Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 27

Cosmic Flight Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I didn't create the article for it to be deleted. I even said on the article's talk page that I understood that the article was liable for speedy deletion, and I even rebuttled with a statement on the article's Talk Page. My article was titled "Cosmic Flight Entertainment," I cannot type out a whole perfect article that you might expect at the moment, especially when it was about 3 AM whenever I was typing it. This has been at least the third time that I have tried and created the same article, but you ignoramoses keep deleting it.

Your next step is deletion review. I didn't delete Cosmic Flight Entertainment because it was imperfect or unfinished, but because it failed to assert notability.--Kchase T 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand that. As stated before, I did intend to further develop my article, so that it may meet the specific guidlines.

Putting "assertion to notability" more bluntly: why should anyone care about this group? Why do they merit an article? What makes them important or significant? Answer that question and you may have yourself a good reason to head to DRV.--Kchase T 19:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I feel that their background needs to be told, I've seen dozens of articles that render the same thing that I am trying to accomplish, and even those, I love reading through. This article is basically for informational purposes, which is what, I think anyway, Wikipedia should be. Yes, you may not understand what I am getting at, but if you un-delete the article, I will show you that I can create an article that "asserts notability" by updating the article with current projects, news, etc. One such article that I belive deserves to be deleted more than my own article is Mondo Mini Shows, just off the top of my head. I mean, even I am willing to create a more relevent article than that, and I will create a more relevent article than that.

Need I say anymore? Un-delete my article.

• My speedy deletion was the third one on A7 grounds. Other than that, I don't have much to say about the whole thing.--Kchase T 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Based on the answers.com mirror, I see no assertion of notability. Author can offer no claim to notability at the moment, but promises some will be forthcoming at some point in the future if the article's undeleted? I don't think so.Fan-1967 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep your comments to yourself, the information that the page you linked to was not what I had on the page, anyway. And if the page was restored, I would be able to prove that.
    • I've restored for the purpose of viewing at this DRV. This is procedural; if the DRV closes with an "endorse deletion", it will be deleted again. This is the version I deleted.--Kchase T 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If you feel that you need to preemptively fight off a speedy, it almost certainly is a speedy candidate, and this is not one of the exceptional cases. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, if you would just Restore the article I will be able to edit it to it's full potential. I shouldn't have to prove anything, especially whenever there was nothing wrong with the article that I submitted. There was a reason why I put the "hangon" message at the begginning of the article, so that it wouldn't be deleted immediately. As mentioned before, I said that I would edit and update the page on the article's talk page. I had some valuble information that I had put on that page, and now cannot retrieve. If anything, could you send me the transcript of the article so that I may have it filed in my system? This is not what I expected from you, Wikipedia, I thought that you would at least have administrators with the slightest decensy to respect others.

You don't need to have a wikipedia article to show notability. That's circular logic, and it doesn't work. If you'd explain notability here, you might get better results. Empty insistences don't mean anything to anyone but yourself. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Yell that it's notable 'til you're blue in the face. Your insistence won't magically turn a non-notable website into a notable one. Danny Lilithborne 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you've to use the existance of a company's Wikipedia article to demonstrate its notability, the article is in deep trouble. And just take a look at the 19 gorgeous Google hits [1] - another telltale sign of a non-notable company. No wonder reliable sources have not been given to assert notability, either in the article or on this very page! Without reliable sources, you can write a billion words of your most fluent English, and the article will still be deleted. That's how important sources are. Kimchi.sg 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh - a non-notable company. Please demonstrate notability through verifibility, namely reliable sources, and I will reconsider my opinion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as hopelessly non-notable. The article's one attempt to claim notability is that the webmaster supposedly recieved a (unspecified and unsourced) compliment from the co-writer of a web cartoon. If that were all it took to get an article, we'd have to totally abandon the very concept of being an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Seeking advice Could I have done this differently? Was it inappropriate to foist the editor off on DRV so quickly? Replies here, on my talk page, or via email are appreciated. I'm still a newbie admin.--Kchase T 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's usually best not to start or suggest a DRV (or AFD, or RFA, or RFC, or any editor-heavy process) if there isn't a reasonable chance that it might succeed. It would probably have been preferable to introduce the author to the relevant deletion guidelines (e.g. WP:CORP, WP:V, etc) and pointed out some good articles in a similar field that the author might want to work on instead. A DRV is really only for when there's a question of whether deletion process was followed, or if substantial new information arises since the deletion occurred. Neither applies here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. I will do so next time. Thanks, Starblind.--Kchase T 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• User:GageShoichi tried deleting this discussion. I have restored it. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

