in the last six months. I apologize for that mistake. I notified you and Crum375 and not SlimVirgin because you and Crum375 were the deleting admins, and the rules say the requester of the DRV should notify the deleting admin. Perhaps it should have been obvious that I should notify SlimVirgin also, but I thought one of the two of you would notify her anyway (as indeed occurred). If I was remiss in failing to leave a message for her, I apologize. Regarding the substance of the matter, if you are continuing to restore bits of page history and you expect to finish the job in a couple of weeks, that is an acceptable compromise to me. At the time I drafted the DRV, no action had been taken in several months, the deleting admins had declined a talk-page request for reconsideration, and I was frustrated by my inability to see diffs on SlimVirgin's talk page, such as the one where she called Piperdown a "sockpuppet" and the one where Derktar posted to her talk page something related to BADSITES. The first is definitely relevant to the ArbCom case. The second may not be, but when I saw it I lost patience and said, "Enough is enough. This needs a formal review." So here we've come. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted ElinorD is willing to tediously work through so many revisions to weed out the abusive threats and vandalism, threats to reveal real life identity. It's not at all easy to go through several thousand edits and she is , being familiar with it, best suited to do that instead of a complete restoration by an admin who may not be familiar with it. Yes, it would have been courteous to notify SlimVirgin of this discussion.— Ѕandahl 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Allegedly this restoration project has been going for quite some time. I support the notion in principle of keeping nasty revisions deleted, but this page seems material to a current arbcom case. As it stands now, admins can see most of the edits (but not all, some were oversighted, so I don't agree with Shalom about "every" revision) which is not at all optimal, but will have to do I guess, but I would ask ElinorD (who should be commended for taking on a big job) how long she would project it will take to finish if things go about as could be expected? ++Lar: t/c 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing on my talk page that is relevant to an ArbCom case. That claim is being made by the usual suspects in an effort to stir up more drama. You can look at the deleted revisions yourself, Lar, so why don't you do that instead of insinuating there might be something untoward there? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I insinuated nothing. Oddly, when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin there are no deleted revisions visible to me at all! ... there is no "page history" section there. If I instead go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:Lar, I can see (in "page history") the one deleted revision that I know I deleted, and review it... It is possible that I am lacking in clue here, or alternatively, possible that something odd has happened somewhere, or possible that there just aren't any deleted revisions, nary a one... either there never were, or they've been moved somewhere... I'm not sure which is the case. But I'm also not sure that if they've been moved somewhere that it's quite as easy as you say to validate that there is nothing relevant... since I've introduced evidence that references edits you made to other people's talk pages, perhaps there is relevant material on your talk page as well. Who can say for sure? I don't think that's insinuation, it's just puzzlement. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• From Elinor's project; the deleted revisions are at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. Deleted revisions there are primarily 16 February 2007 to 4 August 2007, with 6 from 4 June 2006. (There were 949 revisions left deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin, which were restored underneath the active talk page on 26 May 2007.) The logs for the temp page show that Elinor did Slim's archives 1-26 in August-September 2007, then did nothing for a long while, and did archives 27-37 on 1 June 2008. Archive 27 begins with 18 April 2006 and archive 37 ends with 16 February 2007. The number of revisions restored and remaining deleted suggest to me that if ElinorD devoted one more work session of similar length to that she did on 1 June 2008 she could probably finish the project. I haven't checked all 37 archive pages, but the ones I sampled had no log activity to indicate that any deletions or moves had occurred once edits reached the archive pages. GRBerry 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for clearing that up, GRBerry. SlimVirgin's answer is thus technically correct in that there is a place to look, but not very helpful since it doesn't say where the place is. I confess I didn't trawl every single place I might have looked trying to find deleted revisions. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. I am willing to allow users a certain amount of extra leeway in terms of deleting/restoring information on their own userpage and talk pages, and if said user wants a part of their history to be effectively "gone", then so be it. If some of that information is pertinent and relevant to an ongoing arbitration case, I could certainly understand the utility of selective restorations of material deemed pertinent to the case. Asking for a wholesale restoration of the entire history is not necessarily called for. Much of the discussion seems moot at this point, as it is clear that ElinorD is already in the process of restoring material as needed. Shereth 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment - I would not be opposed to elinor finishing her review project if it can be completed in the very near term (soon enough to be reviewed in the current arb com case), if that is not possible, I would rather it all be undeleted into a subpage somwhere for folks to review. This whole deletion thing smacks of simple trying to avoid accountability for less than optimal behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is an issue of transparency. SlimVirgin had that page deleted in a bad faith attempt to hide her misdeeds from her critics. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, it is time that all of SlimVirgin's history be exposed to full sunshine, both clean and dirty. No more secrets, no more hiding behind WP:HARASS, it is time to face the music for your actions, SlimVirgin. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are no "misdeeds" that I need to "face the music for," and certainly nothing on my talk page that would allow even someone like you to twist into such a thing; and if there is, there are 1,500 or so admins who can read the deleted edits. You're making these claims about me everywhere at the moment, along the lines of "say something often enough and people start to believe it." Please give it a rest. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might consider placing the "There are no 'misdeeds' that I need to 'face the music for'" comment here [20] in the space reserved just for comments such as that one. Cla68 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for now per above. --Kbdank71 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. If specific diffs are relevant, then maybe they could be restored. However, I consider Dragon695's arguments to be unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Let me just point out there is an ongoing arbitration case in which SV accuses a long term editor with 23 featured articles of "harassment of his targets, wikistalking, constant niggling, exaggeration, sarcasm, efforts to humiliate them, and misleading descriptions of their actions."[21] This is said without any evidence, while the most relevant periods of her talk page are deleted, and where as a non-admin he can't access them. I'm not sure this is the venue to resolve this, but if people are going to comment they could please keep this in mind. Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I get the impression that if someone wants to find something in particular that may be needed for the case, there are admins who can find it. Is someone saying that information vitally needed for the case is in there? I haven't heard that. It seems to me SV has reason for not wanting this undeleted all at once. I haven't heard of any reason to undelete which would override that. This situation is different from the preivous cases. And thanks for the work you're doing, ElinorD. Noroton (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is vitally needed for the case, which was taken primarily to look at Cla68's actions in creating an RfC (and presumably whether this was reasonable or necessary). As far as Brandt's site, it's worth clarifying that it appears only to include posts that were archived, and not those that were immediately blanked, which would be the much more relevant issue. Unfortunately most of this isn't the kind of issue where you can ask for specific examples or expect people to see it on a glance themselves. I agree it shouldn't be undeleted all at once, but there should also be a way to make the six months available with necessary edits excluded before the case is over. Mackan79 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. Completely pointless drama. User page histories are not for trawling. If there are particularly egregious examples of misbehavior, it should be possible to clearly point them out and have them restored individually (but then the question is why they were not acted on at that time). Small stuff will just clog up the ArbCom case further for no good reason - and it already is burdened down to a level that I will be surprised if it comes to any substantial result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, trawling for drama for no good reason. --Stormie (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The page is not deleted, so this is not the right place for it. Should be on MFD. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I endorse deletion or oversight of all edits that contain information that constitutes may contribute to an undue invasion of privacy. Because of the high total volume of edits, deletion of the entire talk page is a valid temporary measure. As to whether the bulk of the talk page should be deleted permanently or not, I am neutral. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Pointless drama combined with the usual egregious bad faith and conspiracy-mongering. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree there is the appearance of bad faith and conspiracy mongering, all right. However, we just may have to disagree about who is giving that appearance and who isn't. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oversight what really needs to be deleted, undelete whatever is left. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete. Crum375 should have done it immediately after mistakenly deleting the whole thing. The oversight function was created to take care of outing vandalism. Why wasn't it used in this situation? Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete Per Cla68. It should be completely undeleted, and any nasty revisions should be oversighted. There's no reason this should be kept deleted. Al Tally ^talk 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - anything necessary for arbitration evidence can be handled via email without violating SlimVirgin's privacy. Besides, I cannot imagine that the probative value of SlimVirgin's talk page from a year ago would be significant. --B (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, but Allow selective restoration. There are enough adminstrators arguing to undelete that it should be trivial for them to go through the archives, and restore revisions which do not contain policy violating information. Admins who restore versions should be aware that they are likley to be abusing their tools of they restore versions that do contain policy violating information. As an additional note, I was the recipient of an off-wiki canvasing message in a public forum, that is likley to be read by a large group of people. I believe the sender of the neutrally worded canvasing message believed the group of people was likley to support undeletion, and note that the sender of the canvasing message has !voted undelete above. I decline to link to the message. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I recently asked Requests for Oversight an edit that alleged SlimVirgin's real life identity. The response from an ex-ArbCom member was that the information is already out there so oversight was not going to happen. This should be borne in mind if recommending the use of oversight; users with the oversight permission have now started to refuse to oversight diffs relating to SlimVirgin. I would suggest allowing ElinorD to continue to undelete the pages selectively, although I think she is working very slowly on this - does she need any help? Neıl 龱 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete. If there's something in there that really does need to be taken care of, let an admin who isn't affiliated with SV deal with it, because the way it has been handled so far is terrible. Everyking (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete - oversight exists for a purpose. Why do we have someone spending what will be, by their own admission, most likely a MONTH worth of work selectively hand-rebuilding talk page to remove a couple of instances of abuse? Why are they not being restored wholesale and having the appropriate content deleted or oversight as appropriate, if appropriate? Achromatic (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derelict (Alien)

