Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 30

Team Final Boss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

As I expected, my Merge/Redirect close was vociferously contested by the editors who voted strong keep. Looking over the provided sources I still think they're either 1. unreliable, 2. interested, or 3. discuss the team only in context of the league. But I agree this might be controversial so I like to hear community opinions on this. I'll keep the article restored for the run of this DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse whatever-the-thing-you-did-is-called. Reliable sources must provide the information. Reliable sources which only document existence and purpose are not enough. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - How this was ever closed as anything other than a no consensus is beyond me. Sourcing concerns were addressed on the talk page, as well as in the AFD itself. I can't believe that we have to jump through policy hoops on DRV just to overturn a closure of "redirect" whereas cleanup would encourage the improvement of the article. - hahnchen 00:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Because 90% of cleanup-tagged articles don't get cleaned up, and unilaterally reverting a closure decision isn't tantamount to improving an article. There is ample space in the MLG article to develop a viable section on the team and then to spin it out once the team has established notablility by itself. The idea that my decision would keep you from improving the article is nonsense. ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe if the closure had actually reflected the thoughts expressed in the AFD. You talk about the perils of unilateral action, whereas you've taken a no consensus vote and slapped your own unique action upon it, which seems to be a enforced redirect. How this will encourage improvement over cleanup tags is beyond me. Enforced redirection over article evolution doesn't exactly seem to all too wiki friendly. The AFD is full of sources which are "better than urbandictionary" and the talk page hints at more. I didn't bother replying to DJiTH's point about "interested media" coverage and WP:V#SELF because I was already sure that the article would be heading towards a keep. A TV show on USA Network does not fall into the category of "self published". Merging all the teams of a league together, was not suggested by any who voted. Like the very similar AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Str8 Rippin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Carbon (2nd Nomination), this should have been closed as a no consensus keep, allowing editors to continue working on them. - hahnchen 04:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you take a look at the show, you will find that it is in a large part hosted by one of the owners of the MLG company. Of course, it will be impossible for us to find out who paid who, e.g. whether USA Network bought the rights from MLG, or, the to me more likely option, that MLG paid USA Network for some publicity. After all, even for competitive video gaming standards, the MLG is a very young enterprise, which targets a small niche. I don't consider it very likely that a tv network would buy the rights for that rather than a more serious and mature competition. This, combined with the fact that most of the cited sources in the article refer to the MLG's own website leads to the remark of using self-published sources. -- DJiTH 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • "vote "? What ever gave you the idea that AfD is a vote? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If you read my arguments, you'll find that that wasn't the point. - hahnchen 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • you've taken a no consensus vote and slapped your own unique action upon it sure seems like you're trying to claim it was a vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You can replace it with the word "discussion" or "arguments" if you like. It's not the point. - hahnchen 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • "allowing editors to continue working on them" — Get this out of your head that you're not allowed to work on the topic. You're just not allowed to unilaterally revert an AfD closure. You're even allowed to draft up a sourced version in userspace if you feel like it. About the other closes, no two topics are alike, so no two closures are alike. Btw, if US Network has a financial stake in the broadcast, it's not an independent source. ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure that USA Network and Major League Gaming are separate entities. You are allowed to revert what you see to be wrong. No too topics are alike are they? But I'm sure that you and other readers can see the obvious similarities between this and the others mentioned. - hahnchen 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
          • So if they're exactly the same then it makes sense to cover them in the same article. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
            • A much better solution would be to close this one as a no consensus, like the similar ones. - hahnchen 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I have no problems with it as soon as you turn it into a properly sourced article. It's bad enough that we have tons of poorly sourced articles unquestionably notable subjects, but it's worse if we have poorly sourced article on barely notable subjects. ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete The AfD clearly should be keep or no consensus. The more important factor is the fact that I have added multiple independent sources. Although USA Network and MLG may not be independent they are certainly reliable in this case. Both of these entities are however independent of Final Boss which is the subject in question. Valoem ^talk 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, the article wasn't deleted. Also, if money changes hands between them they're hardly independent. ~ trialsanderrors 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure MLG and USA network are separate entities. USA Network will have paid MLG for the rights, USA Network think that MLG matches are worth showing. This isn't self publishing as described in WP:V#SELF as a user mentioned in the AFD. - hahnchen 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:N: "The "independence" qualification excludes (...) others with a vested interest or bias." WP:NPOV: "Commercial bias, including (...) the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media." CBS praising Katie Couric is not an independent source, even though the two are separate entities. The Washington Post writing about CBS' hiring of Couric is an independent source. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        • This is not about praise and bias, it's about whether it's a suitable source for player information and competition information. Just as information on professional wrestlers can be sourced from the WWE Raw program, information on these gaming clans can be sourced from the show too. - hahnchen 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This can be handled well enough within the parent article, given the lack of WP:RS. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you enlighten me on what the "lack of reliable sources" are? I think that everything in the article can be sourced from reliable sources, from roster changes to competition results, via sources covering e-sports such as Gotfrag and others mentioned the the various AFDs. - hahnchen 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Right now, none of the cited sources meet WP:RS. If you can find better ones, please do so; I took a quick look, but didn't find anything on LexisNexis but press releases. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• GotFrag news articles alongside the television show should satisfy the sourcing needs of the article, I believe that the RS guidelines can be adequately met. I don't think however, that the AFD debate favoured a redirect. No one had suggested a merge or a redirect in the AFD, nor in the similar ones mentioned above. I think that the administrator closing the AFD should have acted upon the consensus formed, and that certainly shouldn't have been an enforced redirect. I seriously doubt that WP:CSDUA is ever going to be implemented (something which this would pass anyway), and yet, that is what is effectively being enforced in this case. - hahnchen 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still not entirely sold here: What gives GotFrag the authority to be considered a RS in this matter? From what I can tell, it's just a random website (a nice site, true, but still...) -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because GotFrag reports from every major e-sports tournament, is considered a respectable source by the competitors (hence the numerous interviews) and has the internet streaming rights for CPL (leading PC e-sports league) matches. This of course, can be used in addition to the show which USA Network airs. - hahnchen 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotfrag meets WP:RS because it is well known (Alexa rank of 7,373[1] and independent. This in addition to what Hahnchen has mentioned above. Brendan Alcorn 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:RS specifies "well known" (and in your case only in the context of Alexa) as a criterion for being reliable (just the fact that a lot of people look at it doesn't mean it's reliable). Some fansites have a better rank than gotfrag, but they wouldn't be considered reliable. What matters is the editorial oversight and fact-checking used. From their staff page it looks like they have copy editors, but not an editor-in-chief or other position that would help fact-check the articles. ColourBurst 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete (or whatever the appropriate word is at this point). In reviewing the debate, I find that there was sufficient argument in favor and that at a minimum a no consensus result should have obtained. I agree that the article was poorly sourced, but not that it required immediate deletion. I don't know if additional evidence is permitted in a deletion review, but, in a quick Gale-Thompson search I found one brief article "News Brief: Major League Gaming's contract with Final Boss" Promo (Online Exclusive) (June 29, 2006) From Business and Company ASAP, that is independent and has established reliability. Disclaimer: I did not participate in the original debate, I don't care for sports or electronic gaming, and no one asked me to make my comments here (I just happened upon it when looking for something else). --Bejnar 19:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mind overturning myself if that's a good source, but a. what does "Promo" mean in this context, and b. Isn't that just more of the same (i.e a reprint of the Reuters piece)? ~ trialsanderrors 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The re-publishing source is independent and saw fit to reproduce the article. They would not have done so if the subject was not notable.Brendan Alcorn 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Create new article: Major League Gaming has been signing a lot of groups recently, in multi-million dollar deals. This argument will continue to be made everytime the group reaches a certain fan treshold. I propose that a "Notable MLG Groups" page be created with sections for the different groups. If this is not possible, then separate pages should be made and kept for each group. Paul D. Meehan 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: per Valoem. Brendan Alcorn 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Overturn per Bejnar- WP:RS met. Team has been the focus of numerous articles and has gained enough recognition to be considered notable. Brendan Alcorn 08:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Redirect without deleting history is effectively a keep or no consensus close followed by an editorial decision to redirect. That editorial decision is subject to the usual editorial process; disagreement about it should be at the article's talk page or the talk page of the redirect target - just don't edit war about it. This doesn't really need deletion review, as no deletion occurred or is requested. GRBerry 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note Potential sockpuppeteering issues, see WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet attempting to disrupt AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There's no way this should have been closed as anything less than a no consensus. There wasn't a single person who argued for a merge or redirect, and the keep !voters asserted the notability of the team. -- Kicking222 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Advocate's initial statement

WEB:Notability #3 Infomanager 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Notability: PGNx Media's success has been recognized by other websites as well. In fact, PGNx Media is best known for its reviews syndication. Other independent publishers distribute PGNx Media's content on their websites. PGNx Media's primary content distributors are IGN's Rotten Tomatoes and CNet's Metacritic. In order to have content appear on Rotten Tomatoes, the website's "reviews need to be well-written and professional". Rotten Tomatoes carries excerpts for PGNx Media's reviews and distributes full-text for some. Metacritic demands that its affiliated publications have "quality, well-written reviews that are well regarded in the industry or among their peers". Infomanager 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, PGNx Media's scores can be found on CNet's GameRankings, IGN's GameStats, and Ziff Davis' GameTab.com. These websites, and others, include PGNx Media's score in the composite, aggregate review score of all games that PGNx Media reviews. Like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, these websites are highly regarded for selecting high quality websites. Infomanager 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It meets #3 in notability. The page has been extensively re-written and redesigned in the past few hours. Wikipedia's guidelines mention that a website is notable if it meets one criterion (of three). I strongly believe that it meets criterion #3: "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" because PGNx Media's content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes

• Rotten Tomatoes is well-known
• Rotten Tomatoes is independent; It is owned by IGN whereas PGNx Media is owned by PGNx Media, Inc.
• This is a link to a review by Jose Liz-Moncion (credited as Jose Liz) for PGNx Media on Rotten Tomatoes' website. Here is another and yet another.