George Nozuka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

4:3 is not consensus. (I hesitate to add that the article passed the criteria the nom used as grounds for deletion.) Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion The links provided in the AfD [2] [3] [4], would seem to meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC (multiple non-trivial sources), and much of the discussion about them occurred after the argument was added. Though the nominator's view didn't change, the only !vote after that was keep. Consensus can change based on new information (though it's still possible that the others !voting delete saw the dialogue and it still didn't sway them).--Kchase T 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. It's not a vote, but there still wasn't consensus as to whether or not WP:MUSIC was met. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weakly relist, sorry Nick, but I'm not sure if I agree with you 100% that they were unreliable sources. I think the best route here would be to relist in an attempt to determine whether these sources fufill WP:MUSIC or not, by determining whether they are reliable or not. Of course, DRV isn't the forum to do that, and there is every chance that they could be considered unreliable, but for now, concensus at that AfD seems to say that they're not unreliable, and that is what stands at the moment. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete notable Canadian performer who unfortunately makes me realize that I've moved from the Much to the MuchMore demographic. Also no consensus to delete -- Samir धर्म 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Master E.K. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

My article on Master E.K. is deleted and protected by Admin Zoe. I have provided enough third party links to establish notability and also links to the directly related websites. I have described the article in my own words with a couple of lines still needing rewording. I request any other admin to look into this and help with restoration. This is a genuine article and the links I provided in the deleted page will prove it. Admins please look into this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalamani (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

• Although the person is a non-notable guru, the most recent reason for deletion was because the article was a copyright violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So why not unlock it so it can be restored? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do we want a copyvio restored? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • From what I'm reading, he's not planning on posting a copyvio. Alternatively, if he wants to send me the sources, I'll be glad to post the article, but I see no reason not to assume good faith here - he's a new user who may not have understood the copyvio situation. Now he does. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The matter is not just about a copyvio, although in fact it has happened twice. It is that the user doesn't understand repeated requests for reliable sources, none of which have been forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not having reliable sources isn't a CSD, but I probably would have done the first few speedies on A7 or spam grounds. That said, it might be worth unsalting so this can get a trip to AFD and be put to rest for good.--Kchase T 21:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list, it doesn't look like a speedy candidate to me. Also, it's nice to be able to G4 things. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You want us to overturn a copyvio? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, well, endorse deletion if every version was a copyvio. Otherwise, just don't restore the copyvio versions. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as copyvio. However, an unprotect might be warranted. If he's a new user, a third chance isn't too much to ask, I think. Constructing the new article in userspace would work too, but he might not know how to do that. Shimeru 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been deleted five times now, and his previous incarnation as User:Iamthere has had several people discuss his edits with him, and he's been blocked once now for repeatedly recreating the content. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah. Leave it protected, too, in that case. Wasn't sure that was the same user. Shimeru 01:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and warn user about submitting copyvio material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

