Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 28

Memset Ltd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I believe the page about my company (Memset Ltd.) should not have been deleted since it qualifies for notability; we have received a fair amount of press coverage, for example our recently winning the PC Pro Best Web Host 2006 award (which should qualify under "published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"), and our leadership of the carbon neutral hosting movement in the UK. We are also arguably the UK's leading virtual dedicated server provider (coverage in The Register), and were certainly the first in Europe to provide Xen-based Windows virtual machines. Admittedly, the page could use some more information on our contributions to Xen and our Miniserver technology, but I cannot extend it if it is deleted. Khcw77 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist for deletion. Per comments by Khcw77 above, and apparent lack of adherence to deletion procedure (No AfD? - was this a speedy delete?) the initial action should be reconsidered at the least, however given the circumstances of the delete and the tenuous evidence presented by the aforementioned user, the article should be relisted for deletion, not overturned. Sahrin 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:CSD#G11 is absolutely according to deletion procedure, and does not require an AFD. I've not seen this article in particular, but employees of a company itself have a notoriously poor record in producing articles that don't read like blatant advertising. Fan-1967 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As noted below, there is no information regarding this delete in article history - that a member of the company is lobbying to have the delete overturned is not proof in and of itself that the article is biased, nor that the article does not merit entry in the encyclopedia. Fan-1967, where you involved in deletion of this article? Do you have more information about its deletion? (Was it a WP:COI or as you noted, WP:CSD#G11 issue? Sahrin 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Restore history, we need to see the article to tell if it was a valid G11. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list, not a valid G11. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• On one hand, the first-person statements in the reason for review ("my company"... "we have received"... and so on) make the article too much of a WP:COI from the get-go. While it is not unfeasible for someone close to the company to write an objective article, it is highly rare, as Fan-1967 indicates. It's a tenuous area... since it is likely that it was a G11 candidate (assuming good faith on the deleting administrator's part), and it is equally likely that an article could be written, based on the sources indicated above (assuming good faith on the user's part), I am leaning toward endorse deletion without prejudice to recreate an article on this subject, and to go from there. Note: I am willing to reconsider if the edit history becomes available; if it is indeed not a G11 candidate, I will likely change my recommendation to overturn and submit to AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clearly spam which sat out there for six months without anybody adding anything of it to make it something besides advertising. And Khcw77 self-identifies as Kate Craig-Wood, one of the founders of the company, whose name is mentioned in the article. Blatant WP:COI violation. And note Khcw77 (talk · contribs)'s contributions - nothing but self-aggrandisement of her company. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - self-admitted corporate vanity. MER-C 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree we need someone to restore history. -- Geo Swan 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Because WP:AGF doesn't mean that it isn't the point of DRV to determine if deletion was valid. And for a G11, you need the article to do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• History restoredfor review. GRBerry 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Brothers Past (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Brothers Past has appeared to be speedy deleted instead of having a legitimate AfD review. The band is notable, with a national following in the jamband scene. Other bands on Wikipedia with an equal or even smaller following include RAQ and Railroad Earth. Milchama 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion but allow for recreation if proper evidence of notability is given. The band might be notable but the articles never asserted the notability of the band. The 4 speedy deletions (mine being the most recent) do seem to be proper as the articles never demonstrated where the band met WP:BIO. But if you can produce evidence that it meets the criteria, then I'd support recreation. Metros232 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually "they have since continued touring aggresively across the United States, boasting over 650 shows since their 2000 formation" is a quite direct assertion of notability according to WP:MUSIC, and also G4 doesn't hold for prior speedies. Edit history restored btw. ~ trialsanderrors 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD. A7 is not asserting notability, and all I see is not having notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here are some sources to show notability: Bio on Jambase.com, a major jamband website, Profile of their appearance at the South by Southwest festival, A listing about their Bonnaroo performace, Album review from Glide Magazine. Milchama 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD — during which time, I am pretty confident I can make this a legimate page. I am already going to possibly start a temp page in one of my sandboxes. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Request undeletion of SEERI and link to Kottayam. Discussion of the importance of this institution with added reasons for keeping it (Gareth Hughes)was under way. The decision to delete was therefore premature —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Prod Overturn Per the log, this is an expired prod deletion being challenged after the fact. This is an automatic overturn. The undeleter should evaluate making an AFD nomination based on WP:ORG given the prod concern. GRBerry 22:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Should I leave this up for you to undelete in 26 hours? ~ trialsanderrors 22:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mother Vinegar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Hello. I hope I am doing this right (!!). I was surprised to see one of my favorite bands, Mother Vinegar, deleted from Wikipedia. For one, the band has a record deal, an internationally distributed album, and has FM radio and satellite radio play as well as a substantial following. I last saw the band in November at a 1,000 seat venue and the two-night stand was sold out. They have toured with national acts and headlined any venues that other artists on Wikipedia have headlined. However, the main reason I feel they should remain on Wikipedia is because of the band's leader, Karl Engelmann. Engelmann is a primary songwriter for Umphrey's McGee - a very popular band that Rolling Stone called (paraphrased) "the next Phish." Engelmann's other band - Ali Baba's Tahini - is also a popular group that features the guitarist from Umphrey's. All three of these bands dabble in the songbook of Engelmann and perform to much of the same audience. Umphrey's McGee and Mother Vinegar are set to tour theaters in the southeast next spring. I read through the "WP: MUSIC" guidelines and MV seems to fit these. Please note that the article was a "speedy deletion" that I feel was made hastefully. The article was online for over a year, and several other articles link to Mother Vinegar, including the Umphrey's McGee, Ali Baba's Tahini, The Pharmer's Almanac, Karl Engelmann, Amfibian, pages and related pages. This wasn't just a local band who wanted to be on Wikipedia...the band has recieved national coverage, has a substantial live fan base, a record deal & album, and members who are linked to other major projects. Thank you! SEGA 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD. Note NP patrollers: PLEASE stop G4ing everything that has ever failed an AfD. This one was over a YEAR ago. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment technically this wasn't tagged as G4 by a NP patroller. It was tagged as G4 after a second AFD was opened for it. Metros232 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at Afd as above Bwithh 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Unsalt I can't support salting as a persistent repost when the logs show two deletions in 2005, then nothing until December 2006. The deleting admin did cite both db-band and db-repost; I can't see the deleted history so I don't know if db-band applied to the most recently deleted version, and therefore refrain from opining on that. GRBerry 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit history restored now. ~ trialsanderrors 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: while I stand by my deletion as failing WP:MUSIC at the time of its deletion, I would not reject reopening the AfD and seeing it through to its conclusion. If the article is properly sourced with citations documenting SEGA's claims, I am always happy to be proven wrong when it means the healthy expansion of the project. JDoorjam Talk 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At the time of the previous AfD, no, it obviously didn't, but it may now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse valid G4, this is substantially similar. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The claims to notability are about the same, but the new version does have that they had released an album, which was untrue and unclaimed at the time of the last AFD. The A7 (db-band) alternative explanation doesn't work for me as there are claims of notability, and I don't know enough about the music scene to to evaluate them. I don't believe the new album will show notability, so I'm inclined to endorse the G4 deletion, but again I don't know enough about the music scene to do so. I therefore choose to limit my opinion to my prior statement that salting didn't seem appropriate. GRBerry 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I bought their album at Tower Records back in the summer after hearing them on XM Satellite Radio. If this band, with a dedicated following like theirs, isn't right for Wikipedia then we better start deleting thousands of other bands on Wikipedia that have made less contributions. --AlexKidd11 talk 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — this is the first and only edit by AlexKidd11 (talk · contribs) -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at Afd as above. Just heard an interview with the drummer on Hostage Radio (There's Been a Kill 04:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