• Not all websites' content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes. See: Rotten Tomatoes' Website Inclusion Policies] Infomanager 19:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I conditionally restored the article, for the purpose of discussion, paying respect to the civilized behavior of the author. I don't remember what tag should be placed on the article in this case. Please assist. `'mikka 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it with the right template; now it's supposed to be protected, which I can't do. Please protect. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• no opinion yet I have two major problems: (1) visibity; for an online thingy to have only 127 [unique google hits] is a red flag. (2) No reliable sources provided that independently assert the notability of the site. `'mikka 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mikkalai, I would appreciate guidance in further fleshing out your second issue. I quoted the website inclusion policies of notable reviews syndicators and PGNx Media did meet their standards for notability. In turn, those affiliates met Wikipedia's standards for notability, as implied by the fact that they have their own webpages. As for your first point, I also created the page for GameTab.com. If you take a look at its unique Google hits, you'll find that there are only 102 uniques. However, the article I created remained on Wikipedia. You have to take into consideration the rather narrow focus of PGNx Media: they are primarily a reviews website and have a strong syndication network. I would appreciate your help in improving the article to make this clearer. Infomanager 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually, the linked Google search for Gametab returns about 945,000 hits and has an Alexa rank of 17,130[2]. Although Alexa rankings are notoriously unreliable, note that pgnxmedia.com has an Alexa rank of 290,068[3]. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:RS is far more important than WP:WEB, so if it doesn't meet the former, it's out. It doesn't. -Amarkov <sup>blah</sup><sub>edits</sub> 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The information on the article comes from PGNx Media itself or its affiliates. As noted in the article, its affiliate have strict guidelines for what they consider to be a notable website. The fact that they choose to carry PGNx Media's articles implies that they consider their content to be notable. Further, its affiliates have pages on Wikipedia, which are linked to in the article. Please take this into consideration.Infomanager 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Don't see that RS guideline is a problem here. The claims made are not extraordinary, and don't need extraordinary support - many corporate claims are primarily self documentd, e.g. names of the board, etc.. Some are self supporting, for example, the Rotten Tomatoes claim. Do we not think that RT is reliable about it's sources? Same goes for Ziff Davies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42 30 December 2006 (GMT).
• Overturn I think that WP:WEB has been proven. As for a reliable source, I believe that Rich is correct in that the claims are not extraordinary. Most of the information can be found on the website's "About Us" page or by poking around. Other comments, such as its status on affiliated websites, can be found by clicking the links the article provides to its affiliated websites. Thinkjose 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am afraid that you are mistaken in the reliable sources issue: every student dorm homepage have reliable sources of the same validity. The issue is not about information who/when/what, but about asserting of notability. That it is linked from other webpages means zilch. There are plenty of webrings iof dubious wikipediability who refer to each other. Please show me a reputable reference that says this site is kewl. `'mikka 23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Mikka, did you mean to respond to Rich? Do you think that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are reputable references? Both of these pages have a Wikipedia entry so they are not of "dubious wikipediability". Infomanager 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To answer your question, I believe that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are reputable references. By including excerpts and full text of PGNx Media's original content, they are placing their seal (so to speak) on the website. Do you disagree? Thanks again for taking the time to look at this. Infomanager 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That is fine, they may be placing their seal on the website. You still must have reliable sources, which means at least one independent source, which you don't have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by one independent source. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are independent of PGNx Media. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by IGN; Metacritic is owned by CNet. PGNx Media is not owned by CNet or IGN. Please clarify. I am confident that it meets the requirement and that it is merely a matter of making this as clear as possible. Thank you, again, for taking time out of your Saturday to work with me on this. Infomanager 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't follow this, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cokemachineglow found the "included in Metacritic" argument insufficient (despite my own keep vote). ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you for providing this, but Metacritic is only one of many independent sources that note PGNx Media's notability. Rotten Tomatoes distributes full-text versions of its content on its website. Infomanager 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • That's ok, I have no opinion on this case, I'm just providing a precedent (which by itself can change as we know). ~ trialsanderrors 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks again for your feedback. Infomanager 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment. While inclusion in a meta-aggregator like Metacritic is certainly better than nothing, it doesn't confer independent notability. Why aren't there articles about Gaming Nexus or Rewired Mind (two other Metacritic game-review contributors)? Sorry, I would suggest that inclusion is necessary but not sufficient for demonstrating notability. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Regarding Gaming Nexus and Rewired Mind: I have been looking for additional gaming websites to expand Wikipedia with. I have used these websites extensively in the past. Thank you for the suggestion. Infomanager 09:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification of independence:' of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. There appears to be some confusion because Rotten Tomatoes carries some full-text reviews and Metacritic provides excerpts. These websites choose to do so independently; they are not ask them to continue or stop. They choose to do it because they respect the reviews and for no other reason. They do not share owners or editors, and neither website has a vested interest in the success of the other. Infomanager 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Please note that Thinkjose is the founder of the PGNx site, and so there are potential concerns with WP:COI. I should also point out that Infomanager is one of Jose's classmates at Yale. Combining the conflict of interest with a very low Alexa rank, I seriously question the notability of this article. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are incorrect As shown in the history, Jose attends the University of Pennsylvania not Yale. Please verify these claims before making accusations. I have no involvement with the website other the time I've spent writing the article, and have recently branched off to edit additional articles. However, I thank you for your time. Infomanager 09:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. --Alan Au 09:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the quick edit; you bring up good points otherwise. Infomanager 09:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Overturn per WP:WEB. This website should be considered for its importance as syndicated review source. WEB #3 is met as both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes (as well as Game Rankings, Gametab.com, and others) are well-known, independent and distribute its content. Paul D. Meehan 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Rich Farmbrough. Brendan Alcorn 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: PGNx Media's review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews. It has the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications. [4] Infomanager 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those numbers are impressive, but keep in mind that the reviews are manually linked to Gamerankings. As such, it isn't clear whether or not they're using Gamerankings as a public media repository by the review authors to make up for a lack of primary site traffic. I apologize if I'm coming across as suspicious, but I'm still concerned because the original article was primarily structured as a vanity/self-promotional piece. This doesn't make the subject inherently non-notable, but I'm not yet personally convinced that it's *independently* notable. --Alan Au 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a few problems with your comment: 1) Gamerankings editors add or approve all content on Gamerankings. PGNx editors cannot add or link to (?) any content. 2) Are IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy also using Gamerankings as a public media repository? Suggesting this about PGNx Media, exclusively seems to be against Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. 3) I wrote the article to mimic how other website articles are written: Introduction, History, Coverage, Staff. If you have specific improvements, or concerns please let me know. 4) Gamerankings, as I mentioned above, is independent. There are no connections -- shared owners, editors, revenues, etc -- that can make you question its independence. As as side note, I apologize if this is not the case but it seems like you're taking "they're damned if they do and damned if they don't attitude. It appears that you have a pre-conceived idea that the website is not notable (a personal disagreement with an editor, perhaps) and evidence to the contrary isn't having any effect. Infomanager 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Clarification. Actually, anyone who registers a user account on Gamerankings can add links to reviews from other sites. Also, I have no complaint if you want to rewrite the article as an independent third party editor citing sources--my primary concern is the conflict of interest generated by the original article authorship. As for the personal accusations, I'm taking it to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the discussion here. Thanks. --Alan Au 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Further clarification: Anyone with a registered account can add links but they need to be approved by a GR editor before they appear on the GR website. I am the original author of the article (I wrote it this summer), but I since lost the txt file which is why thinkjose had to submit the first version. I apologize for what can be perceived as a personal accusation; it was hypocritical of me after citing good faith. I thank you for the civility you responded with. Infomanager 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: It seems that most of the concerns that people expressed for deleting the article have been addressed at this time. Infomanager 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry I didn't bring this up earlier, but after checking around, I remembered that this article had gone through AfD twice (which is why it was on my watchlist). For reference, here's the second AfD for this article. To be fair, it was closed via CSD without a full cycle, but re-reading the comments there, I would like to recommend that this be relisted for regular AfD in the hopes of generating a more through discussion. --Alan Au 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: This should be clear from the above, but after reading the proposed undeletion page it italized that the person who proposed the undeletion has to be in favor, so I thought I would make it clear. Infomanager 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met. My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) also appear to be met. Looks good to me. --- RockMFR 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MacDade Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD 1|AfD 2)

User:DavidLevinson unilaterally undeleted the MacDade Mall article with the edit summary: "39 revisions restored: notability not a criteria for deletion, article is verifiable. Notability only criteria for article improvement". I take that as a clumsy attempt of a deletion review, so I am opening it for him here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re-delete and talk to undeleting admin about going against consensus with admin tools. And yes, notability is a criterion for deletion, or we end up as a directory. -Amarkov^blah_edits 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Amarkov, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Anyway, you've misunderstood what the directory thing means. Why shouldn't I be able to find out what MacDade Mall is like? A directory would simply list it and give its address. An encyclopaedia can tell me all about it. Grace Note 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  And do you have reliable sources for this "all about it"? If you don't, we kinda can't have an article on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re-delete What Amarkov said. We can't have admins unilaterally undeleting articles in this way. --Folantin 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete as per above. Out of process restoration with non-consensus opinion about notability guidelines. Previous afd was a strong delete consensus. Bwithh 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Amarkov. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; notability is a requirement for inclusion. Its absence is therefore grounds for exclusion. There was a clearl consensus at last AfD in favour of deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability it not a requirement, notability is terribly subjective. Verifiability is a requirement, Neutrality is a requirement. There is no policy on Notability and no consensus on the subject. Notability should be established of course for it to be a good article, and a Notability tag inserted to help make it so. However, any shopping mall of sufficient size will inherently meet the notability guidelines suggested at WP:CORP. Leaving that aside, no consensus was reached on the previous discussion, a majority of deletionists thought it good to delete. However, the idea of just tagging articles for improvement if you don't like them never seems to arise (remember don't bite the newbies), there are very few subjects if properly written that cannot make a good encyclopedia article. This one still needs work, but that does not justify deletion. For an example of references obtained with just a little bit of work ... Philadelphia Inquirer article. dml 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment for notability to not be a requirement for inclusion seems rather odd given that lack of notability is the primary argument used to delete articles. Of course it is partly subjective. That is why in a number of areas there are notability guidelines. --Bejnar 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn un-deletion. DavidLevinson was wrong to act unilaterally as he did. I don't think there was any malice, but if a lack of notability isn't grounds for deletion, we've been going about things the wrong way for a hell of a long time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hit bull, win steak (talk • contribs)