AfD is a discussion not a vote. None of the individuals indicating the article should be kept actually provided any material which would show the article meets WP:WEB. Tarinth claimed to have found some via google, but no google searches I did provided any non-trivial coverage of the site outside a bunch of rehashes of the press release which WP:WEB clearly addresses as not being enough to satisfy the criteria for notability. In fact a search is here [5] which shows their home page, a blog, wikipedia, a forum thread, and then the start of a bunch of mentions of the press release. If there IS non-trivial coverage, great. I'd just like to actually see it. Crossmr 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Discounting the absurd slippery slope argument, there was obviously disagreement as to whether the coverage was non-trivial. "AfD is not a vote" doesn't mean "I can ignore disagreement if I'm obviously right". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to Relist. I didn't realize there was a big issue with reliability, so I didn't bother to check that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  WP:WEB is rather clear on what non-trivial coverage is, and reprintings of the press release are not it. Outside of that and forums/blog coverage there didn't seem to be anything else and nothing else was presented. Disagreement doesn't give license to keep articles simply because enough people disagree with its removal if the basis for their disagreement is unfounded. That is a rather slippery slope for a group of editors to show up and use WP:ILIKEIT arguments to keep any article under the sun simply because they disagreed with its removal. Claiming a trivial mention is non-trivial is no different than any other argument presented there.--Crossmr 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  There were other things presented, you just thought they weren't reliable sources. Obviously, people disagreed. If WP:WEB could easily be unilaterally applied correctly, we'd make non-notability a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  And those sources are covered by WP:RS. We're also pretty clear on the fact that forums and blogs aren't reliable, and not being reliable they can't be used to establish notability. Otherwise I could go out and drum up some pretty amazing notability for my big toe and muddle an AfD discussion into no consensus by citing them as sources of notability. We also have a non-notable speedy criterion. WP:SPEEDY#Articles A7. There is no importance asserted here outside of some sites repeating the press release and some blog/forum talk which doesn't satisfy a single criteria required for notability or to assert its importance.--Crossmr 23:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist or delete. As far as I can see, every single one of the cited sources is a press release, and that, without a shadow of a doubt, fails the WP:RS test. I can't see any evidence that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relistor delete, per Guy. Those sources are a very thin foundation on which to base notability, importance, or even existence. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, on reviewing and looking at the sources, I agree that they don't quite satisfy WP:RS. I should have extended debate instead of closing it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 00:52Z
• Endorse closure because the arguments presented here sound merely like a continuation of an AfD discussion, rather than a Deletion review. According to the guidelines for Deletion review:

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

During the AfD debate, a number of opinions regarding the reliability of sources in the gaming industry were presented and considered, and there was no particular consensus reached. The admin correctly interpreted the lack of consensus.

That said, some further improvements in the article's sourcing have already been made subsequent to the AfD's closure. Perhaps it would be reasonable to relist the article for AfD after a reasonable amount of time (typically a couple of months?), should editors identify new information that suggests it should be deleted, but as of now no one has raised an opinion that isn't a rehash of the AfD discussion (which comes down to subjective judgments about what constitutes triviality or not, and what magazine publications are good enough to be regarded as a reliable source). Tarinth 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

An administrator closing an AfD without properly considering the points raised is a reason for DRV. My contention was that the administrator closing it as no consensus simply looked at the amount of people on each side and failed to properly assess the arguments. By his own admission he didn't properly evaluate the sources presented. I'm not rehashing the AfD I'm saying that the point still remains valid, it wasn't addressed in the AfD, and no sources were provided to show notability during the AfD. If there are valid sources to show notability all I want is to see actually see them. If they can't be provided then there is no reason to keep this article. As it stands every single reference on that page is still either a blog or a rehash of the press release, both or from the site itself.--Crossmr 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist or delete Unreliable sources + some inflation of google hits by !keep arguers. Bwithh 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:WindowHome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|TfD)

WindowHome template is widely used in Italian Wikipedia. I found nothing similar in English one. Of course, if any is available, I will be glad to use it. Otherwise I would appreciate if you could keep it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 14:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this used? I don't get it from the deleted history, and the TfD was only based on the lack of pages using this template. Tizio

