Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18

Jawbone Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

Satisfies Notability Requirements 68.51.112.182 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask that Wikipedia and Alphachimp reconsider the decision to delete the entry entitled "Jawbone Radio". Wikipedia's criterion for notability states that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable source, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". One can see on the "Articles for Deletion" page for Jawbone Radio [1] that it has in fact, been written about and mentioned by several media sources:

--mentioned in an article of Wired.com [2]

--was the subject of an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 3/15/05

--aforementioned Cleveland Plain Dealer article was picked up by Newhouse News Service and republished in several markets across the US. Examples:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

--was the subject of an article in the Medina Gazette in February 2006

--appears on pages 53-54 of the book "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters" [6] by Rob Walch and Mur Lafferty (of Escape Pod [7]) referenced by Table 3:3 - Popular Couple Casts. This publication is extremely well-known in podcasting communities. Furthermore, Amazon.com lists it as one of the Top 10 Reference Books (number 3) for 2006 [8].

--was linked to by NPR (in right margin) [9]

Very few podcasts ever attain this much media recognition. Furthermore, Jawbone Radio is notable for its interviews with such notable (in as much as they have Wikipedia entries) celebrities as Dean Haglund [10] (episode" 119 [11]), Jeff Meldrum [12] (episode #141 [13], Jonathan Coulton [14] (who wrote a song about Len and Nora), Brother Love [15] (episode #133 [16]), and the mother of Bill Watterson [17] (episode #81).

--It should also be noted that Len has contributed his artwork to the icons and logos of various podcasts, and in spring of this year he redesigned the appearance of the Podcast Pickle site [18] (a site included in Time Magazine's list of the 50 coolest sites of 2006 [19]) as well as the affiliated sites Sportspodcasts.com and churchpodcasts.com.

Podcasting is still a new medium, and very few podcasts have managed to attain this level of notoriety. It seems clear to me that notability has been achieved by Jawbone Radio, and I respectfully request that its entry be be relisted by Wikipedia.

• Endorse deletion. Ignoring unreliable sources, the source is a passing reference in an article, which happens to have been reprinted a lot. Not good enough. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There's a common misconception that I deleted the article or closed the debate. I did not--I only argued in the debate and nominated. It was closed by another sysop. That said, it really didn't have any more than one reliable source. Most of the "votes" in the AfD were placed by meatpuppets from the podcasts' blog. Alphachimp 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Overturning Deletion and Reinstating Article. Here are my reasons: 1. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is much more than just "one reliable source". In fact, the newspaper is a major, top 20 newspaper in the US (see its Wiki entry). The fact that it "was reprinted a lot" is not a negative, but a positive: it shows how highly regarded the newspaper is in the journalistic community. The fact that this newspaper chose to run an article on Jawbone Radio therefore speaks precisely to Jawbone's notability as per Wiki standards. 2. The two editors above who are in favor of the deletion are ignoring the petitioner's point about Time Magazine - which, I assume, is recognized as a reliable source. Time Magazine chose the Pickle Podcast site as one of the Top 50 "coolest" sites in 2006 - and Jawbone worked on the redesign of this site. Surely, that makes Jawbone notable (just as someone who helped design the Golden Gate Bridge or the Empire State Building has a claim to some notability). 3. The citation of Jawbone in the high-ranked books on Amazon is further clear evidence of notability (just dismissing this as "unreliable" without giving reasons is not convincing). 4. The argument that "meat-puppets" voted for non-deletion in the previous discussion is logically irrelevant: all that should count is the content of the arguments. And that content clearly shows that Jawbone is notable, and via criteria - Cleveland Plain Dealer, Time Magazine, Amazon - that have no connection to podcasting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulLev (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC). Sorry - forgot to sign PaulLev 04:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  When an article is syndicated, it appears in a variety of places. The fact is that there is only one such article. The other references are "trivial" coverage, just listings. In many ways it's like saying that since a business is listed in the yellow pages, it belongs on Wikipedia. Amazon, coincidentally, is not the arbitor of notability. As for the meatpuppet "votes" I was merely referencing the fact that the majority of opinions expressed in the AfD were by listeners of the podcast brought to the AfD by a post on their blog. At first glance, it would appear that there was quite a consensus against the deletion. In fact, some users "voted" many times. Alphachimp 04:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  I've already said this below, but for the sake of people who may be reading this, scrolling down: the above explanation of syndication is incorrect, and shows a misunderstanding of the process, as it is used in American journalism and publishing. When an article is syndicated, there are two crucial things that happen, after the initial publication. First, an editor or editors must decide to put the article into syndication (not the editor of the newspaper that first published the article, but the editor of the syndication company). Second, each newspaper or website that publishes the original article makes a decision whether or not to publish the article. Thus, when an article appears in syndication, three separate levels of approval have occurred. Further, the third level is multiple (each editor of the newspaper decides). This is completely different from the business listing example invoked by Alphachimp. Only one person or company, the creator of the business listing, makes a decision about where to publish the business listing. Surely numerous editorial judgements are more impressive as examples of notability than just one.PaulLev 08:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  I don't really see the point in saying the same thing over and over again, but that seems to be the tack of this discussion. The article is the same article, published in multiple publications. I understand that different editors read it, but their decision to include the article is not sufficient to establish the notability of this podcast. Alphachimp 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, we disagree on that: Five or ten experts (editors) making separate decisions to publish an article certainly makes the subject of that article more notable in my book than if just one expert (editor) made such a decision. And beyond that: you don't agree that publication in more places, in a much bigger venue, makes the subject of the article more notable?PaulLev 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - still fails WP:WEB. Nothing but trivial mentions and unreliable sources. MER-C 05:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources. This article still does not prove why it deserves a mention on this encyclopedia. A majority of the users who wanted the article to be kept are just meatpuppets used for this topic. Don't see any good reason why this article should be undeleted. Terence Ong 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion MER-C hits it straightforwardly. These sources are not "multiple non-trivial published works" as required by WP:WEB.--Húsönd 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • • There are at least 3 sources - Cleveland Plain Dealer, Time, and Amazon - in what sense are they "trivial" and "not multiple"? Also, regarding syndication in newspapers: Perhaps the above editor doesn't realize how syndication works. I do - in fact, as Chair of a major department at a major university, I teach all about it. Each newspaper makes a decision on whether or not to publish a given article. Not every article offered for publication is published in a syndicated network. So, asserting that there is only "one" such article misses the point: the syndication demonstrates that every single place that published this article judged it and its topic notable.PaulLev 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's still exactly the same article being published over and over. That was our point. As for Amazon, I'm still a bit confused...how does Amazon make anything notable? Alphachimp 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok, 1. first the syndication and why it's significant. Consider this example: (a) an article is published once, in a major newspaper; or (b)an article is published once, in a major newspaper, and then is reprinted by a major syndication chain. Now, which case do you suppose would make the subject of the article more notable? Case (a) is just one editor or newspaper's decision, whereas case (b) entails a second decision, by the syndication medium (and actually, many more, because each editor of each newspaper or online site can make a separate decision to publish or not publish). And, surely, many more people will see the article in case (b) - not only the people in Cleveland, but readers all across the country. 2. why is Amazon important: Jawbone was listed in a book which was on Amazon's top 10 list. Surely, this means that said book was known by many people, and Jawbone's inclusion in it is therefore more impressive than if the book was known by no one.... I of course, agree, however, that the Cleveland Plain Dealer and syndication, as well as the BBC, are more impressive than the Amazon point. But it's still worth noting.PaulLev 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Simply getting listed is not sufficient to establish notability. Someone in a phone book is not, by nature, notable, yet such a phone book is one of the most widely distributed and published books. The article was just one article. It might have been picked up by several papers, but it's still only one articles. You're still not establishing good sourcing for this podcast article. Alphachimp 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
              • 1. A phone book is not at all the equivalent, but any analogy, to a best-selling book. A phone book is distributed to everyone. A best-selling book is best-selling because each purchaser has made a decision to buy the book. Therefore, inclusion in a best-selling book is much more indicative of notability than inclusion in a phone book. 2. You have yet to address the many times I have explained that syndication is not the same as being "picked up" by several papers. Syndication entails an editorial decision on the part of the syndication network (Newhouse, in this case), as well as the individual papers that have agreed to re-publish.PaulLev 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
                • But syndication is still just one article. The fact that it is published in multiple places is not sufficient to satisfy our notability guidelines. That's the point I've made over and over again. I'm making it again right now. Alphachimp 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • So, just so I understand your position - and for the record - you're saying you see no difference in notability between an article published in one place, and that same article published in a dozen places, or an article available to 500,000 vs. 5,000,000 readers?PaulLev 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Overturning Deletion and Reinstating Article

Jawbone has also been mentioned by The British Broadcasting Corporation on-line in July 2005 as a "pick of the podcasts". Are the BBC trivial as well?

Everything PaulLev says is correct IMO and the article should be reinstated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4693613.stm Waynefromtheuk 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion fails WP:WEB per Amarkov, Nearly Headless Nick, and others above. (Was (neutrally) notified of this debate by PaulLev) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but undelete. Not convinced it met standards during the AfD, but the information put out now seems to say otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Endorse Overturning Deletion and Reinstating Article

ZimZalaBim, what is your arguement? In what respect are the sources set out by me and PaulLev not notable per WP:WEB, such as the BBC? Are you part of a Wiki clique that just posts up messages agreeing with whatever the head Wiki says without reading the arguments?