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

Close seems to ignore rationales provided by three respectable editors. Given the respectability of these three editors, the nominator seems to be using too much policy in his or her arguments, which the close also seems to ignore. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as deleting admin; see my conversation with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/May#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). Also, have I read this correctly: I'm being reproached for favouring the application of policy over the opinion of three editors? And the nominator is being reproached for citing that policy and not anticipating that these three editors might disagree with it? That's certainly one of the most ... original DRV requests that I've ever come across.  Sandstein  14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "most original DRV requests..." Well, thank you. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse - correctly closed - the consensus is to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. No good reason provided by nom to overturn, and consensus properly read. I'd also like to note that the article can and should be userfied if an editor would like to merge any non-OR parts of it. I also believe that the OR concerns can be removed by finding some sources for things like the origins of the ship; possibilities were suggested by Le Grand Roi in the AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Seriously, editors who really think about the difference between guidelines such as wikipedia policy and law such as the U.S. constitution will see the irony and incorrectness in these Endorse rationales. For wikipedia policy itself would not take itself this seriously, especially in light of the strength of the reasons for keep in the original AfD. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any good reason to overturn. And while the keep arguements were strong, the delete ones had policy and were also strong. I especially see a consensus that the content doesn't really belong in its own article, hence why I suggest something can be done to merge the non-OR parts of the article; delete, while more tenuous, is still a reasonable closure of the AfD. I'd be happy to allow you do make such a merger if you request it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wrongly closed Closed as OR, but only one rather small part of the discussion was OR--the speculation of the origins of the ship. admittedly, that was indeed OR, and is not covered by the permitted use of primary sources for such articles--a rule with which the nominator agreed. We dont delete articles because one part of them are bad, we just edit them. Alternatively, the article can of course be recreated without such content, or, even better, with the speculation sourced as GRC promised to do. He actually does sources such things from time to time. It could equally have been sourced by one of the many fans in the first place; it is time to take a more serious approach to writing this sort of article.

I point out that there are two theories about what the closing admin is supposed to do--to simply report the consensus after throwing out the nonsense arguments, and to actually balance the relative merit of the reasonable arguments. Those in favor of supporting deletes here pick whichever one they choose that fits the case. These different bases for closing cannot both be correct. DGG (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The article was almost 100% unsourced, and as the nominator and majority of delete opiners realized consisted nearly 100% of original research. GRBerry 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The initiator of this DRV (Firefly322) and I are having a disagreement over a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination). Given the convenient timing of this DRV concerning a related article which I nominated, I suspect that this may be a form of retaliation. Firefly322 has repeatedly accused me in that AfD of "wiki-lawyering" because my rationales "contain too much policy" and because I seem to hold rather high standards towards articles (though I should note that these are not new articles...the Derelict article had been around for quite some time with multiple maintenance tags before I nominated it; the timeline article is now in its second AfD, neither of which I nominated). He has also claimed that "experienced editors don't waste time with wiki-policy", which I feel is pretty self-explanatory of his motivations. He clearly does not value policies, precedent, or consensus when they do not support his own opinions, and also clearly gives more weight to the opinions of other editors who do agree with his point of view, as the opening of this DRV indicates. People who agree with him are apparently "respectable", while I, with a dissenting opinion, obviously am not. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. Let's stick to discussing just the AfD, okay? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the reason Firefly322 gave in his/her opening statement for initiating this DRV was the "respectability" of 3 editors who opposed deletion, and the AfD nominator (me) "using too much policy in his or her arguments", I thought it pertinent to provide an explanation and rebuttal. As to the article itself, I endorse the deletion per my original arguments that it consisted almost entirely of original research and did not satisfy notability standards. All of its salveagable content was already present in Alien (film) and Aliens (film) with much better referencing and third-party sources. A separate article on the ship itself did not add any encyclopedic content beyond what these articles already had, merely unreferenced speculation and fan fiction. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, closer validly interpreted consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close was fine. Eusebeus (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore article per clearly no valid reason for deletion or any consensus to do so either. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Except, as the deleting admin points out, there were several valid reasons for deletion as well as an apparent consensus. Could you be more specific? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• As indicated in the link on Sandstein's talk page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• This link? In which Sandstein acknowledges that there was sufficient consensus, that the article consisted almost entirely of original research, that sufficient third-party sources don't seem to exist, and that deletion was warranted? I don't see how that supports your arguments at all. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there wasn't consensus, as consensus does not mean a unanimous agreement (you can see that overwhelming consensus here is in support of the closure). Citing your own arguments, which just repeat the same points already made (first pillar, no deadline, etc.), doesn't make those points any more convincing. If I recall correctly (not being able to see the page history anymore) the article was tagged with several maintenance tags for quite some time and nothing was done to improve it until the AfD was initiated, and even then only a few rather weak tertiary sources turned up after the AfD closed. Even though we do not have a deadline, having maintenance tags on an article for several months and still seeing no improvements is, I believe, a sufficient display of good faith and also evidence either that good secondary sources don't exist or that no one was interested in improving the article. If you really feel that strongly about it and believe that you could have fixed the article's sourcing and OR problems, I recommend you do what both Sandstein and Lifebaka have suggested and petition for the article to be moved into your userspace, where you can work on it at your leisure until you feel it can be restored to the article namespace. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Valid closure following clearcut consensus of valid arguments. dorftrottel (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drill 'n bass