I began to use it in my User page (which is now garbaged) and I planned to use it in my contribution after some minor refining (as adding an icon in the top bar) since it allows to create a box with an header, a footer, and other features. You can see it in [6], for example. It is very useful and I see nothing similar here.--Dejudicibus 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted so your user page looks proper again. I recommend publicizing it, for instance on WP:VP, otherwise it should be substed into your user page and redeleted. Templates only make sense if they're used across pages. ~ trialsanderrors 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I cant find the Afd (there may have been one but I cant see it) and without seeing the Afd discussion, I am appalled that this article has been deleted with 816,000 google hits: this reporting engine is one of the best open source report engines. I have recreated the article as User:Jayvdb/Saved pages/JasperReports from the Google cache[7] in order that I can make use of the material that I saw a few weeks ago. I see, now that I have previewed this Deletion review (and looked at Special:Log), that User:Aaron Brenneman performed this deletion. John Vandenberg 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this as having no claim to signifigance, aka advertising. A number of google hits is not an indication of notability, and the speedy deletion criterion says if something "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" it may be speedily deleted. A "fundamental rewrite" is one that would include sources other than press releases. If multiple reliable third party sources for this are found, then a stub may be re-written. - brenneman 04:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, I can understand this article being deleted by someone who isn't familiar with the problem domain, as it was worded as if from a press release (a {{advert}} or {{copyvio}} tag may have been more appropriate), but I do expect administrators to go through the hoops of putting a tag on the page for long enough that others can respond. If you bypassed this, and immediately proceeded to carry out your own judgement, and if that is permitted by wiki process, then IMO there is something wrong with the process. A speedy by an admin should be put on the same queue as other speedies, and carried out by a different admin to ensure it passes by two at least two sets of eyes. John Vandenberg 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've placed a longer response on Jayvdb's talk, but the short version is: True, but... We almost always get it right, and there is literally NO ONE who'll object to a well-written user-space article that demonstrates notability from reliable sources being moved into the real encyclopedia. - brenneman 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but in the event someone does get it wrong, isnt this the place to come? I dont see why there is any reluctance to have the article restored; it's notability has been easily demonstrated, and this article hasnt been recently created, so there was no impending doom if it wasn't removed post haste. To further illustrate this, it has been linked to from Java Platform, Enterprise Edition for over a year and a half. My guess is that the article history goes back as far, and I would prefer that the history was retained so that people who have linked to specific version of the article are not left scratching their heads. In this case, I do not see that the article text justified deletion -- it was not blatant advertising -- it was primarily informative, but clearly written by a fan. It did not need to be completely rewritten in order to be encyclopaedic, it just needed a tag, like {{sources}} or {{advert}}, and a minor rework by someone familiar with the problem domain to include evidence of notability and other tweaks in order to become a good stub. John Vandenberg 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• John, in your quest to recreate, I suggest you start here. It may keep it from being speedied in the future. --jaydj 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I havent met archivesearch before, so much appreciated! I will be improving the article as soon as the original history is restored. (t'was my intention to do so today when I was rudely shocked to see a reasonable stub had become a redlink when I wasnt watching). John Vandenberg 06:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've restored the article. I guess I can see how people not in the field might get thrown off, but this is clearly a notable subject for an encyclopedia article, and certainly does not fit under speedy deletion guidelines. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't do that while discussion is ongoing. I've placed the {{tempundelete}} template and protected the page as is convention when there's contention. There's a version in user space linked above that can get a shiny-fied up if it's possible to do so.
    brenneman 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Unless reliable independent sources provided, the article is a fair game for AfD, although I agree that speedying an article with a resonably long history is kinda disrespectish to multiple contributors. `'mikkanarxi 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Try these Google Scholar hits. Of course JasperReports is notable. It has O'Reilly books written on it. It has over 900,000 Google searches for Chrissakes, and hundreds of them are various tutorials, walkthroughs, or custom libraries. It's obvious that this subject at least deserves an AFD (though what it really deserves is to be kept). Anyone fighting in support of this outrageous speedy deletion is simply wrong. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• From WP:CSD "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media 'on sight' without further debate." The article was clearly in an advertising voice from start to finish, so it met the speedy deletion criteria under which it was deleted. We encourage but don't require deleting admins to determine if there is a better version in history (not that I see), but don't expect them to do even a google search of research. Speedy deletion of an article does not mean that the topic does not merit an article, just that the existing text is not worth keeping around. The entire article does need to be rewritten to be appropriate for Wikipedia, so the deletion would have been correct if it had cited G11, as the explanation above does (sans acronym). The deletion log shows A7, which I don't think is applicable to this topic. (The second deletion by a different admin of a fraction of the article does show G11.) Since I conclude that the entire article needs to be rewritten, I endorse deletion despite the citation error in the deletion log. If it is indeed as notable as Cyde thinks, recreation will be easy, and will be completed in userspace before this review has run its course. GRBerry 05:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it , this process is intended to allow recovery of articles that have been deleted unnecessarily in light of further consideration, based on the Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. That I can fetch the page from the google cache and recreate it as better version does not factor into this discussion one iota as far as I can tell, and justifying the G11 status it was initially given doesn't help. As I have stated here and on my talk page, I can see why G11 may be used as a reason for the deletion (I see it as justifiably incorrect), but I contest that if G11 was used this liberally across the board, administrators would