And, as a general message to all at wikipedia, calling reasonable, intelligent people (we all fall into this category at Jawbone) "meatpuppets" for disagreeing witn you and exercising a democratic right to make a point (yes, i know, democratic...ha ha) is just derogatory. If you want people to take you seriously, stop acting like 14 year old boys...unless that is true of course! Waynefromtheuk 14:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote only once. Sorry, I got confused with another debate when I cited Nearly Headless Nick. My opinion follows the logic of Amarkov: "the source is a passing reference in an article, which happens to have been reprinted a lot" --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Wayne? Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite ironically, he got both my gender and age correct. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked ZimZalaBim to take a look at this discussion, and while I disagree completely with his assessment, I can vouch for his integrity. But, to the issue at hand: to those who do not want to overturn deletion: at least four sources have now been cited here in favor of Jawbone's reinstatement: Cleveland Plain Dealer (and national syndication), Time Magazine, Amazon, and the BBC. I'm sincerely interested in what way a person or entity or person's work mentioned or referenced in all four of these, even "in passing," is not notable? Just citing a WP guideline is not providing an explanation. One other point here, about this discussion: I agree with ZimZalaBim that personal attacks are not appropriate. But who started them? I'm new to this discussion - though not to Wikipedia - and almost the first thing I see here is Terence Ong's unreferenced claim that supporters in a previous discussion were "meat puppets". Not very conducive, Mr. Ong, to an ensuing discussion free of personal attacks.PaulLev 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability isn't my concern. Verifiability is, and passing references don't provide verifiable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Passing reference"? Have you looked at the references cited? For example, the BBC lists Jawbone as one of just six podcasts worthy of mention, and then devotes several paragraphs to discussion of Jawbone. In what universe or frame of reference is such a reference "passing"? Surely, you at least owe it to this discussion to actually take a look at the references.PaulLev 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And, as long as I'm here, I want to again explain that syndication is not just "happened to be reprinted" - quite to the contrary, syndication is a deliberate, affirmative decision on the part of every reprinter that the article in question is notable.PaulLev 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what Amarkov means when he says "passing reference". He's referring to the amount of information given by the source. For example, the wired.com article has one sentence that isn't even about Jambone Radio (it's about the podcast's author's opinion on a subject), so the source doesn't actually say anything about the podcast itself. Try taking out all the information that is sourced from the primary source (either the podcast's creator or materials written by such) and see how much information is left in the article. If the answer is "pretty much nothing", then how neutral is the article, since almost all of the information in the article comes from the primary source (who would be inherently biased)? ColourBurst 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well ... here, as just one example, is what the BBC piece says about Jawbone:

Massive, unneeded copyvio section removed. See BBC link. Alphachimp 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Does that look like "pretty much nothing"? PaulLev 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what I posted was not in violation of copyright - it is entirely within Fair Use practice to quote a major section of an article for scholarly, legal, etc discussion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Fair Use - you might want to take a look at the Wiki entries on that. Second, I wish you and everyone making innaccurate claims here would indeed go look at the BBC article. Have you done so? Did you read the excerpt that was posted here, or are you just content to keep accepting categorizations of articles about Jawbone that plainly are contradicted by the articles themselves? We may have to submit this whole question to more formal Wiki mediation. Disagreements over interpretation of policy are one thing. Mischaracterizing a published article, and then removing the excerpt that was posted as proof of the mischaracterization, is quite another. PaulLev 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide any links you like, but simply pasting in large swaths of text is not an acceptable means by which to make a point. It's wasteful of our space and is not an acceptable implementation of fair use. I'm willing to argue the minutiae of fairuse, but it's simply not relevant to this discussion. You are welcome to provide any links you wish. Alphachimp 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did read up on the BBC article, but while it's of a decent length, most of the information is from the subject (and therefore most of the information is also a primary source). If there were a second source similar (in amount of content) to this one, I wouldn't mind, but as it is it's very shaky. My objection isn't to the primary sourced information (which can be used to corroborate non-controversial statements about a subject), it's the lack of third-party information. But like I said, if you can find more sources that have a substantial amount of information on the subject, I will reconsider. ColourBurst 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you (seriously, not sarcastically) for having an open mind about this. Here is the link to the widely syndicated Cleveland Plain Dealer about Jawbone: http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/mezger031705.html (The link is from the NewHouse syndication, which means the publication was far more prominent and pervasive than just in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, itself a Top-20 newspaper in the US. (Jawbone has also been briefly referenced by Boing-boing - I can supply the link if needed.)PaulLev 03:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. Endorse closure, but no prejudice towards recreation with the sources available. I don't think the BBC article was mentioned in the original AfD, and there were a lot of frivolous arguments in the AfD itself (by people who don't seem to understand WP:RS), and since DRV is not AfD round 2, recreation of the article would be fine. ColourBurst 17:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC article was mentioned in the original AfD.Nobbynees 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true, it was mentioned, but only as a podcast pick. Nobody mentioned there being an actual article along with the pick, and I don't think anybody linked it either. ColourBurst 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Colorburst. I count at least one other person in this discussion, Badlydrawnjeff, who is ok with reisntatement. Plus, at least three editors in the original deletion discussion who opposed deletion, and are not meat puppets (they have a prior history of editing on Wiki), so I'm Endorsing Closure here and reinstating the article. (Or, more precisely, I've edited the original article, tightened it and made its references more explcit.)PaulLev 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to BBC article: [20]

I see that Alphachimp has deleted the reinstated (and revised) Jawbone Radio, pending further discussion here. I'm all in favor of further discussion. So, for starters, perhaps Alphachimp can respond to my above points about syndication not being just "picked up" by other newspapers, and about a best-selling book being not at all equatable to a phonebook listing as Alphachimp suggests.PaulLev 22:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't declare your own DRV decision and recreate the article based on that. You have to wait for the actual closure here. WarpstarRider 23:03, 22 December 2006(UTC)

OK, fair enough. Let's continue the discussion.PaulLev 01:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Best-selling book? "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters" is #69,977 in sales rank. I really don't think that establishes a level of notability sufficient for the book to be considered "best-selling". Alphachimp 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the very first entry in this current discussion - just scroll to the top - you'll see of the book in question that "Amazon.com lists it as one of the Top 10 Reference Books (number 3) for 2006 [8]" (I couldn't copy the reference note, you'll have to look above to get it.) So, you're now saying, what - a #3 book isn't a best-seller in its field?PaulLev 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Alpha chimp that this book would not count as a best-seller, since by definition of the term, it's not. But Amazon did select it as their third-most-recommended reference book published this year (2006). To me that makes it a significant publication. Whether or not that automatically elevates every podcast listed in it to the level of notability required by Wikipedia is unclear (although it couldn't hurt), but it certainly merits discussion. Certainly neither of my two very non-notable podcasts are listed in this book, and I would have been astonished if they had been. Tvindy 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for personal attacks. I should not follow what Wikipedia started, but please don't call people Meatpuppets. I'd endorse PaulLev's very reasoned arguments - please actually read the sources. I'm beginning to lose faith that any kind of democratic process is proceeding here, as, no matter how good the arguments are, you appear intent to disagree for the sake of winning an argument. Have you truly analysed these references objectively?

Is there a higher appeal process?

Waynefromtheuk 01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this discussion has shifted from discussing the deletion decision to discussing the motivations and intentions of the editors involved. (Deletion review is supposed to be reviewing the administrative decision to delete the article...not having the debate again.) It's not an acceptable practice to simply attack those who oppose your opinion. Whether or not you have faith in this process has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Alphachimp 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

back to afD If the discussion has shifted to discussing motivations, and if there is allegations of unfair practice, and if personal animus can be demonstrated as it has been above, it should be sent back to AfD for wider discussion. Possible unfair procedure is a serious matter, and justifies a re-discussion on the merits--but here is not the place to do that re-discussion. DR, however, would seem the right place to send it back. DGG 04:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure-AfD process was followed appropriately. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and as such, you shouldn't expect "democratic process" to be followed. If an article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (which were arrived at through the consensus of the editors), we shouldn't allow it just because a bunch of single-purpose accounts are created to "vote" in its favor. Geoffrey Spear 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • Geoffrey Spear: So we now we have another non-fact added to the list: "a bunch of single-purpose accounts ... created to 'vote' in its favor" ... Which are the single-purpose accounts? What evidence do you have for such an allegation? So let's go over the non-fact list at present: 1. Only one source cites Jawbone. Non-fact: The Cleveland Plain Dealer and the BBC are clearly two sources, not one. And there clearly are more. 2. The reference to Jawbone is "in passing". Non-fact: The BBC reference (has anyone here opposing reinstatement actually read it? I'm going to keep asking this inconvenient question) talks about Jawbone in multiple paragraphs. 3. The supporters of reinstatement are "single purpose accounts" created just to make that argument (or, in the less elegant terms used above: meat-puppets). Non-fact, with no evidence other than the accusers' words that in fact all supporters of this position are meat-puppets. So ... are all of you comfortable with this? Is this the way you would like a world-class encyclopedia to be created and developed? On allegations and non-facts? As someone who has studied and taught about the media for decades, I'm truly interested in your answers.PaulLev 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you review the original AfD, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of opinions (before the AfD was semi-protected) were added by fans of the podcast encouraged to participate in the podcast by Len on the Jawbone podcast. Len actually "voted" many, many times in the original AfD. I'm extremely comfortable with the statement that ta large portion of those supporting the inclusion of the article in the AfD were accounts specifically created for participation in the debate at the prompting of the Jawbone blog. That's the textbook definition of a meatpuppet or single-purpose account. We've read the references for the Jawbone article. Quite frankly, they're not enough to conclusively establish that Jawbone has the level of notability we require for inclusion. Alphachimp 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
        • • I did look at the original AfD, and I see editors Meno25, Ineffable3000, Xadrian, and Podcast411 all voted to retain (not delete), all have histories of editing on Wiki prior to that discussion, and unless Len has both a time-machine and shape-shifting capabilities, these three can't be Len. So, at this point, we have a community in which the three above editors, plus Colourburst and badlydrawnjeff, and, I'll include myself in there as well - none of us meat-puppets, would you agree? - all are in favor of or can live with rentention. That's not enough to make you consider the possibility that your position - though based on understandable irritation at the meat-puppets - may not be open to a little consensus refinement?PaulLev 09:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While we are discussing attacking motivations, who was it that derided good arguments by calling people "meatpuppets"? Not a single apology has been issued for this by anyone at Wikipedia, whereas I and others have apologised for getting heated and tried to get you to understand the many references that are out there, all of which you chose not to understand. And here we have it all once again! Geoffrey Spear accuses someone of creating accounts to "vote". This presumably relates back to the charge levelled against Len at Jawbone, who I recall refuted this and I believe him, because he is an honest guy. Is there any evidence for this accusation? Talk about getting away from the debate and attacking the debater!