Drill 'n bass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The original delete reason was that only one source was provided: at least one other source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/vb3n/ can be found, and we can tag the article {{onesource}} 68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Drill n bass is an underground fan word describing jungle music released by rephlex and warp records. It's not a genre of music, it's a fancruft word. That source shows that a guy on rephlex records got described as drill n bass in a review. That's cool, but nowt to base an article on. Go to the Bogdan Raczynski page and use the word "drill n bass" in a paragraph to describe him, just like that source did, if you please. For your knowledge, Bogdan Raczynski called one of his albums drum and bass classics, so obviously he is drum and bass, it's just that you are one of those online fans trying to make your fan name famous. It's not that notable a term, it's not officially used by the artists and labels which make the music, and there's not enough material to make an article, that's why it got deleted, sorry Mansour Said (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Advice: Try getting the term listed at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page first. Their inclusion criteria are less than ours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closure was correct with the only possible reading of consensus. If you'd like to recreate it, I'd suggest first working on it as a subpage of your userpage (User:Mansour Said/Drill 'n bass or something) then have another DRV when you're finished. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Wiley

Susan Wiley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|RfD)

Del as BLP when it does not in-fact fail BLP Wjhonson (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie "the Wild Child" or feral child was identified as "Susan Wiley" in dozens of newspaper articles, across the U.S. (perhaps even in Britain) at the time she was found in 1970, both by the AP and UP/UPI. Thus her name was "widely disseminated" at the time. Our policy for privacy-of-names only covers names which were not widely disseminated. This redirect was del without courtesy notifications, quickly, by a non-admin, and since has been speedied without relevant comment allowed. All very out-of-process. Wjhonson (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Relist I'd like to see further discussion about this. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse There was already wide consensus on the Genie talk page that has been going on for months. Wjhonson has been the only person advocating the inclusion of Genie's real name and it should be noted that he has just gotten blocked for his disruptive edits and pov pushing. For An Angel (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Administrators and editors are enjoined to act swiftly in BLP cases, in this case the inclusion of the Genie's real name in the article per Privacy of Names. As For An Angel as pointed out there is and has been a long discussion and widespread consensus on the talkpage against the inclusion of the name, and also based on two separate listings on the BLP noticeboard [22] [23], as well as independent editors who joined the three RFD discussions [24][25][26] . My calculation suggests the count is 20 to 3 for excluding the full name. Despite this, Wjhonson continues to add the name to WP, including recreating this redirect multiple times and as recently as today adding to the name to a DAB page [27]. He has recently been blocked for disruption for these continuing actions.[28]. BTW, Wjhonson was notified of an RFD discussion [29] but subsequently blanked it from the talkpage.[30]. And the closers of the RFDs, User:JLaTondre and User:Rossami are of course both admins. Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. As per Talk:Genie (feral child) and RfD, remove this name from Wikipedia. The full story can be told without the name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. As stated above, her story can be told without the name. Wjhonson misses the point when he says that her full name was widely disseminated. At the time that she was discovered, yes, the media did report her name when reporting on the case of child abuse and the charges against her father. But if that were all, she'd be long forgotten by now. There's no way there would be an article about her. What's special in this case is that psychologists were interested in her as a case study, to see if there was a cut-off age after which a child could no longer successfully learn their native language. That's why she's famous now. That's why there's an article about her - because psychologists write about her. And the psychologists changed the name to Genie to protect her privacy. As an abused child, she'd be long forgotten now, and wouldn't have an article. As a guinea pig for experiments in language acquisition, she is notable as Genie. The fact that her real name was reported more than thirty years ago is beside the point. There's nothing in those reports to indicate that this is Genie. The consensus is and has been to keep her real name out of it, and Wjhonson has been constantly battling against this consensus. Ashton1983 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The redirect for discussion was very much per process (although I see that the original creator, User:DasBub, was not notified. This isn't required, but is a good courtesy. Perhaps it was omitted because all evidence suggested he was no longer active on Wikipedia when it was nominated for RfD in April of this year.) Consensus was clearly established in RfD that the redirect was a violation of BLP. In response to other points: of course, a non-admin could not have deleted it, as non-admins don't have that ability. JLaTondre has been an administrator since July of 2006. And speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4, as a recreation of material deleted following a deletion discussion, does not require the allowance of comment. Though it might reasonably be recreated if consensus regarding the use of this name changes, evidence is clearly to the contrary (see also this.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's true, I didn't notify DasBub when I nominated the redirect for the first time in April because I didn't see the point. He had made only a couple edits in the last 8 months or so and didn't seem likely to be around for the debate. But I did check. For An Angel (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I did not evaluate the BLP situation at either of the times that I deleted the page. My speedy-deletion of the redirect was based upon the recreated content criterion. (I did evaluate the original discussion enough to determine that there were no obvious process problems.) Rossami (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• endorse and courtesy blank or even oversight this DRV. I personally advocate limiting the use of "do no harm" to the most obvious of cases, but this is one of the most obvious of cases that can be imagined. I urge a rapid close to this. I would have done so had I not participated in the original discussion. DGG (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oversighting won't work, since DRV uses daily logs; the entire day would need to be oversighted. This discussion can be courtesy blanked, and the closing admin can prepare for that by closing it under a header akin to "a redirect to Genie (feral child)" rather than using the current header. Or that can be done by the courtesy blanker. GRBerry 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and courtesy blank this DRV. Once again, the magnificence of policies such as WP:BLP is demonstrated ("regard for the subject's privacy", "do no harm", etc). When the subject of this article is no longer alive, those who need to know every tiny detail can raise the issue of Genie's real name again. Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of those who have commented want the matter dropped. Genie is not a politician or other public figure. The right of an anonymous contributor to publicise the misfortune of a living person on Wikipedia is less than the right of a living person to be treated decently. --Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Though I agree with the overall sentiment, Wjhonson is in fact open about his real life identity on his userpage.--Slp1 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong endorse per discussion on Talk:Genie (feral child). Garion96 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Genie (feral child) part 2 discussion also. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• very weak overturn/list on RfD To be clear; I am in favor of not having this redirect. This is one of the very few cases where there could be actual BLP harm. DGG summarizes this issue very well. All of that said, we really should have a proper RfD to do this to properly determine consensus. (This is only a weak request for relisting since I think this is the correct result and also since it seems like the consensus would more likely than not go to deletion). If such a relisting occurs the redirect should not be undeleted while that discussion occurs. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment — Let's be clear that nothing in BLP addresses the issue head-on of a case widely disseminated, that has *since* been forgotten. I have commented several times already that if people want to have this case addressed in BLP they should address it there and modify policy to cover it. Stating that BLP covers it when it does not in-fact or spirit cover it, is misdirection. I would WELCOME comments on the BLP policy talk page that actually address a case like this where a widely disseminated name later is forgotten. So far that has not occurred in any fashion that has led to changes in policy. Wjhonson (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's an argument for an RfD more than anything else. Moreover, this seems like a highly reasonable interpretation of BLP. In any event, policy is descriptive not proscriptive, so if the community consensus is that this sort of thing should be deleted then it isn't that relevant whether or not a strict literal reading of BLP necessitates it. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - So your point is basically, let's crush any source-based research on living people if the source is not part of the internet but actually has to be reviewed in a library. That has been the essential problem in this case and it would be imho a terrible precedent to set for the viability of our project. Wjhonson (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you are getting the idea that I want to "any source-based research on living people if the source is not part of the internet but actually has to be reviewed in a library." Not easily obtainable sources are more likely to cause harm. If one used paper sources for a general living individual, and not one where there was a specific, serious type of privacy concern that would be different. But this case deals with someone where scholars have made a deliberate decision to not widely disseminate the name and the connection is very difficult to make unless one already knows the name. In any event, I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment above has anything to do with the comment directly above it which focused on policy interpretation and not the sourcing matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and recommend salt - three discussions about this in less than two months are two such discussions too many. The speedy deletion of a an RfD-deleted redirect was appropriate. Salting seems to be the only way to deter regenerating the redirect when consensus is overwhelming against its recreation. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • All three RfDs were closed speedily. There has not been a full RfD. So calling this the speedy deletion of an RfD-deleted redirect is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you JoshuaZ for pointing out the inappropriate speedy closing. I was not courtesy notified of any of the prior discussions, which is very inappropriate imho. But that aside, I would point out that my research shows that one scholar decided to make that decision, not all. In fact, I've now posted *yet another* article where the main lead on the case names her directly in a newspaper article two years after she was found. It's fairly clear that her name being used was not an issue at the time. So to say that "scholars" made that decision isn't accurate. Rather one or two did, and some did not and the newspapers certainly did not. And when her mother sued, the whole case was rewriten yet again in the newspaper, using their names. As far as whether someone can now undo what's already been done, that's the crux of the matter isn't it? The policy itself should be addressed and clarified, instead of trying to do it via one article at a time. If the policy is so unclear, that it needs to be fixed doesn't it? This case does not fit the requirement that a name not be widely disseminated, because this one was. Wjhonson (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Look, you keep saying that her name was published at the time, and you always leave out the fact that if someone finds an old newspaper archive that reports on the case, they'll just be reading about one of thousands of child abuse cases, and will not know that they are reading about Genie. If this were just a child abuse case, like this one, there would not be a Wikipedia article about her. What's the difference between them? Lauren's name was reported. She was abused as horrifically as Genie. As months go by, people gradually became less interested in her. And she's definitely not a subject for a Wikipedia article. The difference with Genie was that she was used for testing a theory about language acquisition. And the people who did that, and wrote about her, changed her name to Genie, for her own protection and privacy. It's not a problem saying that the abuse victim whose name was reported in newspapers as Lauren was called Lauren. Anyone who reads an old article about her case will probably figure that out, but interest in her is not being kept alive by psychology experiments which are written about in scholarly books and journals. What you are trying to do is to announce to the whole world, via Wikipedia, that the girl we can read about with her real name in some hard-to-find archive of some newspaper is the girl that is known now as "Genie". It's irrelevant that a newspaper from 1970 gives her name. That newspaper does NOT tell us that this is the girl who is going to become known and written about as Genie, so there's no connection there. Her interest today lies in the fact that she was a case study for psychologists, and is written about by them under the pseudonym Genie, as she has been for over thirty years. The article needs more information about the mission to teach her to speak. It does not need her real name. The scholars who have written about her for over thirty years have not been in any way "incomplete" by their decision to omit it. Ashton1983 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very complete statement of the method to be followed in these cases. DGG (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No Ashton because the newspaper article I've now transcribed in full in my article at countryhistorian, names specifically her associate linguist as Susan Curtiss. I think anyone familiar with this case, or who reads our article here or watches any of the video interviews linked in this case, knows who Susan Curtiss was in this case. Not only that Ashton, but the Finding Aid for "Genie" lists her mother as Irene Wiley and includes the autopsy of her father Clark Wiley. Very specific and direct. No masking at all. And as has been pointed out, other papers which mention the case, as derivative of Susan Curtiss' work, they are not independent witness to a mass cover-up of her name.Wjhonson (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Additional comment the last two deletions were speedy deletions as recreation of material deleted as a result of a RfD discussion (meeting the conditions of WP:CSD#G4), namely two redirects, within six weeks of an RfD that was closed when it became evident that the community consensus was against keeping the redirect. It's simple as that. What was discussed at DRV after the initial deletion? Nothing as far as I can remember. So the last two deletions were in-process regarding the deletion of recreated material...Endorse speedy deletions; salt well to minimize the prolonged beating of dead horses. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - And yet the original was also a speedy discussion with no courtsy notification. Sounds out-of-process doesn't it?Wjhonson (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- This discussion raises some questions for me.
  • If this individual were to die BLP would be a moot issue -- because BLP only applies to living people, correct?
  • How, exactly, is the publishing of her name damaging to her? After reading the Genie (feral child) article it seems to me that well-intentioned attempts to protect her privacy, together with attempts of officials to CYA, combined to have a very detrimental effect on her care. She had survived truly extraordinary abuse, which required a truly extraordinary level of after-care. She received that level of after-care, for a few years, but since then well-intentioned, but poorly-advised attempts to protect her privacy has allowed her to receive inadequate care. It sounds like her anonymity is allowing her to receive inadequate care now.
  • Realistically, if she has a vocabulary of only a handful of phrases, she is going to lack the necessary cognitive skills to be embarrassed by having her history published. The effects of publishing her name are going to be on her caregivers, and those responsible for providing oversight over her caregivers.
  • So, isn't it likely that publishing her name might result in greater efforts to deal humanely with her unique needs? Isn't it unlikely that publishing her name will result in a negative impact. WP:NOT -- we are not a social service agency, or an advocacy agency. Our articles should not be used to lobby for individuals like this woman. But when our well-intentioned policies are likely to have a negative impact on particular individuals, I think we should consider make exceptions to those policies.
  • She survived horrifying abuse. Readers are understandably disturbed. I suggest that the real target of our anger should not be the wikipedian who has challenged this deletion, but her parents and subsequent inadequate caregivers.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is certainly a different way of looking at things, and the kindest reason to reveal her name to date, though it seems based on a misunderstanding. In fact the most recent information we have, here [31], here [32] and here [33], suggests that Genie is doing well and is happy in a small, well-run facility. Even if she weren't, Wikipedia does not attempt to right wrongs in this way.