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

Note: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where they are unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question." For the record, no attempt was made to do this. Amarkov started the DRV and only told me about it after doing so. Nor did he place a {{delrev}} notice on the article as he should have done.--Runcorn 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The second was because I was unaware such a thing existed, and the first I think is weird, so I ignored it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF but Amarkov is a regular contributor here and the procedures are clearly stated. It is odd that he is so insistent on sticking to WP:WEB yet feels free to ignore other rules and guidelines that he considers "weird".--Runcorn 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There was not a consensus to keep. There were lots of keeps, yes, but most failed to address the point, instead going on about how WP:WEB could not be used as a deletion reason because it isn't a policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the closing admin. An AfD is not a vote so the exact number of keeps is irrelevant (for the record it was 9 keeps to 7 deletes); I just addressed myself to the arguments. There had been a previous AfD where another admin had recorded a keep. The reason I marked the second AfD as a keep is that the arguments for delete were weak. The initial reason for the AfD was that it was allegedly in violation of the policy WP:WEB. As was pointed out, this is not a policy; it was proposed as a policy, but rejected. In any case, the notability of Wipipedia was clearly established in the first AfD (in which I took no part) and the proposers of the deletion produced no new evidence to rebut this, while others did provide fresh evidence of notability.

It was also alleged that there was a lot of WP:ILIKEIT. There was one such vote on the first AfD but I saw none on the second. It is true that some of the keeps were from administrators on Wipipedia, but they are substantial contributors to Wikipedia, have every right to participate in an AfD and WP:AGF I took their comments at face value.--Runcorn 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... you just restated what I have a problem with. WP:WEB not being a policy does not mean things can't be deleted because of it. Look at the many articles deleted because of WP:RS. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but assertions that an article fails WP:WEB are not grounds for deletion. No new arguments were adduced other than those rejected in the previous AfD; on the contrary, there were fresh arguments strengthening the case for keep.--Runcorn 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But they weren't rejected, they were just ignored on the grounds of "But WP:WEB isn't policy!". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If "they weren't rejected, they were just ignored" in the previous AfD, that should have been raised after the previous AfD, not now.--Runcorn 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's absurdly bureaucratic. "I'm sorry, but since you didn't see this wrong right after it happened, it can't be fixed!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it absurdly bureaucratic to point out that this is a review of the recent AfD, not one held months ago that has never been challenged? Amarkov himself points out just above this review that old AfDs should not be pursued.--Runcorn 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't believe that these were justified votes. Actually, the following arguements were used for keeping this article:
  • WP:WEB is not a policy.
  • The previous discussion was closed with keep.
  • Informed Consent links and uses information from the website.
  • Removing it might damage Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia uses content from there and it is often found as a see also.
  • It is a serious effort.
• I believe that the most of these were nonsensical, while some were completely unreleated to this discussion. The most reasonable arguement was Informed Consent, however, it is a rather trivial website and it uses this encyclopedia only on a single section of it. It is also important to mention that this process was advertised on Wipipedia and most likely drew quite a few of the website's members. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The "keep" was entirely justified because of the weak arguments for deletion. It is emphatically not the case that the AfD was advertised on Wipipedia. AnonMoos put notes on the talk pages of myself and one other person. As we both monitor the Wipipedia article, we knew about the AfD before AnonMoos told us.--Taxwoman 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The arguements for deletion were not "weak", I gave a reason for why it doesn't pass a single WP:WEB criteria, and the nominator mentioned that it isn't verifiable. The invitations, although were directed to certain users, where seen by public and followed by many of the website's members coming to the discussion as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This discussion will not be helped by serious factual inaccuracies. It is not true that there were "many of the website's members coming to the discussion as well".--Taxwoman 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. An argument was made that it met WP:WEB due to its republishing on a popular BSDM site. "Popular and well-known" must be taken in the context of the audience it serves, and I didn't see much of an argument to debunk that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... Yes, there was much of an argument made to debunk it. People thought it wasn't popular enough. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly, and the fact that this website isn't an official magazine or organization, so basicly it doesn't pass that criteria. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Per WP:WEB: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." It meets that second one - "online publisher." "Official magazine or organization" is not necessary, nor is "popular" one, either. It's asserted that the publisher is well-known within the BDSM community, and it's indepedent of the creator. What are we missing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes well it isn't an online publisher either, it consists mostly of webblogs and chatrooms which makes it rather trivial. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Weblogs, eh? And it's not a publisher? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist and move irrelevant philosophical debates to the talk page. Core problem appears to be lack of reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Sockpuppetry isn't relevant. Even if many people were sockpuppets, that doesn't make the keep arguments invalid. "Not a vote" goes both ways. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about sockpuppetry? Glad that "that doesn't make the keep arguments invalid".--Taxwoman 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Meatpuppetry, I guess. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist because the closing didn't pay due respect to the established guideline WP:WEB, which is a reversible error by my standards. This is made clear by the closer's statement above. All contributors are supposed to work within the guidelines, unless there are compelling reasons to ignore them in a specific case. From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Because this confusion about what a guideline is has persisted through both AFDs, from at least some participants, the relister should make it darn clear that WP:WEB does apply and is the relevant standard, absent a compelling case for an exception. The argument about redistribution could be the deciding factor, but we need some evidence that they meet the "well known" criteria of WP:WEB - this was discussed somewhat in the first AFD and only the Alexa test has been offerred. Given that I have zero respect for the Alexa test, I don't find that convincing and would want to see independent sources that are reliable establishing that the redistributor is indeed well known. The opionions that it should be kept because it was kept before should be disregarded if they had no other basis; under the policy that consensus can change. GRBerry 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • GRBerry has misinterpreted my comments. A clear case was made in the first AfD and accepted by the previous closer that the article does pass WP:WEB. I fully appreciate that an article that fails WP:WEB should be deleted, but believe that no new arguments have been advanced to change the position of the previous closer. Consensus can change, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion.--Runcorn 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop beating Runcorn, this was a perfectly understandable close but this one is more complex than it looks. It needs more input, I think, and less philosophical debate. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist per Guy. Let's take another look at this. JDoorjam Talk 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Overturn and delete or relist. Most of the "keep"'s piled together aren't worth the matches it would take to set them on fire. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. A dubiuos "keep" decision when the defenders didn't bother to add a single reliable source to the article between 2(!) votes for deletion, only babbling about "popularity in certain circles". `'mikka 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'd actually prefer a strait up delete to a relist. Failure to meet notability guidelines is a familiar deletion criterion. The Keep arguments ignored or trivialized WP:WEB rather than asserting (let alone showing) that Wipipedia meets it. Eluchil404 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please re-read the discussions. Adequate evidence was given that the article pases WP:WEB.--Taxwoman 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThe issue of WP:WEB seems central in this debate. The argument about Informed Consent which republishes the Wipipedia and which is used to support the assertion that the article passes WP:WEB has not reached any consensus. Those for the keep result maintain that as the UKs most popular BDSM site (as measured by Alexa) IC is "popular and well known". Those againt the article maintain that having an Alexa ranking of only 15,000 IC cannot be considered popular. The issue must therefore be what is the definition of popular and is it reasonable to link the measure of popularity with the global interest in the subject. Linked to this is the subject matter itself, alternate sexuality is never going to produce publications/sources of the seriousness of more mainstream topics. Again, a decision must be made as to how to apply the standards. BalzacLFS 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The debate is not whether Informed Consent is popular or not established by Alexa ranks. A popular porn website might use content from the website too, but it doesn't make it notable. The debate is whether Informed Consent is reliable. As I see it right now, it's a trivial website that consists mostly of webblogs, chat rooms, and web forums, which means it isn't an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you dig deeper into the site you will find plenty of articles about the subect matter other than blogs and web forums but that is not the main point. IC is a community site where people share information and knowledge about the BDSM lifestyle. I accept that it does not meet the standard you might apply to other areas of knowledge but kinky sex does not create those sites in the first place. I'm afraid that IC is as serious as it gets when it comes to altsex and the closest you will find to an on-line publisher/magazine! BalzacLFS 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThe deletionist feeling was perhaps related to the subject involved. WP does not censor, but the WP articles on the some range of topics are rather innocuous, and Wipi sometimesless so--though still quite mild by web stanards. The Wipi therefore serves as a useful extension of our WP, and maintains roughly similar standards of relevance and quality, though a little freer in the use of some outside links. The notability was shown by the very wide range of referals from outside sites, and as to verifiability--it exists, and everyone can see it and see the notable qualities for themself. The standards are met, and they are met both in the letter and the spirit, and the discussion was fairly judged. 