Interesting comment about democracy and editorial policy. It would be very interesting to understand the basis for Wikipedia's charitable status and whether this was based on being inclusive.

Let's face it, you ain't ever gonna say your decision was wrong, because you are policing yourselves. It is pretty well documented that you have a "thing" against Podcasts. I'll just have to fall back on that "God" phone in to the latest Jawbone show re: Alphachimp to cheer me up. priceless!!

Waynefromtheuk 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Thank you. Alphachimp 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I did create my account specifically to call for a review of the Jawbone entry deletion. However, this is the only Wikipedia account I have ever used or held. Also, other than being a listener, I am in no way affiliated with Jawbone Radio. Tvindy 03:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence, it's a single-purpose account. Alphachimp 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. It's a potentially multi-purpose account. This is merely my first contribution to Wikipedia. Tvindy 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- not only was the AfD properly closed, the sources don't rise to the level of WP:WEB. The BBC source is good, but that's only one -- the others are trivial, like MER-C says. Mangojuice^talk 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How is the Cleveland Plain Dealer source trivial? Please explain. (Again, I'm truly interested in how an article published in a Top-20 American newspaper, and widely syndicated, in which the subject of this discussion is the prominent and extensively discussed topic, can be deemed "trivial").PaulLev 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

SuperGrads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

Improper use of speedy deletion and the company is notable as defined by the notability criteria. The company fulfills notability criteria by amongst other things:
1) Having had original content written about it by numerous UK universities with a view to helping their students find relevant employment post university. (Written works about SuperGrads by the universities were included in information given to graduating students of class 2006 and the company has also been written about in multiple student-run university newspapers and magazines including the newspaper of the University of Kent InQuire ("KRED", Issue 8.6, May 2006) as well as discussed on student radio.)
2) Having been featured in a publication by the Engineering Employers Federation, an organization representing more than 10,000 British engineering and manufacturing companies who provide advice on law, commerce, employment and other issues affecting UK engineering companies today. This article is available on the web as well as in print for members of the EEF.

I suggest the article be re-instated (and changed to a stub with a line or two expanding on its notability as soon as possible). Davethehatter 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Student newspapers, and an inaccessible subscription-only website hardly qualify as Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse the original speedy decision. The article did not assert notability when the administrator deleted it, and the evidence provided above (student newspapers and a trade journal) doesn't sway me at all. A Train ^{take the} 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the article never asserted notability and there are no reliable sources available on the internet. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 09:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion lack of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Renetto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

Firstly, the votes on this very popular youtube star were 17 to keep (many of them "strong keeps") and 7 to delete. Before the argument of Wikipedia is not a democracy, it should be pointed out that at 17 to 7, Consensus was ignored. The closing admin chose to ignore several votes, which were almost all keep, and was very arbitrary in their method. For instance, when a delete voted simply typed "Fails WP:BIO" and nothing else, those were counted (If I had a dime for every time somebody wrote "fails WP:BIO" or "passed WP:BIO" and they were incorrect, I'd be very wealthy). But when keep voters wrote comments like "Like all popular internet anything that isn't controversial, it's very difficult to get reported on outside the internet, and yet Renetto seems to at least have been mentioned in several magazines and news articles. Just check the 'List of internet phenomenon' pages, and you'll find several items that can't even claim that much, yet have pages dedicated to them.", the vote was discounted." Another example of arbitrary discounting or validating votes was that one keep vote comment was "YouTube popularity certainly counts as notable," but several other keep votes that were commented with "YouTube star", those were discounted. And when one keep voter posed a news story on this subject [21], the admin chose an ad hominem argument to ignore this because the user was anon. This is clearly a case for a review. Oakshade 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, but undelete. Along with a Chicago Tribune article listed in the delete article, a link to a Fox News story was provided, there's this, along with a number of Google News hits regarding a relationship with Coca-Cola and other group features like this one. These weren't at the AfD, so the closure was appropriate, but we got it wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, well-reasoned. Notable YouTube star? Two oxymorons in one :-) Jeff, if you want to make a new article that asserts notability, you can be bold, if anyone gives you shit about it come and ask a friendly rouge admin for backup. A good-faith re-creation from fresh sources should be no problem. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just like Emmalina, right? d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• To treat that with a seriousness you probably didn't intend, no. In that case we had the full facts at AfD. I'm not saying this would necessarily pass, but I'm not about to stand back and frustrate a good faith attempt, and if someone speedies it while you're trying then we'll fix that. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, but undelete, the article of recent was sourced to some updated news interviews. Closure was more or less sorted. Nuff said. frummer 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - many of the keep votes were variations on WP:ILIKEIT, or the Chewbacca Defense ("Just check the 'List of internet phenomenon' pages, and you'll find several items that can't even claim that much, yet have pages dedicated to them"), which is always an irrelevant argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. The vote was discounted, and I always tend to ignore votes that are based on 'X should stay because unrelated article Y is on Wikipedia', or 'Y should be deleted because you deleted Z' for the same reason. I very much dislike the implication that my comments were arbitrary from Oakshade, they were not. Perhaps I should no longer bother trying to explain closures. If you asserted why the article should stay with a valid reason based on the applicable policies/guidelines, your !vote stayed. Ditto for those who believed it should have been deleted. However, if all those extra reports Jeff cites had been provided in the AFD discussion, then things would have been different. This is because that one Youtube link is not 'multiple reliable sources', but the Chicago Tribune, Fox News and a NY Times story do count as musltiple reliable sources. No issue with a recreation of the article that actually bothers to explain and cite its notability. Proto::► 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think admins should always provide reasons for AfD outcomes, especially if it is not in line with the consensus of editors and those reasons should be consistent throughout the closing process. In this case, it appears consistency in reasoning for counting or discounting voters was not present. --Oakshade 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (no vote either way) I'm not going to argue either way as all I made was a comment, not a vote. But I am not happy with the closer because I posted a link which showed quite significant coverage on a major TV network. Instead of waiting for people to comment on that, Proto discounted this piece of information as a "suspicious anon vote" and closed the discussion. Now something like that is quite significant to the discussion (which is not a vote by the way Proto) so why weren't people allowed to judge it first?--203.109.209.49 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? AfDs normally last for five days. That one lasted for eight. If providing a new link meant that admins were obligated to relist, AfDs would never get closed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't give a shit about the bureaucracy, AfDs don't normally last for 5 days, that is the minimum. I am not convinced that this one should be kept, but I gave some rather significant information, what is the rush in closing something hastily without letting people comment and discuss things properly? Especially when you're talking about deleting an article far larger than a stub on which many people have spent time working on, err on the side of caution.--203.109.209.49 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Because if it were required that an AfD debate be relisted every single time a new link was added, you could easily just filibuster it indefinitely. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Youtube videos are not reliable sources, and linking to a video of a Fox News clip over YouTube is exacerbating a copyright violation that YouTube may permit, but we do not. See WP:EL. Proto::► 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The YouTube video may not be "reliable" due to the copyright issue, but the point that it was on Fox News is entirely valid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Do you know how many people I see on the TV everyday? Should they all have an article? Even when Google turns up, virutally nothing. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong overturn deletion - No, the anon was right. He posted a link which clearly showed that it passed WP:WEB and was a little rudely discounted (sorry Proto, please don't take offense, we all make mistakes). A mention on Fox News passes WP:WEB obviously. And while most of Proto's "discounted"s were valid, some left me a little worried: "appears on the news": discounted, while "as per WP:BIO" was counted (I believe the two users were saying the same thing). In any case, policy of discounting "votes" aside, the guy's notable per WP:WEB. No questions. Overturn deletion, and if necessary, bring to a third afd. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  If someone claims 'appears on the news', I would be looking for proof of this (through a reliable source). Hence the discount. It is too easy to make claims and not back them up. I also agree that now - finally - reliable sources have turned up (thanks to Jeff) that it proves the chap is reliable as per WP:WEB. It is a shame that nobody bothered to produce these until the article was deleted and brought to deletion review. Proto::► 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  That would be because you discounted anyone who disagreed with you. Subject clearly is notable... Overturn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete - this article should be undeleted. This was very arbitrary decision of one admin. I personally think that admins shoud not make any decisions in that matter. The votes were 17 to 7 in favor of keeping Renetto. And just one admin like a dictator came here and made the very biased decision to delete. I personally think that the admin's behavior is compared just downright vandalism. It's an admin's vandalism and it should be said. We don't want dictators in Wikipedia. By the way Renetto is a very popular figure in the internet so we should undelete him and keep like the others. --Doxent 10:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. The closing admin's judgment was within the terms of admin discretion. People are more likely to give regard to your comment if you assume good faith with other users. Non-compliance and further disruption might result in a block. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, absolutely no claim to notability. Google does not bring up anything other than links to unreliable sources – [22]. The only credible source that was mentioned on the deleted page – [23] has been archived by the Chicago Tribune, which takes you to a 404 not found page. Another source of information that was mentioned – [24] is not reliable as per the guideline WP:RS. However notable you might be on YouTube and other discussion forums, that does not give you a claim to fame on Wikipedia. I am completely confuzzled as to the the reasoning provided by users asking for an overturn. As for Proto, keep up the good work. There is no way you should be intimidated into not closing controversial AfDs fearing retribution at WP:DRVs. Good luck. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also, please read Criterion 5 and the referenced Note 5, as provided on WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 11:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, my Google search came up with the "reliable" sources, so I'm not sure how you did your search, or why you're confuzzled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• My dog got mentioned five times in various newspaper this year, for winning the best breed in town at a local event in the city. Maybe I should write an article on him? </joke>Although, he did win it! Are you pointing at the source from Nypost that makes a singular superficial reference to him. Or pointing at the OpinionJournal? Those two articles are on YouTube and not Renetto himself. I am perplexed at how you try to establish the notability of the most non-notable *superstars* of the internet when their claim to fame are only two transitory mentions. And also, is this guy "a nine-day wonder" or will the means to prove otherwise also prove durable? Establish the notability and take your article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 12:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let's not beat up on Jeff, OK? Jeff, I think we're all looking for multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. For non-trivial, I'd say this should be the (or at least a) primary focus of a decent-sized substantive article, not a spacefiller. For multiple, I'd say at least three stories, and not one syndicated story or incident repeated in multiple places. For reliable, I'd go with almost anything where there is editorial review independent of the author of the story, and a bar to publication in the form of an editorial policy which prevents any random crap form being published. Can you do that? If you can (and yes that is the upper end of the scale), then the result is completely unambiguous and there should be no problem at all. Otherwise it's just philosophical differences, and if it comes down to that you'll have to just accept that some folks don't consider this kind of subject to be encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can take the heat, it's not a problem. I simply think this meets the standard - we have the multiple and reliable, and the non-trivial can certainly be argued in either direction, but I'd think that the large amount of different stories this guy's been featured in indicates a sustained notability. As a web meme, it's harder to justify than as a person, which I think has some better leeway. I don't think this is unambiguous, but when it doubt... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I was just kidding above. /me bows to the vile dark lord of inclusionism. :D — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should go for a username change... --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Goodlydrawnjeff"! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be something like, Nicelydrawnjeff? Or better yet, Nearly Headless Jeff. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The Fox News claim in the AFD was linked to a YouTube copy of it, apparently uploaded by the subject of the article. Unfortunately, YouTube is a source anyone can edit, so it isn't a reliable source. Thus it was appropriate to disregard this in closing the AFD. Given what Nearly Headless Nick found for the sources in the article at the time, the closure was correct on the evidence presented. I'm not certain that Badlydrawnjeff has yet presented here the evidence needed to support a keep in a third AFD. Given that, I'd rather see the article recreated with the evidence that he believes is sufficient, and let things go from there, than to simply recreate what was there in the past. GRBerry 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  Because the Fox News story came from a youtube link, it's not a valid Fox News story? Do you think "anyone" edited and superimposed that reporter and the article subject in an entire interview and conversation? Wow, that is one talented editor! --Oakshade 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No offense, but do you know anything about video editing? Are you saying you doubt that he was actually on FoxNews? What are we going to say next? We can't accept New York Times articles because one editor admitted to fabricating stories? No - we have to accept some form of reliability, or this site would be useless. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