But I think we are drifting away from the point of this discussion, which is not to discuss the issue of including the name, but to determine if the RFDs were closed appropriately. I have just noticed that neither deleting admin JLaTondre and Rossami were informed of this discussion per this [34](which is somewhat ironic since failure to provide appropriate notification was one of Wjhonson's complaints.) Rossami has noticed independently and I have now informed JLT. At the first RFD [35] five editors quickly commented with strongly worded recommendations that the redirect be deleted due to BLP concerns. Three of the five (DGG, 147.70.242.40 and Lenticel) were uninvolved editors who had never before commented on the subject. There was also at the time a strong consensus on the talkpage that the name was inappropriate,[36] a consensus that has grown stronger. The first RFD, though closed quickly (as is often appropriate in an BLP situation) reflected a strong consensus and unsurprisingly perhaps, I believe the closure and deletion was appropriate, as were the subsequent deletions as G4s, for which there were actually unrequired discussion in which another uninvolved editor agreed with deletion.[37][38]Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, no matter how strongly we feel about an individual's situation, we should still strictly comply with the neutral point of view policy.
• I note that while the ABC articles you referenced refer to her as "Genie", it names her brother, John Wiley, and her parents, Irene Wiley and Clark Wiley by their identifiable full names.
• The ABC article about John Wiley devotes two sentences to Genie's current situation. But the ABC article about her goes into more detail, on its final page. Sorry, I don't agree that these references you offered document that she is receiving adequate care. It states:

Today, none of the people who spoke openly to ABCNEWS.com know what happened to Genie. "I have spent the last 20 years looking for her," said Curtiss. "I can get as far as the social worker in charge of her case, but I can't get any farther." But one person who has researched Genie's life told ABCNEWS.com that he had located her through a private detective about eight years ago. That person, who wishes to remain anonymous, said that at that time, around the year 2000, Genie was living in a privately run facility for six to eight mentally underdeveloped adults. "I got ahold of the accounts of her expenditures -- things like a bathing suit, a towel, a hula hoop or a Walkman," he said. "It was a little pathetic. But she was happy."