129.25.135.110 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Previous comment added without signing in, but by DGG 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But that's not what verifiability is. It doesn't matter that you can verify it exists, because an article has to say more than "This is a thing. Which exists." You have to be able to verify information about it, and you can not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Forgive me if I am missing something obvious here, the article does not contain any information that could not be verified by someone going to the wesite and looking for themselves. If the article was factually incorrect or trying to put across impression of what the site represents them someone would have already edited it to bring it in to line. BalzacLFS 10:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure It's very simple; the main issue was whether the site passed WP:WEB; evidence was presented that it did. The closing admin very reasonably accepted that evidence, so his decision was sensible and should stand. This is not a forum for having a third AfD on an article that has been kept after two AfDs.--Brownlee 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refer to the above discussion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Amarkov says elsewhere on Deletion review (Khaleel Mohammed) "There was disagreement as to whether they did meet WP:PROF. You can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:PROF when others claimed it did." Similarly here, there is disagreement; you can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:WEB when others claimed it did.--R613vlu 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The closing admin rightly points out that Amarkov has not followed the proper procedures, in particular to ensure that those with an interest in the article might be able to find out about the DRV. It is also worth pointing out that "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate." It is clear that the balance of the AfD debate was that the article does pass WP:WEB. The whole thrust of those rejecting the "Keep" decision is that contrary to that debate, it does not pass. It is thus a disagreement with the outcome, not with the closer's interpretation. certainly no new information is offered.--Taxwoman 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... no, the balance of the AfD debate was "We should just completely ignore WP:WEB", which you can't do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That is not the debate I closed, which produced evidence that the article passes WP:WEB.--Runcorn 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I was the first AfD nominator, didn't find out about the second AfD and still think the article should be deleted as failing WP:WEB. However, there was clearly no consensus to delete in this AfD, and as far as I understand our deletion policy, deletion absent a consensus is only permissible if the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV mandate it. WP:N, alas, is not a core policy, so process was followed correctly (except I'd have labeled the outcome as "no consensus"). Sandstein 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per above. While trying to assume good faith, WP:BIAS may apply here considering how much this is being blown out of porportion. The closing admin did nothing wrong and obviously followed proper procedure, as others have clearly explained here. metaspheres 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I'm highly disgrunted by the fact that, even though I did not "advertise" the AFD in any sense which would be relevant for the {{afdnewbies}} tag, User:Michaelas10 keeps on constantly accusing me of advertising nevertheless -- and though he has never been able to point to one single concrete example of a "newbie" or "single-purpose account" particupating in the AFD discussion, he nevertheless insists that the {{afdnewbies}} should be kept in the closed AFD discussion, to serve as a constant accusation against me, and perpetual stigma of my supposed personal "guilt" and shame, down into the indefinite future... AnonMoos 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not an accusation. You have been told that many times. Stop construing it as one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • User Michaelas10 has never said that he doesn't consider me guilty of advertising, and it's hard to fathom his extreme rigorous zeal in keeping a now-irrelevant tag in a closed AFD, based on a purely hypothetical speculative possibility, otherwise... AnonMoos 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Um... It's closed. Absolutely no action can be taken on you because a tag is in an AfD. Why would he care about keeping it in to accuse you? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I really wouldn't claim to know why he does care, but he seems to be grimly determined in the matter. 11:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist as above. Ral315 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