speedily delete a large percentage of wikipedia on sight, as much of it is written with too many superlatives. Please point out what part of the article is Blatant advertising, and/or why wikipedia would be a better place with the article expunged from the history. John Vandenberg 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• undelete this one please per cyde weys he makes good arguments for notability so overturn this soon Yuckfoo 06:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article should never have been deleted. --Kaoti 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep deleted. The supporters had plenty of time for addressing the major concerns of notability. Please don't forget that we are not deleting topics. We are deleting poor articles. If original contributors don't bother to fix it, why don't we just wait another serious person writes a good one? There is nothing unsalvageable in the deleted article, mostly cut and pastes of promotional materials. (That is why it was deleted in the first place, I guess: zero third-party independent evaluation). Mukadderat 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete. The userspace version does not have to be "fundamentally rewritten' to meet our standards, so this was a bad G11. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck E. Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This is an appalling decision after all the work I did sourcing the article. I firmly established notability with the work I did, and I was told only 24 hours ago that it wasn't enough - a point I strongly dispute, and barely enough time for that point to be sorted out. No one told me what was wrong with the article in more specific terms so I could address it. Saying that it failed WP:NOT and WP:BIO without specifics is not enough and I firmly believe it does NOT fail WP:NOT. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now the article has re-appeared while I posted the above, and yet the AfD discussion still says delete??? CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion, keep undeleted, whatever. Sources came late, obviously meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural note: despite being closed as delete, logs (so far as I can see, anyway) do not appear to indicate that deletion was ever actually carried out. Serpent's Choice 14:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Even after the sources were added, deletes came in, and the only extra keep after that was "speedy keep, bad faith nom", which is entirely inapplicable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Amarkov I did request more information to back up the claims made in those post update delete notes - and the bad faith nom did have a supporter (and I support the point as well if you check the history of the nominator - I disagree that it is inapplicable because it would create a serious precedent). That's why I say the action was premature because the AfD was closed too soon after my requests for specifics so I could either act or debate the point - whichever would have been appropriate. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is inapplicable. WP:SK prohibits speedy keeps in a case where any delete is made in good faith. Also, your requesting more information does not mean they were wrong. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The AfD was made in bad faith, Amarkov. By an established sock. By going delete justifies the sock's behaviour which is what creates the dangerous precedent - whether the deletion is right or wrong in admin's opinion. Nominations must be made by credible users. Further, I maintain that they are wrong and because the deletion was too soon after my updates I was not given a chance to prove it - as long as they answered my questions (ie - how did it fail WP:BIO after the update, and how it failed WP:N which I totally disagree with hence my query as to what more was needed). I firmly believe that it didn't fail either, and I believe enough was present and sourced to retain. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? If they think it fails WP:BIO, that means they think none of the criteria apply. Your believing that it meets WP:BIO doesn't mean that further deletes are ill-informed. Also, it is absurd to say that an article must be kept simply because a sockpuppet nominated it. This reminds me of the person who wanted a deletion overturned because the admin who closed the debate has since been desysopped. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You're missing my point, Amarkov re the WP:BIO. When criteria was questioned, I asked for more information. It never came, because the article was deleted before anyone had a chance. The article was deleted too soon after my update. It was the update that was questioned, and I wanted specifics. Time should have been given for those specifics to be provided. Until those specifics are provided, I believe the comment that it failed WP:BIO to be wrong. Not to mention the issue of WP:N which was also not addressed similarly. As for the sock nomination - if you were to look at the history of the sock concerned (JB196) and all his alias's including BooyakaDell you'll see a history of bad faith AfD nominations. My concern there is that anyone can create a sockpuppet and get an article deleted out of petty spite. Bad faith must be discouraged - whether the AfD is valid or not. And making sure that bad faith nominations do not get deleted is a means to prevent that from happening. It's a smack in the face to WP's credibility if known troublemakers (as distinct from desysopped users) can affect WP's database like that. I hope that explains my point better. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm laying the sockpuppetry concerns to rest here; think what you will. Now, I don't see how the fact that you made an update automatically means it should be extended. If it did, anyone could just filibuster an AfD eternally. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What? I'm trying to do the right thing by an article that cleary did NOT fail WP:BIO and WP:N. Where's the filibusting in that? I think I'm entitled to ask why time was not given to address what I consider to be frivilous statements by those who made the claims that they failed those guidelines. Is it too much to ask specifically why the article failed in both those respects? CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. None of the arguments advanced here hold much water, and don't (convincingly) contradict the AFD arguments. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The article did NOT fail WP:BIO and WP:N, Calton. That doesn't hold much water? CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 02:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Taking out comment here as it was made by a known sockpuppet. Hope that's OK. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence MSN Live Search comes back with 35 hits on "Chuck E. Chaos" which disproves the failing of WP:BIO by passing the Search Engine Test. [8] CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... since when was 35 a large number? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Australian wrestling that is a HUGE number, Amarkov! Most other wrestlers would struggle to make double figures. CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 10:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Utter failure of WP:BIO, with 40 unique Google hits this person is just not notable. It doesn't matter if he is more well known than other non-notable persons, the fact stands that he is not notable.--RWR8189 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