    • While I don't think that WP:V means "verifiable by anybody looking on the internet" (which means closed sources that are accessible to more than 10 people in the world are still okay), YouTube should not be listed as a source in the article itself, because it doesn't jive with WP:EL. I would accept the original Fox News report as a source (I would hope somebody actually gets to corroborate it, but maybe that's just a wish). ColourBurst 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

      • I'm still confused here. While you would accept the fact Fox News did a story on him if the link showing the video was from Fox News, but if the same exact video was linked through Youtube, suddenly the story never existed and we were all imagining it? Gee, and I thought I was really looking at a Family Guy clip this morning.[25] --Oakshade 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

        • No, that's not what this means. A Fox News segment is a source (and can be cited). Youtube cannot be considered a distributor of reliable information (no matter how many accurate videos of things you've seen there before, because at the end of the day, it's being uploaded by pseudonymous people), and cannot be linked. So, feel free to cite the original Fox video, but do not link to Youtube (copyright issues and reliability.) Reprints of articles from the New York Times don't count either, unless the reprint itself was from a reliable source. I would say the youtube situation is similar to that. ColourBurst 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit. So is YouTube. When I see a claim of notability that is being sourced to Wikipedia, YouTube, or any other site that anyone can edit, I disregard it based on WP:RS. In this case, the problem is even worse - the YouTube posting appears to have been uploaded by the subject of the article. Since the sourcing is neither reliable nor independent, it doesn't establish notability - see WP:INDY. The article title was not salted, last I looked, so if adequate reliable, independent sourcing is found, nothing is preventing recreation. I don't believe we have enough such sourcing to support an article in another round of AFD, so I don't believe it should be sent back again. GRBerry 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure Policy, policy, policy. Yanksox 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What policy? If anything, policy was broken by ignoring the valuable contrib from an anon becuase anons are "suspicious". His reasoning was not "the youtube link is invalid", his reasoning was "the anon is suspiciuos". Patstuart^talk|edits 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • *cough*WP:BIO*cough* Yanksox 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • [Comment removed as trolling, should not be restored] — Nearly Headless Nick 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Do not delete my comments thanks, it was not trolling. What I said follows --203.109.209.49 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC) That's not policy. You'd think admins should know these things... From WP:BIO: This guideline is not Wikipedia policy But people are saying it satisfies WP:BIO, so I'd ask you to stop voting and respond to them instead.--203.109.209.49 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, because regardless of the consensus, reliable secondary sources have been found, proving it passes WP:BIO. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete or at least allow recreation. I'm not the biggest fan of all of the "YouTube celebrity" articles hanging around here, but even the closer of the AfD admits above that this guy is notable due to the sources produced in this DRV, so I don't know what all the debate here is about. (Nevermind that the nomination itself was something of a troll, as I pointed out during the AfD, though I guess that doesn't really matter here.) WarpstarRider 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per Night Gyr, strong arguments have been made for the inclusion of the article that cannot be ignored. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chase headley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy deleted by Zoe (talk · contribs), person is a minor league baseball player who meets WP:BIO. Being a minor league baseball player is an assertion of notability, since it meets the relevant criteria, so this is yet another poor speedy choice and should be undeleteed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion If the player has never played in the MLB, he's never played at the highest level of his sport and thusly does not meet WP:BIO in regards to sportspeople. One could also interpret this sentence from the same criteria: "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles." I doubt most members of Headley's teams are worthy of articles. If the issue is that the article was speedied by {{db-bio}} but an assertion of notability was made, then bring it to AfD- but there's no way an article on a minor leaguer who has never played a game in the majors will be kept. -- Kicking222 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:BIO states, first line of the section, "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league...". It's cut and dry, he meets WP:BIO by the letter if not the spirit, and Zoe knows this because she unsuccessfully tried to change this over the summer and failed to gain consensus. Meanwhile, being a professional sportsperson is an assertion of notability, so that's why I've brought it here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but playing for a team in the 17th highest level of British soccer is also playing in a fully professional league, but the people on those teams are still not sufficiently notable. Like I said above, I wouldn't be against throwing it to AfD, but we already know what the result would be. -- Kicking222 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think we know the result, actually. As DRV is very much about the process, I'm not against an AfD for a full hearing, but stating that it doesn't meet WP:BIO is absolutely false, thus my protest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually the 17th level of British football is nowhere near professional. The professional status ends roughly at level 5 or 6, with semi-professional players in the two to three leagues that follow. Players at lower ranked clubs sometimes get their expenses paid, but they are not professional football players. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• As per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. minor league baseball players fail WP:BIO. Endorse deletion (I was the deleter). User:Zoe|(talk) 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't do precedent here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. "Fails WP:BIO" isn't a speedy criterion, and it's obviously contentious if he does. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fails WP:BIO" is most definitely a speedy criterion, and has been and will continue to be used. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that? I thought WP:CSD#A7 said we could delete biographical articles with "no assertion of notability"... the bar to meet WP:BIO is much higher. -- SCZenz 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me put it this way. To those of us who patrol Recent changes, it would be impossible to do any work if we had to take the hundreds of articles which fail WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABILITY to AfD, and AfD itself would become clogged with uselessness. If an article fails WP:BIO, then taking it to AfD would just be a waste of time and a failure of WP:SNOW. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not true, and it ignores the critical idea of the CSD. That idea is that the bar for a speedy deletion is lower than would work with AfD (or prod!) because only one (or two) set(s) of eyes is seeing the article. There is no community consensus to expand speedy deletions to "anything an admin is pretty sure wouldn't pass an AfD," and there shouldn't be. -- SCZenz 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You got it. From now on, I will stop speedy deleting anything, and I will take them all to AfD. I will then give you and badlydrawnjeff an email letting you know they are there so that you can contest my good faith on every edit request. User:Zoe|(talk)
            • Sheesh. I'm asking for a middle ground, I'm not questioning anyone's good faith, and there's no reason to get mad. -- SCZenz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to creation of an article which (unlike what Zoe deleted) actually makes some assertion of notability. This debate is more than an order of magnitude longer than the article. In fact, my endorsement is longer than the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist if only so we can kill it cleanly at AfD. Not having read the article I can't decide, and while I trust Zoe, I would prefer a clear decision so that the Archangel of Inclusion can rest easily. While failure of WP:BIO means the subject isn't notable, I'm not sure that A7 (which says the article makes no claim of notability) is applicable. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This one is tough. Read literally, WP:BIO states that all atheletes who have played in a "fully professional league" are probably notable, which technically includes every minor league baseball player in the US. (1) I don't think WP:BIO should declare those players notable. (2) It is arguable whether a minor leager without non-trivial press coverage is notable even under WP:BIO. (3) It's not obvious that A7 has to respect WP:BIO. However, even given all that, maybe it would be best to get consensus to tighten WP:BIO first and speedy all otherwise non-notable minor leaguers second. As a hypothetical, if WP:BIO was edited (by consensus) the other way, and explicitly said "All verifiable minor league baseball players are notable," would Mr. Headley still be speedy-able? TheronJ 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There was a discussion about this over the summer regarding whether WP:BIO should cover these, and there was no consensus for a change. Even with a change, it'd be hard - there's always non-trivial coverage of local teams and players in newspapers, and all pro ballplayers are noted in numerous baseball compendiums yearly, not to mention specialized papers and magazines regarding fantasy sports. So... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus for a change at WP:BIO, but there was consensus that minor league ballplayers are not notable at the AfD I cited above. See WP:LOCAL, as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Being listed in "specialized" papers and magazines, as well as appearing in compendia, is not the same thing as being published in major media. There are several minor league teams in the Chicago area, and the most coverage they ever get in the press are standings and schedules, in very fine print, on the statistics page. Fan-1967 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • And there's one in my area who has major stories written daily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • A triple-A player in a large market will probably receive less coverage than a single-A player in a small market, because of the impact the single A team has on its market. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • One AfD result does not an overbearing consensus make. It's not a reverse WP:POKEMON. Also, WP:LOCAL has no bearing on this for a variety of reasons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Such as? Fan-1967 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Such as it merely being a proposal (and a poor one at that) and it being about places. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. WP:BIO is not CSD#A7. It's a reason to argue about it, not to speedily delete it. If something really is a matter of WP:SNOW, then put a WP:PROD tag on it - clearly this one isn't. If someone objects, then, yes, it should be debated at AfD. Either that or amend WP:SNOW to say "BadlyDrawnJeff's objections don't count". AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  Support AnonEMouse's suggestion to amend WP:SNOW. :) Proto::► 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and AFD. If it asserts notability, it is not a CSD candidate. Proto::► 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't assert notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It does assert notability. The applicable page is WP:BIO, which states that professional sportspeople are notable. The level of the league they play in is immaterial, and subjective. The article probably should be deleted, but it was not suitable for speedy deletion. Proto::► 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yet the simple fact is that minor-leaguers, in any sport, have consistently not been considered notable by the consensus of the community, despite the wording of WP:BIO. Fan-1967 21:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word "assert".
    1. Last edit before the speedy read "03:11, December 17, 2006 . . Chairboy (Talk | contribs | block) (Minor league baseball seems to assert some notability)".
    2. Category:Minor_league_baseball_players has quite a few entries.
    3. In addition, there was the claim in the article itself: "Headley is currently the organizations 4th ranked prospect according to Baseball America."
    • Now I don't know minor league baseball like the back of my paw, but there's clearly an "assert" in there somewhere; in other words, there is a reason for an argument. Arguing that there's no assertion is like arguing that we aren't having an argument. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• If minor-league players are not notable, then an article that says "So-and-so is a minor-league player" is not asserting notability. Fan-1967 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