• Re-delete. I'm sure David acted in good faith, but I also think he was wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall (second nomination). Admins (or indeed anybody else) should not unilaterally overturn AFD decisions. >Radiant< 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete. There is no reason to undo the verdict of the last AfD process. If the article were better-sourced there might be more cause for thought here, but a thin article about a disappearing mall seems unnecessary to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston 05:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Amarkov. Fails WP:RS. As Ed mentioned above, the story itself seems interesting and someone with an interest in the subject should work on improving the article and resubmitting one in the future. This incarnation of the article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Paul D. Meehan 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-delete Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline. Guidelines are a notch below policy, but they are far more than a recommendation. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus." While the occasional exception to a guideline can be made, when we've measured consensus for a specific article at AfD, that should not be overturned unilaterally. If you believe that you can write an article overcoming the problems identified in AFD#2, then do so, and if you used any of the history undelete that history underneath the new article. GRBerry 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-delete, the versions restored were those that the community, as a concensus, decided to delete. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Amarkov and Radiant. Of course notability is a criteria for deletion: see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and WP:5P. AFD decisions should not be unilaterally overturned in this fashion. That's what DRV is for. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-delete per Moreschi. Fails Wikipedia:Notability Brendan Alcorn 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Re-delete. Ral315 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-delete. Notability is a criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not a phone book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valley2city (talk • contribs)
• Re-delete; if I'd spotted this earlier, I would have speedily deleted it under G4. Proto::► 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re-Delete Notability IS a citeria for deletion and is NOT SUBJECTIVE. Per WP:N Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. As an admin, he should be well aware of ALL wikipedia policies, if not have them committed to memory. WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective. It fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate Directory. I also believe that the admins are held to a much higher standard than the average editor, and as such should be punished in a harsher manner. Looking at RfA's, people are very picky about potential admins. An example is if someone 'canvasas for votes' (letting people know he has an RfA up), it is frowned upon and the potental admin is admolished for not being more aware of policies (and more often than not does not pass the RFA). One comment I found enlightening is Canvassing is simply a symptom of a larger problem - either their is a lack of knowledge of policy, a lack of understanding of policy, or a disregard for policy. None of these are desirable in a sysop. Here we have an admin that DOES know the established manner and process of Wikipedia but chooses to ignore them, or if we choose good faith, has a lack of knwledge of policy or lack of understanding of the process. I believe the Admin knew the policy in place, otherwise they could not be an admin or should not have been voted for as an admin in the first place. I belive this admin should be stripped of his admin powers for this blant run around estabilshed policies he knew were in place. I have a problem assuming good faith as he has been an admin for a while and (like I said before) it is resonable to think he should be aware of the process --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This admin has a history of ignoring the processes in place. He was warned previously about listing "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" for deletion (AfD) without first starting a discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Votes for deletion. He was warned by another admin on this instance. Later, he protected Category:Science twice when there was only a single instance of vandalism each time. He never templated the page, put a note on the category talk:page explaining why he protected the catagory, nor listed the protects at Wikipedia:Protected_page#List_of_protected_pages. He was warned by another admin about this. His comment back was "Protect this page ought to automatically put on some standard template if it is in fact standard". Later he merged the Mathmatics portal and catagory page together quite carelessly, upsetting quite a few editors, stating to their comments that they should feel free to fix up the new article and that "This being wikipedia, we act before we talk. It looks rather nice to me right now". Now I have a very colourful history myself and some may say it's the pot calling the kettle black, however I'm not an admin. I'm an average user. (I wouldn't want the extra headache) I'm a hot head I admit, but I am not upset right now and am using logic to suggest this admin has serious issues with policy, dealing with editors, and following the correct processes. I STRONGLY recommend his adminship be stripped from him. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend you and everyone else who does this stop bringing up desysopping on DRV or XfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then can you recommened the proper place to bring up de-sysopping? This is the first time I have ever recommended it, and I beleive it to be the correct course of action in this case. Thanks --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is the only place where adminship can be removed by formal process, however any request there will probably be rejected unless you have tried other steps first and have other supporters. It would be a very strong action to take, think about it carefully before launching. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes shows the less final steps that you can start with. We're all volunteers here, and fallible, we all make mistakes, please try to talk it out first. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re-delete per the rest. I'm not sure where this meme that "Notability is not a criterion for deletion" comes from, but I think it's dead wrong. We're writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge here, not a compendium of everything under the Sun that someone decides to enter into an edit box and press "Save page". As such, we must have some criteria to discriminate what does and what does not belong in our collection of freely redistributable knowledge. Notability is one of these criteria, along with verifiability, neutrality, etc. --Cyde Weys 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1. A roughly 3/4 majority holds that User:Cyde's invocation of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was proper given the circumstances. Regarding the comment that no real arguments were made in favor of endorsing, this is not necessary. WP:IAR by definition conflicts with other policies and the sole requirement for endorsement is that the community makes a good-faith effort to weigh the conflicting arguments and decides that ignoring the rules was a necessary step under the circumstances.