American Professional Football League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was listed under Articles for Deletion (see AfD above template), and the majority of users who voted said Keep. However, the admin (Samuel Blanning) deleted it anyway, which I think is an abuse of power. I left a message warning him and informing him that if he did it again, I would inform the proper admins to investigate as to whether he should be desyssopped (did I spell that right?). I think that should be reviewed, as the decision did not reflect the consensus. Tom Danson 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as the closing admin said verifyablity is non-negotiable. If the league is covered in reliable sources then an article can be recreated citing them. If not, it should stay deleted. Eluchil404 07:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The league and teams' websites are listed on their respective pages, aren't they? They have news stories and original photos, don't they? How more reliable can you get than that? Tom Danson 07:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: AfD is not a vote. None of those commenting addressed the issue of WP:V, and that, as Sam said, is non-negotiable. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Keeps seem to be based on the misperception that notability means a free pass on verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as there were no links to verify the league or the teams, but there are sufficient Google links to reliable sources that the articles can be recreated. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just hope nobody tries protecting the articles. I also think Sam Blanning should be desysopped. Tom Danson 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Your comment borders on disruption. ~ trialsanderrors 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Tom, your comment is inappropriate. Sam was following policy. The articles had no reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Sam's closing comment at the AfD hardly sounds drunk with power -- as he said, if reliable sources are found, he has no objection to restoring the articles. Luna Santin 11:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• http://www.cjonline.com/koyotes shows all the articles the Topeka paper wrote about the Koyotes starting with the 2003 season. Mateinsixtynine 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Question(s) Isn't WP:RS a guideline (and is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"), rather than a policy? If so, WP:RS would seem to be a weak reason for deleting an article. Is it fair for a "guideline" (ergo, NOT policy) to be quoted as if a violation of policy has occurred, thus making deletion the only course? If we accept this rather bureaucratic reason for deletion, should we speedy delete the Sun article, as no one has visited the sun, ergo no reliable source exists for said article? -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No. WP:RS is a guideline because it's just simply a guide; failing it doesn't automatically mean an article should be deleted. But the concept of reliable sources being needed is just WP:V restated, and verifiability is a policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I see. So one can conclude that WP:V is more important (being policy) than WP:RS, along with WP:OR and WP:NPOV (the three content policies), correct? What happens when one of the three conflicts with another? -- weirdoactor ^t|c 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • How can they conflict with each other? None of them say something must be included, they only say that some things may not be included. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • An example of how they might conflict with one another: WP:V calls for WP:RS; but WP:NPOV calls for neutrality. If your WP:RS is a a paper by a scientist, published in a science journal, and your article is about science, where is the neutrality? -- weirdoactor ^t|c 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The parts of the paper which are not neutral, you either don't use, or rephase as "Scientist X thinks...". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But wouldn't any of the information in the source article be the fruit of the poisonous tree insofar as WP:NPOV vs. WP:V? I'm not trying to be obtuse or obstinate; I'm honestly trying to reconcile what I see is a fallacy/disconnect in these concepts. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it would be. So you would probably have to get some other sources to remove the poison from the fruit. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not contesting the deletion per se, but I found this article that has a graf on the APFL's 2006 season (from a site that is arguably the best source for coverage of minor U.S.-based sports leagues), this article on the controversy involving the Wichita franchise, this older article on an Iowa-Kansas game from 2004 (covered in a major daily paper), etc., just in one quick Google search. Seems to me that there's enough to go on here. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  As I said in the closing, the deletion of unsourced articles does not prejudice against the creation of sourced ones. Any General-4 deletion in that case should be overturned, preferably speedily. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Could somebody give me an idea of what the deleted page looked like so that I could recreate it with sources? Tom Danson 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See [9]. ~ trialsanderrors 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