i haven't looked through all of the entries in Category:Minor_league_baseball_players, but the first five I looked at (the only five I looked at) all had reasons for being here for other resons besides being minor league ballplayers. Besides, "keep it because we have others like it" is never a valid argument. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Zoe. Endorse Deletion Eusebeus 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list per proto. If it's even a question, it should not be speedied, but prodded or afd'ed. It asserts notability due to sports player in major league; should go to afd and be decided by community. We made need to create a WP:SPORTSBIO page. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • He is not in a major league!!!!! If he was in a major league, this wouldn't have been deleted!!!!! User:Zoe|(talk) 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't mean "major league" as in Major League Baseball, I meant it as in important. At least put the thing up for afd! To be honest, otherwise, it's an admin taking a quite questionable and very controversial interpretation of WP:BIO into their own hands instead of letting the community decide, which is specifically prohibited by policy: "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." (directly from WP:CSD:A7. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It is entirely within expectations of a valid speedy delete based upon what was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. This person is no more notable than the people deleted in that AfD. That gives me the support to make a non-controversial interpretation. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per Zoe and JZG. (Radiant) 09:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse; we are discussing an article that should not pass AfD by the current standards; process may not have been followed, but the result is what it should be. Tizio 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words, let's completely ignore policy (see my comment above). From WP:SIR: "Administrators, on the other hand, can do things which cannot be undone by most users, and can act to block and unblock other users, as well as each other." Patstuart^talk|edits 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But the deletion ws not controversial, since previous minor leaguers had been deleted via consensus on AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • One AfD doesn't make a binding consensus. We don't do binding consensus. This is why I challenged this - you cannot interpret one AfD as an abandonment of a more overbearing and accepted guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Be that as it may, I used that as my considered opinion that the deletion of Chase headley was non-controversial due to that AfD. No, that's not why you challenged me, and we both know it. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, I challenged you because I disagree with speedying articles for reasons of notability when they meet our notability criteria. I'd hope we both know this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. The article has an assertion of notability—perhaps not one that would lead to it being kept on AfD, but an assertion nevertheless—ergo does not fit the speedy criteria. I feel rather strongly (see above) that the speedy criteria are rigid and specific for a reason—they spell out the only cases in which the community has entrusted certain users (namely, admins) to delete articles without getting other opinions. I suspect that this article will not survive AfD, but because I can't feel sure of that, I think going through the formal process is appropriate in this case. -- SCZenz 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This request is either process-wonking for its own sake, given the inevitability of the outcome, or a back-door way of attempting to lower the established inclusion bar through a new AFD. User:Badlydrawnjeff needs to find a new vehicle for his crusade. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  You're making generalizations about a whole bunch of thoughtful users who disagree with you, and have in many cases explained their reasoning in some detail, including myself. I don't give two shits either way about the consensus on inclusion of minor league baseball players, and I am not "process-wonking for its own sake"—rather, I am asking that administrators do what our policies say we will do in the specific case of a process where there is very little community oversight of our work. I wrote all of that already, so I'd like to ask for an apology for your rude generalization of my views. -- SCZenz 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  It's the third - it was an improper speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Calton above: this article would have no chance at AfD. While this was probably a valid A7 deletion, I don't think that there is a consensus at WP:CSD#A7 incorporates WP:BIO, WP:WEB, nor do I think it should. Rather it should employ looser standards so that the truly trivial are speedied and the arguably notable should be prodded/sent to AfD. Eluchil404 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So if you think the arguably notable should be prodded/sent to AfD, why endorse this? Keep in mind, "it has no chance at AfD" isn't a valid speedy either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Because I endorse actions that reach an obviously correct result even if the process was flawed, see WP:SNOW. Nothing is gained by taking five more days at AfD when we can evaluate the article now at DRV and see that deletion is inevitable and correct. In this particular case I find the WP:BIO argument unconvincing and so don't see even any arguable notability per wikipedia practice. The guideline is simply poorly written to imply that professional players in minor leagues are automatically notable because actual wikipedia practice (which is more important than the precise wording of guideline/policy pages) is to delete them. Eluchil404 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD This shouldn't have bee speedied due to assertation of notability. Sometimes five days isn't enough to review all the CSD#A7 articles. --Oakshade 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist on AFD, since notability contested. In the end this may still be deleted, but I would like to give everyone a fair chance to review and discuss this. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who use mmbot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|CfD)

I'm a bit late with this, but whatever. Category was deleted per AfD, which is wrong, AfD doesn't delete categories. And there's no rule which says things must have articles to have user categories. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the AfD discussion? It's obviously not on the CfD log. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid UCFD. Linking. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How...bizarre. I don't know how to interpret this at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was an AFD on Mmbot, which closed with it rightly being deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mmbot. There was no mention of the category in this AFD debate. The CFD was then opened following the AFD debate, which, I guess was based on the fact that as the article about the program was deleted, category about using it is pointless. But the article was on the article, not the category, and made no mention of the category. Judge the category on its own merits, not the merits of its related parent article. So, awful process with the CFD probably not being valid, but the category is shit, so correct result. I wouldn't shed a tear if it dies a death, but I can understand if people want it to be restored and CFD'd for the sake of process wonkery. Endorse status quo, I guess. Proto::► 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that this isn't just process wonking, I really do think it should have been kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I closed this as a delete because the content that it refers to was deleted. On Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, categories that do not help with collaboration have been deleted quite often. Since there's no articles for users of this category to collaborate about (which would not be the case for, say, category:Wikipedians who play Diablo II), the category makes no sense to me. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Part of the reason why this category was deleted was because it no longer serves any purpose to the encyclopedia now that the article was deleted. The consensus on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion has generally been that user categories exist to aid in collaboration on the encyclopedia, and most categories that do not serve that purpose get deleted. This decision is consistent with that. —Cswrye 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion despite sloppy explanations of reasoning in the CfD. Mmbot is a bot for playing one or more video games. Knowing which other Wikipedians use it contributed to building the encyclopedia in what way? I have a hard time imagining that the category contributed to Wikipedia even when we had an article on the bot, and can't imagine any reason now. GRBerry 15:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - I nominated the category for deletion because the subject of the category was deemed unsuitable in an AfD discussion. I believe that consensus was then determined in the CfD discussion (for various reasons). However, that aside, as stated by others above, I don't see how this information helps with collaboration, or even is a useful grouping of Wikipedians. Coupled with the fact that the users in question are welcome to keep their associated templates/userboxes/userpage notices, I don't see a need or reason for the retention of the category. - jc37 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian_Command (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

It was deleted without reason, and has been viewed by man people. Wyatt 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete, contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history)

UNDELETE_REASON This page of photos of naked people was deleted from wikipedia, reason: violation of WP:USER not encyclopedic [26]

There was no AfD/MfD, it was just deleted, despite an a previous keep/no consensus MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn

Before it was deleted User:BlooWilt wrote on User:Ewlyahoocom that:

User:BlooWilt marjority is him and another wikiuser.

User:BlooWilt wrote: "I haven't checked out the rule but I know this folder is breeaking the rules" User:BlooWilt states himself that he hasn't checked out the rule yet, but he has faith (a belief based on no evidence) that User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPorn is "breeaking" the rules.