2. If a previously kept Wikipedia page is listed for deletion at DRV, the threshold is near-unanimity, or roughly 80% agreement. Among established editors, this threshold has not been met (and I will not consider WP:IAR as a tool to game the system and lower this threshold). I will nevertheless not relist the category at the given time, as I don't think continuing the debate at a different location now is beneficial for the community. On the other hand, the issue might have to be revisited eventually, once the scope of WP:CHILD has been hammered out, so the closure of this review is not to prejudice the debate in the long run. This is also not to invalidate the individual opinions expressed below. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD1|CfD2)

This category survived a Cfd in September and in November, and was speedily deleted on December 10. I feel that speedily deleting content, that has survived an Xfd process, per a proposal (WP:CHILD) is inappropriate. Prolog 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Original note and deleting admin's response is here: User talk:Cyde#Category:Child Wikipedians. Prolog 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, list at MfD. Unaware of any speedy criterion for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You could stretch the fourth general criteria of recreated material, per the oldest cfd, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_11#Category:Child_Wikipedians. It might snap in the stretching, but you can stretch it. It was speedied on the basis of that cfd once. One can argue that the more recent cfd's have nullified that result, but that deletion wasn't mentioned at either debate, so maybe you could argue that may have been relevant. Who knows. I'm not overbothered either way. I'm supposed to be saving the featured article status on Superman. Hiding Talk 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; having a category listing all of the children on Wikipedia is a horrible idea. This is probably a Foundation-level issue, not a user-level issue, so I question whether DRV even has any jurisdiction over this at all. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • When the Foundation steps in regarding it, maybe this will be a worthwhile point. Until then, I'm not sure you should be acting as the Foundation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. This is absurd. You can't speedy delete things that go through a XfD with "keep". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse obvious really, --Doc^g 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strangely, "obvious really" isn't very persuasive. It isn't obvious at all that things consensus failed to get deleted should just be speedied. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I tend to put child-safety ahead of process-wonkery and silly votes. If that isn't obvious then I despair.--Doc^g 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That's at least better than "it's obvious". Now why don't you explain to us why we must be protected in ways we don't wish to be? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Because sometimes us grown-ups know best.--Doc^g 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Condescending much, there? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, sorry. But a) don't presume to speak for all children. b) you want treated like an adult, then don't categorise yourself as a child. Unfortunately in the real world there are nasty people who might take advantage of naive children. The best defence is that we treat children like adults and don't differentiate them. This category serves no possible encyclopedic purpose and just might be harmful, or at very least bring us into disrepute. We've already had problems with Child protection issues, and this is just another waiting to happen. That's obvious, really.--Doc^g 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You know, it's really kind of annoying when you talk about how obvious it is. It's not at all obvious to me. And the only issues with child protection I've seen are made-up scenarios by people who think that we need to protect children. That's circular logic. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Made up scenarios?! Do you know how many people per year are convicted of soliciting sex from children online each year? Hell, have you never seen Dateline: To Catch a Predator? You can't make serious societal problems disappear just by trying to pretend that they don't exist, and we must do everything within reason to protect against them. I certainly think deleting a category qualifies as reasonable. --Cyde Weys 20:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That's nice. I don't. The "no consensus" outcomes show that others don't, either. And doing everything within reason is meaningless, because the argument is what should constitute "within reason". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • We have had real child-protection issues on Wikipedia. We have had (and may still have) some users that you really don't want to meet! They are not made up. But you are going to have to take my word for it.--Doc^g 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Doc's arguments are more appealing than the alternatives. A handful of votes at CfD is not a great way to determine if a category is a good idea or not. This is a bad idea. We don't need to wait on the WMF to tell us that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So, wait. Instead of a handful of votes at CfD, we should use one person with a "delete" tab? What? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • CFD, delete tab, none of that matters. All that matters is that this category is a truly bad idea, and thus it should be deleted. Child predators use the Internet to find their victims. We all know that. So why should we make it sooooo easy for them to find their prey?! --Cyde Weys 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Because maybe I wish to identify as a child. I am not going to fall victim to a child predator; there is no chance at all I'll be that stupid. Most importantly, people disagree with you, so you can't delete it without discussion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but you just don't get to do everything you want to do, especially when you're putting your safety in jeopardy. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • But I'm not putting my safety in jeopardy. Without personally identifying information, which is rightly discouraged from being given out, it would be impossible for someone to threaten me. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • This category wasn't deleted just for your safety. It was deleted for the safety of everyone in it. Maybe you are smart enough not to give up any personal details. I'll take you on your word at that. But as for the others, who knows? They're children. Kids easily get duped into revealing details they shouldn't. If someone is being really friendly and is talking to you for months, he will get to know a lot of information. Hell, we already had a case like this, where the people were even exchanging birthday gifts. --Cyde Weys 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, in an ideal world CfD would have zapped this at the first attempt. However, there have been two CfDs, and it has been kept twice. In a marginally less ideal world, the second CfD would have been brought here, and then the category would have been deleted. So, yes, I would have preferred to have deleted this by following process, but this is clearly a case where the outcome is what matters, not the process. It's not even a real category, and deleting it makes no difference to creating an encyclopedia. If this were articlespace, I'd feel differently, but it's not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Truly a bad idea. --Folantin 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Aaaargh. Why does your opinion justify speedy deleting something that passed a CfD? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And why does your opinion on the importance of process trump the safety of children?! --Cyde Weys 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Because it's not agreed upon that this constitutes a threat. And child safety is really not our problem. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The speculation about possible predators was part of both Cfd's. These were valid discussions including several users and their opinions. Prolog 20:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted --lightdarkness ^(talk) 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? This is not a vote. Prolog 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually it is. ~ trialsanderrors 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Why you ask? Because I think the article should remain deleted... I thought I got my point across in my previous statement. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - pending the final outcome of arbitration about protecting children's privacy affecting policy, guideline or process on protecting children's privacy, whatever form of guidance Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has they prevent us from maintaining Wikipedia, and we should ignore them.--Alf ^melmac 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... How can we keep something pending completion of an arbitration case which is completed? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. It is in development and cannot yet be described as "policy", we will need to follow the consensus that emerges there before undeleting this category. I pointed to the over-arching arbcom decision from which this proposed policy, guideline, or process came.--Alf ^melmac 21:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What kind of logic is that? Because someone happened to speedy delete it, ignoring 2 CfDs, it must stay deleted? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The proposed remedies include deletion and oversight to remove the information, this category would collect that information. I understand it survived earlier CfDs, the previous history is voided by the ArbCom rulings.--Alf ^melmac 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted A bad idea does not get better with more discussion. Restoring it while more discussion occurs will prolong the chance that harm will occur related to this category. --FloNight 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Pages cannot be speedied after surviving xfd. This is a blatant disregard of policy and process. "Could cause more trouble than its worth" is NOT A CRITERION FOR SPEEDY DELETION. --- RockMFR 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Process does not trump policy. If there ever were a case for IAR, this is it. This category is a monumentally bad idea. I mean no malice towards the category's creator(s), or those who argue it should be kept. However, such a category does not help the project in any way, and I can think of one thousand and one ways it could be abused.