I think the justification for obfuscating her name is very weak. I would support overturning the obfuscation for that reason.

This article quotes a British student, who traced the story for her disseration

"I truly believe that all the doctors who worked with Genie did the best they possibly could. But it was charged with emotion. In the end, they were crucified for it. But they would have been crucified, whatever they did."

The UK student is absolutely correct about how emotionally charged her case has been. And the discussion of her case and the obfuscation of her name has been here on the wikipedia have been emotionally charged, and I can't escape the feeling that those who originally suggested her name does not need to be obfuscated have become an inappropriate target of those emotions. I see nothing here that justifies a breach of civility. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see disagreements; I don't see breaches of civility.

As for her name, let's finish the quote that was given by the UK student: In her meticulous research, Weedon learned Genie's real name and, "without too much more investigation" could find her -- but has decided against it. "It wouldn't be fair," she said. "It would be too invasive, and she isn't the same little girl when the stories were written about her. I wouldn't do it -- for her sake and her memory.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question Since it seems pretty clear that this is going to end with an "Endorse deletion" can we assume that when it does, that this will settle once and for all the question of whether or not we should mention her real name in her article? For An Angel (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as original deleting admin. Our BLP policy is pretty explicit. Under the "Privacy of names" section it states "...has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". That fits this case exactly. While newspapers at the time may have reported her name, current practice by researchers is to omit it and use her pseudonym. Privacy concerns have increased since this case originally occurred and it should be judged by today's standards. Wikipedia should not be second guessing the professional psychologists whose practice is to no longer refer to her by name. The process concerns are invalid as BLPs are allowed to be deleted speedily and consensus for deletion (between the RFD and the article's talk page prior to the RFD) had been shown prior to the closure. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Correction. One single scholar decided to suppress her name, and since she, Susan Curtiss, is the only scholar involved who to date has ever published, all other's follow, cite and quote her work in theirs. They are not independent witnesses, agreeing to suppress her name. Rather they are derivative and rely on her work to express their own work. Quite a different situation isn't it? Since the subject's name was widely disseminated at the time of the event and years afterwards as I've shown, and since the suppression of the subject's name was by a single individual, not all involved parties (note the lawsuit years later which appeared in the LA Times using all the real names), it does not fit the category of "intentionally concealed such as in certain court cases" and should never have been speedied. The only person who concealed the name was Susan Curtiss. All of this is laid out in my article on her at countryhistorian.com Continuous refusal to face the situation as it actually occurred doesn't excuse any actions taken here. The speedy deletion should have never happened. That's the point. Wjhonson (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the correction. The first scholarly articles about this case were written by Victoria Fromkin, Stephen Krashen, Susan Curtiss, David Rigler and Marilyn Rigler in Brain and Language and Language, in 1974 (see article talkpage for detailed citations}. In 1993 Russ Rymer wrote a book about the case that was highly critical of Genie's rehab. To all she was "Genie". The name was not "suppressed by a single individual" but by multiple academics and authors.Slp1 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wjohnson, where is your proof that Susan Curtiss was the only person to conceal Genie's real name? For An Angel (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - no reason to invade privacy. Querulous Q (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid (closed)

[edit] List of environmental websites

List of environmental websites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Voting mainly occurred prior to clean-up of the page; non-valid reasons

See the page before deletion: List of environmental websites (AFD). This article was listed at AfD concurrently with list of environmental periodicals (AfD). They are essentially the same, yet the latter list received all keeps and the former 4 deletes (3 keeps, including creator Wavelength). The first 3 deletes on list of environmental websites happened before the list was annotated. Plus, the reasons were generally vague "unencylopedic" "NOTDIR". This is clearly not a directory -- it has all blue links. It's a list of notable websites. Plus, the whole argument of redundancy contradicts WP:LISTS, which states that "redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic". The nominator has said that he will not oppose its recreation. This entire line of argument (strangely common) that lists are automatically synonymous with directories, and that lists are redundant, is not in line with consensus guidelines. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator appears to be mistaken that this article was nominated concurrently with the AFD for List of environmental periodicals. This page isn't mentioned anywhere in that AFD. There was a separate AFD for this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_environmental_websites. eaolson (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • They were listed side-by-side in the AfD list. Concurrent means at basically the same time.
    • There is no mention of any "websites" article in the AfD you linked to. eaolson (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. People seem to be not looking at the list as it was when deleted, which is in the first sentence that I posted. Look at it List of environmental websites|here.