So based on the "majority" (2 people) on User:BlooWilt "talk page", he may have had a part in getting the user page deleted.

Why was there no AfD/MfD ? Please reopen this page, and then there can be a proper AfD/MfD.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored states that articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content.

User:CanadianCaesar (adminstrator): These pages are useful for finding pictures for articles in my experience. Valid pages, in user space, can be kept under joking titles. Take a look at how I title my talk page archives.

User:NoSeptember (adminstrator): Maybe we should rename all user subpages with "porn" or something similar in the name so that do not show up when someone searches WP for the word "porn". If few people know a page exists, few will get upset, and the pages can continue to fly under the radar.

Suggestion: Restore the article, but rename it without "porn" in the title, as per User:NoSeptember suggested. Comprimise: The page stays deleted but a wikiuser moves these images to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery.

Thank you for listening Travb (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at MfD. Personally, I think it's dumb, but it's potentially useful and should get better oversight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• THIRD EDIT CONFLICT IN A ROW TRYING TO RESPOND List. Cut down the nomination please, I only understand what you're trying to say up to the second line. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, shortened [27] sorry! If you want it shorter, please let me know. If you have any questions because what I wrote was not clear, please let me know. Thanks User_talk:Amarkov Travb (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no encyclopaedic purpose. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; there is no need to keep 3 separate lists of similar images, and this is by far the least complete of the three. Tizio 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: concur with Proto. -- Renesis (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment User:Renesis13, User:JzG and User:Tizio would you consider a comprimise? The page stays deleted but a wikiuser moves these images to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery Please let me know here. Thank you for your time. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am neutral on that proposal. I only think that it is an inappropriate use of user space. On whatever else may be done, I have no opinion. -- Renesis (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That page would still be redundant, even in project space. A solution is a merge of this page, Cyde's and Markaci's to the new location. Tizio 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone could give me a compelling reason why we need a gallery of images of nudity I guess I would advocate merging all of them to a single place in project space, that would be the obvious thing to do if the gallery has an encyclopaedic purpose. The reasons advanced thus far look a bit pointy to me. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and don't relist It's been decided before. Users have wide latitude to decide what they want in their userspace and if one or several users find this collection helpful and a utility to their efforts for the project, good on them. Idle collections of content are not disruptive. People who go out of their way to find objectionable material in userspace and then delete it and argue about it are disruptive. This project has way more important things to do than coddle people who have gone out of their way to find something they don't like. They should find a more productive use of their creative energy. SchmuckyTheCat 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, survived MFD, speedy is inappropriate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, if it survived a previous MfD it shouldn't be speedied. --tjstrf talk 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I concur with that Proto guy, too. I think the Wikipedians for Showing Pictures of Their Own Cocks already have most of these images in their stupid, pointless, trollbait, troublemaking, nothing-to-do-with-censorship-and-everything-to-do-with-irritating-people-to-make-a-point gallery. Proto::► 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• IMPORTANT NOTE: User:Travb has advertised and campaigned [28] [29] [30] [31] for this review, including to the user above. -- Renesis (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, the message left at my talk came after my opinion on the subject, and was a question of whether I'd consider a separate point of view on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I said "campaigned" :) -- Renesis (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Travb should know better. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• User:JzG (Guy), WP:Civil and no ad homenien attacks please, thank you. :) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• That was certainly not uncivil and certainly not an ad hominem attack. The reverse, maybe. But I don't see why you'd be arguing with that. And as to your comment below, this is process, not a straw poll. I appreciate that the canvassing was in good faith, at least. -- Renesis (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTE: As per Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette, there is nothing wrong with asking other wikipedians to comment on important issues that they probably have a personal interest in. Please also see, User:Travb/vote stacking, I welcome everyone's comments here, and if User:Renesis13 feels this issue is important enough that he would like others to comment on this AfD request, I warmly welcome it. Thanks for your concern and hard work User:Renesis13 and User:JzG, have a great evening.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Page was deleted completely ignoring procedures and consensus. Also, block BlooWilt whoever deleted it for misuse of admin powers. Edokter 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: BlooWilt, despite comments that implied such, is not an admin. This whole thing is getting out of hand -- people are opposing the action because of misconstrued impressions of what originally happened. User:TravB has misrepresented the original deletion by quoting BlooWilt as saying "I will delete it" but not pointing out that that is not actually what happened. User:TravB has also abused process by advertising this deletion review. I'd call for a Wiki mistrial, if there were such a thing. -- Renesis (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, nothing was misrepresented. BlooWilt litterarely said "I'm gonna delete it!" [32] If he's not an admin, he posed as one, which denenitely justifies a block. Plus I'm really curious who actually deleted the page; I can't find any mention of in in the deletion logs, except the original delete in may. Edokter 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Posing as an admin most certainly does not justify a block, even if that were a clear cut case, that required no reading into the comment. If you're using it as a tool to win a content dispute, you should get a punishment appropriate for threatened misuse of admin tools, but posing as an admin is irrelevant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Edokter: First, that's what I said -- BlooWilt said that, and Travb made NO indication that BlooWilt is not an admin and did not delete it. That's the misrepresentation. Second, blocks are preventative, not punitive. -- Renesis (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • TravB said "[BlooWilt] got the userpage deleted", rather than "Bloowilt deleted the page". He also linked to the deletion log [33] and said that 1ne was the admin that deleted it [34]. I don't see any misrepresentation on TravB's part nor motivation to do so. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:42Z
          • User:Renesis13, please WP:AGF and WP:Civil. You accusations against me are alarming, I would appreciate you deleting them or striking them out. You can look at my longer original message in the history, which explains everything in much more detail. I had to shorten it, per a request by an admin here. Again, WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Also WP:NPA Comment on the edit, not the user. Have a good evening, I am going to sleep. :) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Any violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA is only your perception. I have never commented on "the user" and not the content, and neither did JzG. I am really quite shocked that you think somewhere I have personally attacked you, or been uncivil. I do think your canvassing was inappropriate, though it seems it was in good faith. I just think it wasn't the right thing to do. -- Renesis (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to clarify: it was 1ne (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) who deleted the page. Why isn't he here?Edokter 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above comments. No encyclopedic purpose--the "censorship" card is completely irrelevant. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs
• Reluctant Overturn and List While I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted, it seems pretty evident that process wasn't followed. Something that survived MfD shouldn't have been speedied. Shimeru 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per above non encyclopedic and highly inappropriate. --NuclearZer0 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Innapropriate. No. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is also not a users homepage. So while Wikipedia is not censored its also not a place for someone to post death threats and hate messages, the idea that people are attempting to use WP:NOT seems to negate the fact that there is plenty that is not appropriate for wikipedia and outlined in other policies. Please read all of the policies, not just the one that supports you best. --NuclearZer0 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-MfD. I agree that we don't need this userpage, but speedy deletion following a "keep/no consensus" MfD is extremely inappropriate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:25Z
• Overturn. The page was kept in a previous MfD so it obviously should not have been speedied. Unless the page or the prevailing consensus on it has changed significantly since then, I don't see what re-listing it would accomplish. El_C wrote some excellent closing comments in the MfD. I think the suggestion to work on a policy proposal (rather than speedying, MfD'ing, and DRV'ing them repeatedly) is probably going to be the only really productive way to reach a consensus on acceptable image use on user pages. —ptk✰fgs 07:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. Censorship has nothing to do with it; simply put, such pages do not help in creating an encyclopedia. (Radiant) 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, looks like a case of invalid speedy deletion. bbx 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. If the argument is that it serves no encyclopedic purpose, then I must disagree because I've used pages like this (though not this particular one, to my knowledge) to find materials I wanted to refer to in discussions about the encyclopedia. So in at least some small way I have found pages like this useful in working on Wikipedia. Really though, they probably should be combined into some Wikipedia page, or better yet categorized (Category:Sexual images?). We do a poor job of organizing and categorizing images generally and we probably ought to do better. Sadly, I doubt we would be having this debate if it were a gallery of flowers. In response to some of the above comments, I would say that anyone who feels that organizing porn is inherently less appropriate than organizing flowers, would be making a content based judgment that is tantamount to censorship. Once we accept that this kind of content is acceptable to Wikipedia in general, I don't feel that arrangements and categorizations of it should be treated any differently than any other population of images. Dragons flight 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• overturn It should be treated even more liberally--a user page is more personal than a WP article may be. I would advise retitling the folder tho, on grounds of common sense.04:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse -- This is Wikipedia, not MySpace. User pages are intended to further the projects, not serve as a free webhosting site. Danny 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny. A collection of nude images which we use for tracking nude images would be fine, but setting up a "porn" gallery? Come on! Intent counts, and as Danny said, this isn't myspace. --Gmaxwell 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny. Voice-of-All 02:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a public scribbleboard. Demonstrated potential to cause disruption clearly outweighs any postulated potential for encyclopedic use. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, sorry, but I fail to see how this furthers the building of the encyclopaedia. I'm all for minor exceptions, but this page is turning to be more and more disruptive to Wikipedia's ultimate goal, and hence I think it should stay deleted. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny. Serves no purpose in building an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist -- this is not a discussion of the merits of the page, but of the decision to delete it. This page was once listed on MfD and not deleted, I think we ought to go there again before deleting it. I see no reason to ignore the need to seek consensus here. Mangojuice^talk 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Dragonsflight. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinity: The Quest For Earth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

An anon placed the following on WP:AFC: This article was deleted on the grounds that the game it discusses was vaporware, and nobody bothered to look for the download page ( http://fl-tw.com/Infinity/infinity_combat_proto.php ). ... I felt it best to get something up quickly as there was a link to the game posted on digg. The article looks a bit sloppy, but if we do find some source information, I believe it would satisfy the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity: The Quest For Earth. The deleted version can be found at the AFC for today, as someone took it from the google cache. As I'm unknowledgeable about the game, I abstain. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It was deleted for lack of reliable sources. The download page is most certainly not a reliable source. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (as closer) - Still no sources given, no new information. Wickethewok 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. While not a third-party source, a first-party location from which to download a program would generally be considered sufficient proof that said program exists. While Wikipedia is Not A Crystal Ball, much of the article was discussing content which was already in the available prototype. A simple google search reveals several articles discussing it, and since the group has already released a playable prototype which is a graphical match to the available videos, it can be reasonably assumed that features shown in the videos are likely not being faked.192.235.29.150 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter that it simply exists. Mere existence does not establish notability, nor does it provide verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and concur with Amarkov: Proving that it is not vaporware does not mean the article should exist. See WP:SOFTWARE . -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - As the original nominator, I know for a fact I made no mention of the words 'vapor' or 'ware'. My reasons were that it failed WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:N and WP:V. IT failed them now due to a lack of sources (and more than one person tried and failed to find more.) The Kinslayer 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. It doesn't fail WP:NOT a crystal ball as a playable version is available for download, and statements as to what features are planned for future revisions of released software are generally considered acceptable - What's currently stated is in violation of NPOV, but a simple rewrite would be enough to correct such a problem. As for verifiability, there is a playable version up for download (Which was made available two days after the article was deleted, thus a change in it's situation.) and several videos available for viewing.