List of dictators (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was kept after extensive debate around a year ago. Since then the list was extensively improved by a large number of experience wikipedia editors and admins. Over 120 sources were provided, a working definition of dictator was decided upon. Editors painstakingly manipulated font sizes to make the article read well. A system was worked out by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters for discussing controversial entries. Discussions were always productive and lead to quick consensus. The article remained amazingly stable for around a year.

The article was a remarkable resource. And a Google search for "list of dictators" shows what a void has been created in the internet itself.

The article comprised hundreds of hours of work by dozens of editors working in good faith. Tens of thousands of words of discusions about the article have also been deleted.

All this on the whim of an admin who knew of the extensive history of the article User:Doc_glasgow. Active contributors to the article such as myself and Lulu of the lotus eaters were not informed of the AfD, which was timed for the holiday season and we were unable to vote. Despite this there were 11 votes to keep against 4 to delete. A strong consensus to Keep.

Admin Doc Glasgow decided to delete in spite of the strong contrary consensus and making no reference to the previous titanic deletion debate in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. That debate was on a far inferior article which had no sources. The article that had just been deleted was possibly the best sourced article in wikipedia with over 120 sources.

Doc Glasgow along with his friend desysoped former-admin User:172 were active in the previous debate. User:172 spammed over 50 wiki users flattering them and asking them to help him out with the vote. Doc Glasgow was well aware of the previous debate, well aware of his own opposition to the article in that debate. He was also well aware of the immense effort put into improving the article, the relative stability of the article, and its extensive sourcing.

Despite this, he overruled wikipedia policy deleting an article as an admin that he had previously been involved with. Not only did he not recuse himself but deleted the article against the consensus of the vote, using the exact same rationale that he used in the debate a year previously that had been rejected by the community then and now. His remarks in deleting the article are:

The result was DELETE. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this.

With this glib, unprofessional tirade he deleted the hundreds of hours of work against consensus, without declaring his own previous involvement in the article and without noting the immense improvements. The contributors to this AfD and the previous one in fact addressed that very point. It would therefore no be reasonable to delete against consensus because it "offends against a core policy" since that was the very crux of the discussion between experience users and admins.

I implore wikipedia to restore this article its former state. When people contribute to wikipedia they to so from a point of view of one who wishes to share their own knowledge - to codify the knowledge that we all posses. The glib and haphazard erasion of their contributions by admins who do not respect that beautiful impulse which has made wikipedia great, damages wikipedia immensely. If people are not convinced that their work will be considered in a fair and broadly democratic way then they will stop contributing. That is why I also implore wikipedia to strip the deleting admin of his adminship. He did something outrageous, he knew exactly what he was doing, he should of recused himself and shouldn't have deleted the article in any case. juicifer 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