• Overturn to keep. The delete !votes use a few faulty and vague reasons (for instance, categories and lists do not preclude each other). The comments made near the bottom of the discussion clearly swing the overall consensus towards keep. I'd also like to point out, however, that the list doesn't define its inclusion criteria very well. I'd suggest fixing this if it is restored. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. This article exists only to be a list of websites. That's textbook WP:NOTLINK. WP is not DMOZ, WP is not Yahoo. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As I noted in the AfD, websites can be, and increasingly will be, more notable than periodicals. So why have a list of periodicals? ImpIn | (t - c) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I never said they weren't notable. I'm saying that lists of websites are explicitly outside of WP's purview as a matter of policy. If you want to create a list of useful websites, become an editor over at the ODP. eaolson (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that this 'policy' that you have believe in exists nowhere in the policy guidelines. WP:NOTLINK says we shouldn't have indiscriminate collections; this is obviously an annotated, discriminate list, similar to all the other lists. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • From the policy:

Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

This isn't a place to rehash the arguements at the AfD. All we do here is figure out of the close of the AfD reflected the consensus therein. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. No consensus to delete apparent at AfD. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. Categories and Lists co-exist just fine, and improve accessibility. We need more navigation aids, not less. Reasons for deletion not compelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: I see what both sides are saying. Upon viewing it, I felt the category was doing the job just as well as the list. Granted, the way the article is being rewritten would satisfy any accusations of a directory and the like. Don't really have an opinion as the closer, whatever happens happens. Wizardman 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly meets all the requirements for a list in its latest form--the material is limited to those with articles in Wikipedia, and description is added. DGG (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not a link farm. An "article" which consists of nothing but links to outside sources is not an encyclopedia article. Deletion was quite right as per policy. A list of bluelinked articles which discuss those websites, and which provide evidence of the notability of those websites, is a different animal. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This was the latter animal. —Cryptic 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. This person apparently did not look at the list either. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not according to what I see in the cache above. This was a list of links to external sites, not a list of Wikipedia articles. Corvus cornix_talk 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You apparently did not look at the list either. The external sites were all directory links; it was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know what is going on, but when I looked at the cache before, it was to external links, now it's to articles. I'm confused. I'm stepping out of this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Per the title I can fully imagine what kind of POV linkfarm this was before deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You apparently did not look at the list, which is in the first sentence. This was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll point out that this article is a list of Wikipedia article that describe external websites, so it's not entirely straightforward. eaolson (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn I agree with SmokeyJoe, and moreover there seems to have been some confusion about whether the deleted page was a list of articles or a directory of websites. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It straightforward enough. We have articles that describe websites (and we have criteria for which ones we describe). Certainly we can list the articles on this topic, just like we could on any other topic. If they're notable enough for an individual article, then why shouldn't we list them? The opposite of OR. the opposite of indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 June 2008

[edit] Ivoryline (closed)

[edit] Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archive 1

Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archive 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The wrong deletion criteria was used as the speedy delete reason. G6 good housekeeping was used twice and that cannot be used twice on the same article. As it is clearly a contested and controvertial deletion. G6 is only for general housekeeping and uncontrovertial deletions. The deleting administartor has used the wrong critreia for deletion. If the administrator still believes the page should be deleted I would suggest the traditional request for deletion and not a speedy deletion. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The archives page is a directory page to the archives it was deleted without warning after the arhived talk page was deleted. This should be considered in conjunction with DRV of the archive page above. Lucy-marie (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - They're not salted, and this appears to be more of a dispute with Rmhermen that we can't really help you with. I'd suggest taking it to dispute resultion. There's very little we can really do here. As for the G6's themselves, I'd have to agree that the talk page is way too short to require archiving. I'd wait until there are at least thirty threads before considering it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no dispute between the users it is purly a dispute over weather the articles should have been deleted. I beleieve the process used was wrong and the articles should not have been deleted, that can only be adressed here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The talk page is far too short to require archiving and the archiving was hiding an unanswered complaint. This appeared to be yet another bad faith archiving by Somali123 of which I had to clear up 10 talk pages in total. Working through I also found user's complaining about Lucy-marie's overzealous archiving style; although her name came up first because her talk page was also incorrectly archived by Somali123. Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler/Archives is entirely unneccessary bloat in any case. Rmhermen (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want a definitive answer, the G6's were correct in the situation. Whether or not moving the content back is another matter and creating the situation, but not one DRV is concerned with. Rmhermen properly cited G6 here (G8 could've also worked, too). Basically, when they're empty, the deletion is uncontroversial. There's nothing wrong with having the content at the current Talk:Murder of Amanda Dowler and no need to archive. Let's say I'm endorsing the deletions and have no opinion on any other actions involved. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Content is, as Lifebaka noted, at the main Talk page, so nothing has been lost. GRBerry 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Harding (closed)

[edit] Ljubisa Bojic (closed)