W00t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Clear consensus was not shown for deletion. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that the term is notable enough to deserve its own page, as do leet and pwn. I don't even LIKE modified text that much, don't give it much attention at all; but w00t I know and love. The fact that a person who isn't all that aware of such language, and in fact abhors it is defending the word should be some indication of its notability, as were the citations on the now deleted page. If Wikipedia is a big enough tent for overlong fancruft like this; we certainly have room for w00t. Thank you. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 02:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment w00t may be somewhat comparable to pwn/pwn'd but leet is the name of the whole style of language Bwithh 02:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Beware of the Pokémon fallacy - crz crztalk 02:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Beware the fallacy of rules. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 02:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Inappropriate selective notification!! - crz crztalk 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • crz, I don't recall getting notification of your intent to AfD the article. I'll assume good faith, and guess that it was lost in the mail, yes? -- weirdoactor ^t|c 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Notification of AfD is nice, but not required. Danny Lilithborne 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Is "selective notification" a violation of policy or procedures? Is ANY notification required? Please let me know if I've erred, and I won't make the same mistake twice. crz: you found the DRV in a timely fashion, did you not? Did I cloak the DRV is some way that I was unaware? Did I not inform the deleting admin, per policy? I'm not sure what crz's accusation is here...and make no mistake, there is an accusation (by him, of me) here of bad faith. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 05:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Notifying editors with a plea to keep or delete or notifying only editors with a known position is strongly discouraged per WP:SPAM. ~ trialsanderrors 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
              • *Cough!*. Seriously. How many different ways should I inform people? Yes, I only sent personal messages to “keep” voters; but I posted about the DRV on the talk page of the AfD, where ALL could see it, right? In fact, if I'd sent a message to ALL, then I would have been SPAMing. Where is the line? What is the standard? -- weirdoactor ^t|c 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Also, *cough*. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I think the closure was completely valid. By my simply head count, there were 9 keep !votes, 14 redirect !votes, and 6 delete !votes. Aside from redirect getting the plurality (which, I agree, is not consensus), some of the keep !votes were "keep because I like using w00t" or "keep but source" (but, of course, if an article isn't sourced, it isn't an article). This wasn't the neatest, most clear-cut closure ever, and I certainly see why Weirdo (great name, BTW) brought this to DRV, but I don't think the closer was at any fault, considering that a strong majority (20 vs. 9 = 69%) did not feel that the word needed its own article. I !voted redirect, though I have no problem with w00t as a word nor with internet slang terms having their own pages, but regardless of my opinion, I agree with the closure. -- Kicking222 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And now I'd like to amend my statement to note that I feel we should restore the edit history per everyone below. Of course, there's a huge difference between keeping an article and creating a redirect but deleting the history outright. -- Kicking222 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question Was there a compelling reason to delete the edit history? A delete and redirect is usually only performed if the old article and the new redirect are unrelated, are if there is objectionable content in the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that as well, when I went to try and expand the entry here, using the old entry. Very odd, indeed. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's definitely as notable as other internet slang terms with their own article. Heck, I've heard it used more than half of them. Slicedoranges 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Kicking222 Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endore redirection, but restore history behind redirect. Presumably, the article discussed the slang term as mentioned at the new target, so there's no reason we have to discard the GFDL information, and should further sourcing arise in future it will simply the resplit. Serpent's Choice 06:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete but keep redirected. There was no reason at all for the deletion, and it crushes the possibility of a merger if things are verified. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  The article can be restored in userspace; as of now it stands as unencyclopedic and the information that is available about it over the internet is on research articles dealing with l337 speak. And, uh... by the way, the deleted edits can be restored when "the stuff" is verified and notable. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  Um, yes, the article can be restored. In fact, that's why I said "Undelete." But you're missing the point that regular users won't be able to see it when it's deleted. I don't know if you're aware, but regular users can research and insert footnotes, too. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute?