juicifer 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I don't think that people understand that "Inherently POV" means "it can not be fixed, with any improvements". Also, 11 people saying "keep" ignores the fact that at least 5 completely misunderstood the argument. And WP:NPOV can not be overruled by consensus. By the way, the keeps weren't saying "Well, it's already NPOV!", they were saying "Yes, it is biased, but YOU have to clean it up!" Even against arguments that it couldn't be cleaned up. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. It is salvageable with heavy quotation, citation and reference-adding. The existence of the article does not violate NPVO in my opinion, as "dictator" is a qualifiable and citeable description. —Nightstallion (?) 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So what if it's citable? I can find many reliable sources calling Bush an idiot, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to make a List of idiots and put him on it. That still violates WP:NPOV. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Closing admin did not pay attention to arguments for keep, and closure reason reads much more like a !vote than a summation of consensus or argument. Article may need tightening up of criteria to avoid difficulties with NPOV, but closing admin's claim of inherently POV is not a consensus view. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion based on Doc's reasoning. We appear in many cases to be applying 20th Century Western values to either historical or non-Western cultures (Oliver Cromwell being a fine example. Dictator is a weasel term in this context. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Dictator is, at best, a weasel word to use, and Guy's point above says it all. --SunStar Net^talk 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Three Great Powers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The debate on whether the page should be kept or deleted was ended too soon. It was open for about a day, there were many other editors concerned who did not even know it was up for being deleted that would have wanted to express their opinions. I'm asking that the debate be reopened so that more people can express their opinion on the subject matter. Plus, 3 of the 4 people who voted said deleted and only one said keep. Not enough was said on whether it should be kept or delete for the discussion to have ended when it did. I am not asking the outcome be swayed, just that there can be allowed more time to talk about things. Angel Emfrbl 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure even though I too disagree with the CA's reasoning of no consensus. The AfD was open for 10 days, longer then the 5 day minimum that is required and proper noticed as placed on the article[1] and WP:AfD[2]. The AfD was also listed on the anime and manga's deletion sorting page on the 22nd[3]. Lack of knowledge about an AfD is not a legitimate grounds to reopen the debate if the debate has been properly noted on the article and WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  I will also note that there were two merge votes, which are treated as keep in determining AfD outcomes. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure I do not see any reversible error on the part of the closing admin; a no consensus close was well within reasonable discretion for this discussion. Merge and redirect is always available as an editorial decision. And after a decent interval (a couple months) another AFD could be done. GRBerry 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, AfD rarely produces a definite result with fancruft (or articles entirely relating to fiction if you must), and seeking consensus for merging and/or redirecting is far more productive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - the AfD had a mix of merge, keep and delete opinions, with no clear consensus. The closing admin was well within his rights to default to keep. Tarinth 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Philippine High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|TfD)