The only point which it really falls short on is notability - aside from being nominated for ModDB's mod/game of the year award, there isn't really much talk of it in reputable sources; just blogs and forum posts.192.235.29.150 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the article said what was believed to be included in future releases of the game. That's crystal balling by my standards. You can't verify what isn't in the game yet, so that's WP:V. The only thing the playable demo does is establish existence of the game, which no-one is questioning. Being nominated for ModDBs Mod/game of the Year isn't worth shit. EVERYONE nominates their mod/game for that award, for pretty much the same reason that being listed in ModDB isn't worth shit due to the absence of inclusion criteria. The Kinslayer 14:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article as it was at the end of the AfD failed all the criteria. The point of this is if someone believes that an admin used skewed logic in deciding to delete an article. Since the article at the time did indeed fail, no inapproriateness exists. Even with the existence of a demo, there is not any worthwhile information on this game around which a wiki-worthy article can be made. If the game makes it to release, and it is as good as the devs that were trying to save the article claim it is, then it will be the work of a moment to include multiple, verifiable independant third-party sources won't it. There was no prejudice against re-creation once more information is available. The Kinslayer 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just nominated, it's currently one of the top 100 mods competing for first place.72.224.4.157 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So? They control a lot of fans, big deal. The mods are voted for by the fans. You think sock and meatpuppetry is bad here? It's 100 times worse over at ModDB. Practically every game and mod organises people on their message boards to vote as frequently as they can, skewing the results. ModDB is not a measure of notability, it's a measure of how well people can organise their fanbase. All the top mods have message threads on their boards saying 'click here once a day, your mod needs you!' The Kinslayer 09:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Horsefrog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 221.242.210.242 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC) The reviewers involved decided that this was a "site of little significance". This is a very specialized site dealing in a specific skill and if you happen to use that skill to make a living, the free resources on this site are extremely useful, a point which many of the users will attest to. Unless the editors are skilled in the field of Japanese to English patent translation I do not really see how they can pass judgement as to whether or not this site is a useful reference and as such should be entered in this encyclopedia. I am also extremely offended by the "guess" that this is spam.

• Endorse, valid AfD, the only edits to the article were by the above anon. user. No inbound links either. No reason to dispute the AfD result, in other words. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was a completely valid- and unanimous- AfD. It did take place almost nine months ago, but the above undeletion reason does not provide any added assertions of notability (nor do the 700 Google hits for "Horsefrog"). As Amarkov stated above, being a "useful reference" does not equate to being "notable" or passing WP:CORP. -- Kicking222 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per Kicking222. But I would be willing to change my mind if clear assertions of notability were provided. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Also, please do not take it personally. The web site may certainly be very interesting and useful. That's just not the point here. See WP:WEB. --Edcolins 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anal_stretching (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

History undeleted for review purposes. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete for A) To assist in recreating article with new, updated content, and B) Yomangani (admin) found article content to be along the lines of a how to, in which case, the article needs to be AMENDED not DELETED!!! C) If the only reason is the resemblance of a how to guide, then please allow me to make a fix and properly reference it. D) Anal stretching has its place in medicine as a medical procedure, in sexuality (both in males and females), and as a novelty Rfwoolf 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Provisionally, and due to Amarkov's comments, I have begun to rewrite the Anal stretching article. I trust you will find it is by no means a how-to guide, and it should not be deleted!!! Rfwoolf 16:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Two heavy-handed admins have deleted my article, twice, citing G4. But the article's content is good and doesn't in any way resemble a how-to guide. This is not fair Rfwoolf 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I would be very surprise if there are any reliable sources out there for this subject, and I would urge people not to engage in original research on the topic. Proto::► 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Enmdorse. If you can write a new article which includes references fro reliable sources and is not a how-to guide, go right ahead. This article was deleted for perfectly valid reasons by a deletion debate whose closure is also entirely valid. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume you do know that it is not possible for a non-admin like me to view the deleted article in order to build upon it? This is not simply a matter of rewriting the article, it is also a matter of restoring the deleted article, even temporarily, so as to amend it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rfwoolf (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion. You're not supposed to build upon it if it was deleted for good reason, you're supposed to do an entire rewrite. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (moving further down)
  • Seems nobody on Wikipedia is intelligent enough to explain why they adopt the "Delete instead of amend" principle for everything. Sure, the article was deleted. Sure, some admin believed it was too much like a how-to guide. But the "How To" grounds for deletion in "Reasons for deletion" refers specifically to articles that are by their very nature how-to guides, e.g. "How to build a boat" which would by definition have to give a guide on assembling a boat, as opposed to "Boat construction" which could go on to give you boat construction industry information, where most of the boats in the world are manufactured, who the leading manufacturers are, materials commonly used, etc. etc. The Anal Stretching article I believe contained some how-to information, and some encylopaedic information, and as you will agree the nature of the article should be the encylopaedic information part -- so why not amend? Why delete!??? -- Somebody? Anybody!? Rfwoolf 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Because we're discussing the content, not the subject. If the author(s) can't be bothered to write an article that meets policy then why should we care? The article was deleted as a how-to with poor sources. Yup, spot on. You want the article? Feel free to write an article that does not violate policy. Most of us couldn't care less whether we have an article on every minor bit of sexcruft on the planet, we just want the ones we do have to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine! I've recreated the article. Twice. It's been redeleted. Twice. Both times they cited G4 -- grounds for speedy deletion. Please undelete this article I am getting frustrated. Rfwoolf 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The history now being available, it should be clear to all that your version as last deleted was substantially identical, in large parts word for word the same. This was, therefore, a valid speedy G4 as re-creation of content deleted by a valid AfD. That is nearly two minutes of my life wasted on this junk. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Then would you say, Guy, that the article had grounds for deletion to begin with? You have actually contradicted yourself: You say that my version of the article is not a how-to guide, but is almost exactly the same as the one that was delete for being a how-to guide. The article should never have been deleted, it should have just been amended. I'll say it again, whenever possible, amend, not delete!
Rfwoolf 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Still endorse deletion. It's not a how-to guide now, at least. But it still has no reliable sources on the subject (you don't even mention anal fissures in the article). Sorry for wasting your time, Guy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not really wasted, at least the cards are now on the table. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Now hold on. It's not a how-to guide anymore so it should not be up for deletion on those grounds. Then as far as reliable sources are concerned, there are several decent references there, but as the TEMPLATE FREAKIN' SAYS I still need to fix up the footnotes and referencing -- not exactly grounds for deletion, admit it. Some of the references include medicle articles, and an interview published in a magazine. It may not be the best references in the world, but what more do you people bloody want? Help me keep this article! Rfwoolf 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Create the article in your user space, at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching, ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and not a how to guide. Then show it to me or to any other admin. If the article is reliably sourced, asserts why the topic is notable, doesn't read like a how-to guide, and is encyclopaedic, then the article will be recreated. Proto::► 09:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• ...and is significantly different from the validly deleted version (WP:CSD#G4), whihc is where the last two re-creations fell down. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Proto's suggestion is very good. If your ultimate goal is to get the article published on Wikipedia, the path of least resistance is to write a good article in your userspace first, then get an admin to review it. Amazon must have several published books that address this subject - buy or interlibrary loan a couple, then put together a sourced article, and you should be fine. TheronJ 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but allow recration through user space per Proto. I had argued it would be easier to improve the old article, but now I think the opposite -- if the old version is available, it won't change much, and it really needed to (and didn't have a lot of salvageable text in it). Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Mattuck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