  LOL, perhaps we should just blank article pages than deleting them, lest they prove notable in the future? — Nearly Headless Nick 10:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you're deliberately trolling or what. It's notable now, which is why so many people thought a redirect was appropriate. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, I am not trolling, nor was it my intention to. However, it appears that you failed to take the pain to search the internet for independent and reliable sources on the matter. All the sources link to either l337 speak pages or list of internet slangs which feature w00t. I, further consider this discussion finished as I do not have any intention to continue with a administrator who fails to assume good faith with another one. --Nearly Headless Nick 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  /me retracts statements. GLORY TO GFDL! --Nearly Headless Nick 12:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete but keep redirected. Deleting the history serves no purpose, and removes the accessibility of GFDL information that could possibly be cited and included a some point in the future. --Delirium 09:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think undeleting the history is controversial, so I am doing it. - crz crztalk 16:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete - Like someone said, its as notable as any other leetspeak term and a scandal that it was ever deleted. If someone finds some verified research then we have an article. --Mozman 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (redirection, whatever), keep the history. No reason to remove it, because it wasn't terrible, but notability is not a free pass on verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. It's rather baffling that people think arguments for keeping like "I love the word w00t" should be taken seriously. No reliable sources were found... internet "I like it" bias lost for a once, let's move on. --W.marsh 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, you ARE baffled if you believe such an argument was made here. Please point to such a statement. Thanks. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It was a copy and paste of a comment from the AfD, the closure of which is what we're reviewing here. --W.marsh 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Does it strike you, weirdo, that you're being ridiculously confrontational? Please relax. Not overturning the w00t AfD will not be the end of Wikipedia. - crz crztalk 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I really, really hope that you are making a bad joke, crz. In this thread alone, you've accused me of a baseless made up violation, and now you are calling ME confrontational? I suppose I should count my lucky stars that you haven't stalked me offline again, or Googled more photos of my acting career. Physician, heal thyself. Decaf, dude. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as a redirect. Only - at most - three of the 'keep's were anywhere near being valid. A closing administrator who accepted 'Keep for the good of Wikipedia. W00t!' as a valid keep based in policy would be incompetent at best. Proto::► 23:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close as a redirect. The closing admin doesn't have to act purely on the number of !votes but also on the policies of Wikipedia and the quality of the arguments for and against. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse redirection a redirect doesn't actually need an AfD consensus, it can be done as an editorial decision. In any case, though, reading the AfD arguments, especially regarding verifiability, it seems the only reasonable option. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As the W00t edit history has been undeleted, and it's apparent that the re-direct was the consensus course; I see no point in continuing this DRV. I call for speedy close. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per W.marsh. -- Samir धर्म 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Hisotry and leave as redirect (as apparently has already been done). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)