Restore. Deletion log states "Once this is done (with the blessing of WP:SCH, leave me a message on my talk and I'll delete." ... No blessing from WP:SCH has been attained. Further, deletion of the template has caused errors in various pages. For instance, Xavier School. { PMGOMEZ } 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Name the errors and it shall be fixed. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Find them. Point is, no blessing from WP:SCH was attained. { PMGOMEZ } 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me the errors? Point is, it was deleted already and you created a new template, Template:Infobox K-12 School. --Howard the Duck 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would prefer bringing it back for the sake of other Philippine High Schools. { PMGOMEZ } 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for tracking all my contribs, even if they have no relation to the point at hand. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, your new infobox looks exactly like the one that was deleted. And yeah, that's why the Watchlist lets you see other people's contribs. Nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, click "the" on my sig and tell me what appears. --Howard the Duck 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I never knew newly created templates could instantly be added to one's watchlist. At any rate, the new infobox solves the prob. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't, but you see other people's contribs. --Howard the Duck 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A TfD does not need the "blessing" of a Wikiproject to be enacted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Amarkov. Naconkantari 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Seems fun. Let's just delete, delete and delete! :) { PMGOMEZ } 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin: The key part of Martinp's closure summary was "after anything from this template worth keeping has been merged into {{Infobox Secondary School}}, and all uses have been migrated". At the time of deletion, no articles transcluded this template. Xavier School's infobox was changed well before anything was deleted, so saying that errors were caused by the deletion is simply false. The consensus down at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Deletion of national secondary school infoboxes. was that the extra features in the Philippines infofox weren't needed, so I deleted it. -- Steel 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • Errors on the Xavier School article were caused by impudent transclusion of the "Infobox Secondary school" (ISS) template without giving due care to the fields. Transclusion of ISS template is OK as long as all the info in the previous infobox are presented well and none of the fields/data is/are omitted. Consensus down at WP:SCH was that the extra features weren't needed IF these features have been FULLY integrated into ISS (not the case). Further, that if the IPHS template were to be deleted, ALL OTHER national school templates ARE TO BE DELETED as well. { PMGOMEZ } 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Errors you mostly have not directly pointed out. Instead, you said "you go see them," now is that a good way to fix things? Why don't you tell me directly. Point me what/where is wrong and I'll fix it. Going around in circles only delays things, in w/c you did a good job, btw (wait, is that a personal attack? haha). --Howard the Duck 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that all other national school templates are to be merged with ISS, but with the number of templates and the articles which they're transcluded, it is a daunting task and I've asked WP:SCH (and Pmgomez) for support and tips, in w/c I haven't received one. --Howard the Duck 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Really doesn't matter now, since the nominator of the DRV endorsed deletion. And oh, he created a new template, in which only Xavier School uses, too. 210.5.88.138 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)(Logged out, for some reason... --Howard the Duck 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC))
    • And the relation of the K-12 template to IPHS? Xavier School is a K-12 institution and not just a "Secondary school". Oh btw, do capitalize the first letter of the word "school" in that template. { PMGOMEZ } 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I suspect they have the same code, but I can't inspect since IPHS was deleted already, but your new K-12 infobox eerily resembles Infobox university, in which IPHS also resembled. As for your K-12 infobox, what is the difference between that and ISS? Can you elaborate directly? --Howard the Duck 13:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Just this once. K-12 = Kindergarten to Grade 12 (ie. High 4). Secondary = High 1 to 4, no GS, no Kinder, no Prep, no Nursery. { PMGOMEZ } 13:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I know that. Tell me what's the difference between your new K-12 infobox (parameters/fields and stuff) and ISS. --Howard the Duck 14:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Ah, so you know. OK. I need not tell anything since your query has no relation nor connection to what's on the table. { PMGOMEZ } 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
              • You can do so on my talkpage. --Howard the Duck 15:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted even though I had put a "{hangon}" on it, and was drafting the justification for its preservation. Briefly, the wikipedian who placed the speedy delete did so less than two minutes after I created the article. That is counter to policy, or at least it was the last time I looked. The instructions say I am supposed to advise the administrator who performed the deletion, but they don't say how to determine who that was. Geo Swan 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It was deleted for A1, meaning that it had no context. You did not address that anywhere in your justifications. It should probably be history undeleted, though, so we can see if it was a valid A1. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain what you are talking about more fully. -- Geo Swan 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter anymore. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• It was tagged within one minute of creation. WP:CSD - "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." Obviously appears to be the case, and it has context and would have been a valid stub had the formatting not been so empty originally. Overturn and allow Geo Swan to finish it up if he's still interested (and who could blame him if he's not), and AfD if necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am still interested, thanks. I hope I don't have to wait too long though. -- Geo Swan 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • A quick tip: Open a page, like User:Geo Swan/Jamaat, and complete as much of the article as you can between now and the end of this. When the new AfD opens/when this concludes, place the completed text into the article so people know what they're dealing with. As long as it's well sourced, you shouldn't have any problems, and it's obvious you're a prolific editor on this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay. Thanks for the advice. I am working on it at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. -- Geo Swan 19:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. It wasn't a valid A1, and A7 doesn't apply. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• List on AfD was tagged for CSD A7 and deleted as CSD A1, neither of which really apply here. Could be written into a decent article. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list It was me who originally marked it for an A7 (at the time I viewed the article it contained nothing that appeared to me to assert notability of the subject), but I am certainly not opposed to having the author attempt to improve it in light of the fact that he attempted {{hangon}} and had it deleted anyway. As the one who originally nominated it for deletion, at this point I propose a speedy close to the Review and overturn/list. Tarinth 16:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Twice in the past day I have had to restore the entry I made about the Concerns of Violence and Islamic Extremism. Once the section was deleted by 84.9.48.108, another time by User:Nkv. I left a message for Nkv. I have no problems with the theological changes or other editing changes they wish to make, so long as they do not expunge the section I wrote about some of the concerns about the movement. I'd be willing to hash it out on the "Talk" page, but they did not take that option first. I noted I was not the first person with such a problem on this page either. --Petercorless 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Moondance magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

New rewrite is in place. Please review. Am trying to follow all admin suggestions carefully. Want good standard to be encouraged and article to be saved. All thanks. --Lysanzia 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moondance magazine is still ongoing, so this is a bit premature. No need to panic. ^_^ As I said at the AfD, though, I support a relist at the moment for further consensus and to allow more time for sourcing. Shimeru 09:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close the deletion review. Because the AFD is still open, there is no closure for us to review. GRBerry 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)