Stub-sized article, failed to assert notability at first; bumped up from speedy by someone who noted that he was a tenured MIT math prof; discussion focused on whether his 15 year old articles counted for anything in WP:Bio; wasnt until a few hours ago that I realised that the proposed WP:PROF covers the possibility of an academic being notable because of a major textbook written by him, as is written by Mattuck. Closing admin deleted anyway. Was going to simply re-create, but decided to ask for a review first. Hornplease 06:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete for the reasons cited by Hornplease. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, although it should probably still be deleted. People weren't aware of the textbook. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I mentioned the textbook in the AFD. I could prove it was in a large number of libraries, but didn't know if it was being used as a textbook. If the requester here can show use as a textbook, I'd have had a different opinion in the AFD and thus would support a relisting now. But the evidence that it is used outside MIT as a textbook isn't here yet. GRBerry 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, I did in fact change my vote to note that there were uses of the textbook as a primary text. [35] I noted that the textbook information came late in the day in terms of the debate, and that the closing admin should take that into account. The debate was closed, and the article deleted, barely twenty minutes later. I can't think that that was appropriate in the least. Hornplease 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist Sigh, I missed your changed opinion in the AfD when I commented here. Too much missed too often in this discussion. With your finding of three universities other than MIT using the text for at least four courses this year, he meets WP:PROF. I think the article will need to be expanded to get a consensus keep opinion out of the next AFD, but just flipping mine probably would have put the last one into the no consensus zone. (Oh, yeah, another COI disclosure, my degree from MIT is in Math, but to the best of my memory I never had Mattuck as a professor.) GRBerry 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since we're doing COI, I should say that a good number of my students in the past - I don't teach math, but diffl eqns is a requirement - have been taught by Mattuck.Hornplease 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I am the one who create this article. I did it because The video lectures of Differential Equations at MIT OCW were done by him. Several MIT professors' that are involved in the OCW project haver their article at wikipedia. Just to mention some of them: Prof Walter Lewin, Prof Gilbert Strang and Prof. Sylvia Ceyer‎. The article was really short and to be honest it didnt have anything relevant but the personal webpage and the ocw link to the video lectures, but my intention was to create the article as an stub. Bcartolo 18:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW keep was made by non-admin due to poor nomination. As the nominator, I tried to renominate only to be told that I was violating WP:PROCESS. Somebody rescue me from the Wikipedia iterations of complication. Please --ScienceApologist 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

First afd here[36]. Bwithh 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Aargh. Now we have three layers of process to deal with. This is rather funny. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's not so complicated. The re-opening of the afd should be entirely routed through this page, Deletion Review. WP:IAR/WP:SNOW are causing tangles here, not process. I'll be happy to take a look at the first afd now, however I note that the afd renomination is still active[37] - this second afd should be closed to avoid concurrent discussion on DRV and the afd page. Bwithh 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The first was obviously improperly closed. Non-admins aren't supposed to do speedy keep, and they DEFINITELY can't when keeping is not unanimous. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reopen first afd; close second afd immediately Speedy keep was a too hasty application of WP:SNOW. If WP:SNOW is to be used at all, it should only be used where there are a large number of keep !votes with adequate reasoning and no other kinds of !votes or requests for further discussion. Here, the number of keep !votes was small and there was a request for further comment by an editor leaning to delete which the nominator was not given sufficient time to answer, and which was not taken into account by the closer Bwithh 06:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the second one has the accurate nomination and I was recommended to open a second nomination on my talkpage, wouldn't it be simpler to just keep the second nomination open? I mean, what's the point of talking about what "should" be as though there is a categorical imperative with respect to deletion discussions? --ScienceApologist 06:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The person who advised you to open a second nomination was an anon IP account. Not the best source. This isn't about categorical imperatives, its about due process. If everyone starts applying WP:IAR against each other , things just get more confusing. WP:DRV is specifically set up for sorting this kind of thing out. Bwithh 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing's wrong here, just let the second AfD go ahead. The first nomination was formatted wrong, so the discussion was directionless. Now there's a new nomination that fixes the situation. Let's focus on content and not on parlimentary proceduralism. WP:SNOW and WP:PROCESS are not policy, so debating about whether they've been followed to the letter is absurd. -- SCZenz 06:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I never asserted WP:PROCESS as a policy. What I pointed out is that the proper route is to go through WP:DRV, and that the WP:IAR/WP:SNOW tangle was causing the confusion (WP:SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR. The first nomination was closed. Disputing that closure and potentially reopening the first afd is the function of WP:DRV. In addition, your second nomination was set up in an unorthodox way Bwithh 07:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist made a mistake (leaving a nomination with few details), and then fixed it as best he knew how, and you are on a campaign to run him through a procedural wringer. Please stop. -- SCZenz 07:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I'm making a good faith attempt to uphold proper process. I resent the insinuation of malicious intent and ask you withdraw this Bwithh 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your good faith is not in question; I apologize if my words implied that. However, in this case you are doing the wrong thing for Wikipedia, and I ask you to stop and consider that. ScienceApologist is doing a good thing, trying to get rid of something that is original research, and there was some confusion... there's no need to add extra bureaucracy because of that. -- SCZenz 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the !keep opinions in the first afd as well as not giving the chance for the closer to explain themselves. Fairness is important for Wikipedia. The complications here are arising from people overriding normal process on both sides, not from process itself. Thanks for the suggestion, but I've already considered this situation. I usually do that before I act. Bwithh 07:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a technical article, so starting to !vote without any guidance was difficult, and most of them were !voting keep because the nomination was incomplete. Fairness is less important than good content, and the fact is that the article is original research and needs a reasonable deletion discussion. -- SCZenz 07:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now informed User:Split Infinity about this situation - which should have been done in the first place (the first step in disputing an afd closure should be to try and discuss the situation with the closer. Often, things can be solved just by that) Bwithh 07:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that User:Split Infinity created his/her account 9 days ago, and that he/she both voted in and closed the AfD in question. I've left a polite note about this on the user's talk page. -- SCZenz 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Request this DRV entry be archived. I think it's clear that there have been several confusions and misunderstandings in this incident, and at this point it's best to go ahead with the second nomination and put this DRV discussion behind us. Can I ask that an uninvolved admin or other DRV-maintainer consider being bold and archiving this section? Thanks, SCZenz 08:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Vacate this DRV and allow the 2nd nomination to proceed through AFD. Despite SCZenz's invitation for someone to be bold and do so, I'll refrain from a non-admin archiving of this discussion, seeing as how that's demonstrably how we got here in the first place. Serpent's Choice 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

John C. A. Bambenek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) deleted history)

User:Crzrussian said to bring appeal here. Article was speedied because of a previous afd 9 months ago. Since then, subject has become a syndicated columnist, been interviewed on several radio shows, include Bruno Behrend's show, has had his research mentioned in the New York Times [38] and the Washington Post [39]. He's become editor of Blogcritics and has had several articles out there. A quick lexis search shows up about 30 articles alone. I recreated because I thought he'd become notable, article was speedied and I was told to bring new claims of notability here. -- ChrisPerardi 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He also appears in several wikipedia articles I've had nothing to do with such as Blogcritics, Internet Storm Center, Spyware, and Net Neutrality. -- ChrisPerardi 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Undelete -- ChrisPerardi 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, definitely. Speedy if possible, please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bambenek (2nd nomination). - crz crztalk 13:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per nom, not against a relist, either, but may not be necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete Undelete and List no new information since the AfD. Keep him in the Blog Critics and Net Neutrality articles. He is not syndicated outside of his school paper. --jaydj 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It also might be worth noting that Chris Perardi is a blogger from the same University as Mr. Bambenek and his view of Mr. Bambenek's notability might be slightly skewed. --jaydj 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Check Google News... lots of stuff there he's written that's not with the Daily Illini[40] (a paper, by the way, he's no long a part of per his blog [41]). Lexis-Nexis has hits too. He's syndicated. And his research is widely noted and he's known for his information security work independent of his column. -- ChrisPerardi 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As requested, I checked your link. Daily Illini (a school paper which you say he is no longer a part of) and Men's News Daily (Anyone can register and post an article). To what publications is he syndicated? --jaydj 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • John describes himself as "self-syndicated". This means he posts the same article himself in many places. This does not fit the formal definition of syndicated. --jaydj 03:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Jay above. Eusebeus 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Has become more prominent since last AfD 9 months ago. More press and public exposure. --Oakshade 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete - if there's any question that the notability has then csd g4 no longer applies: Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject.. It's not identical, so it doesn't apply. Period. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist this. I think a new AfD is needed. Yanksox 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support this... vote changed --jaydj 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

American Fascist Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (deleted history|AfD)

Deleted by konstable who has had his powers removed for abuse. LeoniDb 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The deletion was valid, it doesn't really matter who did it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, Konstable had his Admin bit removed for a totally unrelated issue. The argument put forward by the applicant is a red herring, and a pretty bad one at that. No evidence has been provided that the article meets Wikipedia policy. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Fascist Movement.-gadfium 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I hate Illinois Nazis. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- Renesis (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, Salt Earth How did this crap get recreated in the first place after the first AfD? Eusebeus 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oh cool, I dropped by on a completely unrelated issue and it seems I am still popular. Hi LeoniDb, aka Dormantfascist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I did not close the AfD of that article, I speedied it because it already had a closed AfD and was a re-creation of a deleted article. I asked you, the abusive creator, to take it to here but you did not choose to do that and instead decided to first try recreating it under various names, then vandalising my user pages and asking for the password reminder to my account.--203.109.209.49 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You could have made it slightly clearer you are who you are, I was ready to revert you until I checked your contribution history. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The nominator accused this institution of being a diploma mill, possibly based on confusion with an institution with a similar name in England. The Canadian institution is a harmless career college whose students are eligible for government student loans, as indicated by the OSAP references in the article. The majority to delete was based on confusion rather than the merits of the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Being a diploma mill wasn't the reason for deletion, being non-notable was. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Nothing out of process. Topic was deemed unnotable. Eusebeus 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak overturn - it's kind of like tainting the jury. The arguments may not be against deleting for a specific reason, but you never know if the jury would have decided differently if the specific knowledge had not been given them. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn people voted to delete a different school.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - Despite the AfD being moved to Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada), the nomination still stated very clearly "This article appers to be an advertisement for a Diploma mill." At least 2 delete votes stated "Per nom." The "nom" had it incorrect for this college and people voted on the wrong subject based on the nomination's comments. --Oakshade 07:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. Putting aside the confusion regarding the diploma mill business, I didn't find the subject notable. I support putting it back on WP:AFD with a clear and unambiguous nomination. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse; advertisement devoid of encyclopedic content. (Radiant) 09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Looks like confusion between two similarily named schools has made this AFD suspect. I won't argue whether the school itself is notable or not, but let's make sure we're deleting the right school from the beginning. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete as per Oakshade, too many ambiguities in the original nomination. Yamaguchi先生 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)