  Yes, here on Wikipedia we have our nice, warm, fuzzy guidelines about assuming good faith and all that, but unfortunately, in the big and often scary world beyond Wikipedia, there are genuinely evil people, and, unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot entirely shut out that world. As Amarkov points out, there thankfully hasn't been any major event involving minors being preyed upon via Wikipedia, but in the spirit of BEANS, I see no compelling reason to make such an occurrence more likely. I can think of any number of plausible scenarios involving such a category. Besides the notion of having a public list of minors available to anyone who fancies a look (along with links to their User and Talk pages and editing history), suppose someone wants to ingrain him or herself with underage contributors for purposes which I'll leave to the imagination? There's nothing to stop said user from adding him or herself to the category. Sure, we obviously can't stop people from pretending to be things they're not (unless Brion gets around to that Mindreader extension), but that's no reason to help them along.

  Wikipedia is quite different from "just another website" in many respects, but in this case, I see no reason why we should not follow the example of virtually every other site of comparable magnitude that stores personally identifiable user data in attempting to restrict the information underage users reveal about themselves.

  Ultimately, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Is there any reason why we need to identify users under their respective ages of majority, for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia? --Slowking Man 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Slowking. I think most user categories are pretty pointless and do little or nothing to help build an encyclopaedia anyway, but at least the vast majority of them are harmless. This one is potentially dangerous and real world concerns trump issues of policy and process. Actually, I'd be much happier if the WP leadership just went ahead and banned this category outright. --Folantin 21:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, process does trump policy. >Radiant< 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• No offense, but I don't think citing an essay you just made up two months ago (and without input from the vast majority of the community) really helps your argument much. --Cyde Weys 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, but that's false. We can vote until the cows come home to insert POV material into an article, but that doesn't make it acceptable. While some policies are generally considered less weighty or more open to interpretation then others (for instance, NPOV is "non-negotiable" and a Foundation issue, while IAR tends to have widely varying applicability), and process is, at its best, a method for properly analyzing and implementing policy, the simple act of following a process cannot override policy. Process can and does arrive at the wrong outcome at times, which is why IAR and forums such as DRV exist. --Slowking Man 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Undelete. I will admit to having mixed feelings about this one. I understand Cyde's position, but disagree with it. The fact that a given user is a child is useful information for dealing with that user and understanding their perspective. Merely being a child is different from giving away personal information or engaging in inappropriate conduct. There is a continuum for protecting children between "doing nothing" and "removing all reference to users who might be children". Myself and others have argued at length (e.g. WT:CHILD) that policy should allow users to self-identify as children while simultaneously discouraging/preventing children from disclosing personal information. Others are against allowing self-identification. Unfortunately, no position on this issue has reached consensus. This category is admittedly a step further than a mere statement on a userpage, which is why I have mixed feelings here. Does the benefit of organizing the child Wikipedians outweigh the potential harm of exposing them to predators? I'm not sure. By the numbers, I am sure there are more people interesting in helping/protecting/watching over such users than there are in harming them, but it does make them easier to find for those who might intend harm also. However, I am tipped over to undelete in part because this was a speedy rather than the product of a discussion. Dragons flight 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  Discussion can occur while the category is deleted without any potential harm occurring to any child or bad PR to the project. The same is not true inreverse. --FloNight 21:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see it that way. The argument in reverse is that more children might be harmed by our neglect if no good person is paying attention to what they are doing or takes the time to find them. If it should be ultimately kept, then it is because it is more useful than harmful. I'm not sure it is, but I am sure its existence is not manifestly just one or the other. Given that, I don't believe there is here a compelling reason for speedy deletion to override existing process in this case. Dragons flight 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - WP:IAR. Common sense, please, not bureaucracy. The big bad scary real world is relevant here. For this kind of stuff process is irrelevant, and the Foundation/Jimbo ought to issue a decree banning the existence of something like this ever. A list of child wikipedians is an awful idea. In fact, it's terrifying. The existence of such a category could so easily encourage Wikipedia's younger editors to reveal more personal details apart from their age. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, you can't justify acting without consensus by WP:IAR There is no consensus that it is so terrifying, so deletion based on that should not happen. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I'm not too happy with an admin unilaterally overturning a deletion discussion, and I'm afraid that deleting a category to protect people is more a case of moral panic than anything else. For instance, it's probably quite easy to infer a user's age from what topics xe edits and shows interest in. >Radiant< 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  As I stated above, I agree that this is true; it's obviously impossible to make it so that nothing at all can be inferred about a user. However, that doesn't mean we need to make doing so easier. Again, I think this is a good example of BEANS. --Slowking Man 03:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw process. I don't need to know who the children are to edit this encyclopaedia and neither do you. Keep deleted. Grace Note 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Cyde. Carson 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I think I must have had a stroke before I made my previous comment here. I was temporarily blinded by process and policy.... This category is a truly bad idea, no matter how many times it has survived Cfd. Identifying children on a website is not a good idea. --- RockMFR 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, serves no useful purpose, only bad ones. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted and Endorse I see no good purpose for this. Whethere or not someone identifies their age is up to them. If you want this, then create Category:Old Wikipedians and Category:Teen Wikipedians. Oh wait, that would be ageist. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Teenage Wikipedians, Category:Adult Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians born in 1990 etc, ... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Undelete: Amarkov makes a good point in that this already passed categories for deletion. I understand the concern in having this category since it "exposes" children, but if there isn't a policy against children editing Wikipedia, it should be up to them or their parents to have their children identify as such online. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for parenting. Paul D. Meehan 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. While it is easy to imagine this category being used destructively, it is impossible to imagine it ever being helpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Any arguments that starts with "because I know better" should never actually be spoken aloud. Or on text, or whatever. I'm unclear on why all these dissenting voices failed to pipe up on the actual discussion for deletion, but that would have been the place for them to have made their opinons felt. Bad idea? Maybe, but that's just one mans's opinon and being an admin doesn't mean yout opinon (and willingness to mash the button) count for more than anyone else's. - brenneman 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is one of those cases when I struggle to say, "endorse closure" because I really don't like out of process actions ... but seriously, we don't need this stuff. WP:IAR, keep it deleted. BigDT 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• In the strongest terms, keep this deleted - come on, people, really ... Metamagician3000 06:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I'm not exactly thrilled with the way this ended up on DRV, but let's be honest - this probably would have wound up here one way or the other, to overturn a keep or a delete decision. As to what I think of the category - I'm undecided how far we should be able to take the ban on "identifying personal information". Perhaps some personal info might be allowed on an editor's user page. But that is a far cry from having a fully automated list of every child on Wikipedia. A category would generate such a list, and that list is far too dangerous to be floating around cyberspace. Quack 688 14:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - note the complete lack of any real argument by the keep deleted parties regarding why legitimate CfDs could be overturned by one person. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - note the real concerns of those wanting deletion - and the complete lack of any substantive (non process) argument for undeleting. No one is argument this is useful, many see it as potentialy very dangereous. The consensus is clear.--Doc^g 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict- I agree with Doc Glasgow above). This is far too important an issue to be decided by a handful of random users who happened to notice it on CfD. The outcome of those debates was "no consensus", not a ringing endorsement of this category. As far as I can see, the first debate involved a grand total of eight editors, one of whom made the nonsensical comment "Keep per norm" (AFAIK no "norm" was involved in the argument and the nominator proposed "delete"). Issues of this magnitude should not be decided this way. As I've said, I'm not even happy about this debate here. This should go straight to the top. It's just not worth risking children's safety in the real world for the sake of some trivial category which has no value in building an encyclopaedia. If ever any incident was to occur as a result of keeping this category, Wikipedia would almost certainly be sued out of existence too. This is a case for "Ignore All Rules" if there ever was one. --Folantin 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, no substantiative argument? The fact that people disagree with you on whether it should be deleted is a substantiative argument. Why must we show a consensus to keep a category once it's been deleted, regardless of how justified the deletion is? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and to Folantin, if it's too important to be decided by a handful of people in a CfD, why is it not too important to be decided by one person with the power to delete things? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Any page that has been kept (either explicitly or through non consensus) at an XfD should not be speedily deleted by anybody. The only exceptions to this are proven legal issues (e.g. copyright) or WP:OFFICE actions by official representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation acting in their official capacity. That one user feels their subjective opinion that something might be against a proposed policy trumps consensus makes me wonder about their suitability as an administrator. Thryduulf 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense. Yes, the page was deleted 'out of process' - but it it here to see whether that deletion was a good idea or not. Most think it was, and we've given very strong reasons. All we have had back is process wonking. Please, fight the silly rules battle on some other issue - not this FFS! If you think Wikipedia is a better, healthier, page with a category like this, then, by all means argue for undeletion. But really, so far no argument has even been attempted as to why this is a good thing. If the speedy bothers you, forget the speedy; the CfD was a quirky crazy result - review that (or would you rather I opened a separate DRV on that issue?). Just answer the basic question - do you think that undeleting a list that enables anyone to quickly find and identify children is beneficial to Wikipedia??? --Doc^g 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a silly rules battle. It's called you are deleting things without a consensus to do so. Consensus is not an artifact, constructed from the rules to inhibit things. It expresses what the community as a whole wants, instead of whichever person happened to stumble on it and speedy delete it. This reminds me of the person who blamed the fact that people were disagreeing with him on the RfA process. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:IAR, which if it were ever applicable, is in this case. This category has a significant possibility of hurting both real people and the encyclopedia, and keeping it doesn't seem to help building the encyclopedia at all. Mak (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... WP:IAR says to ignore process, policies and guidelines. The issue is that you are ignoring consensus, which IAR does not justify. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, it says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." In this case, "the rules" is that you have to follow a non-consensus on a !vote regarding something which could easily harm Wikipedia. Harming Wikipedia makes it difficult for me to improve or maintain Wikipedia. See how that works? Mak (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You can't just overrule what others think. The only time when you can is with Foundation level issues, which this is not. In other cases, you must listen to others, not just overrule them because of a percieved good. That's how Wikipedia works. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted because it's just not helpful to us, or to them, to have a big list out there of which of us are children. NO. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Amarkov makes highly persuasive points but ultimately this review seems misguided. No argument has been made to suggest hw this category served any positive purpose. A readily available list identifying the youngest members of the community to potential predators is unacceptable. The risk of it being abused is a real one and I see no reason to take a chance on so serious an issue. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Out of process early closure was reverted, this review will run 5 days as prescribed in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. ~ trialsanderrors 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • trialsanderrors is of course correct, and I apologise for being an ass and not keeping up to date with all the relevant policy. Hiding Talk 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even having a list like this is scary, created by an unregistered user [5] in the first place. We simply do not need a list singling out minors under the age of 13. Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. --Dakota 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Amarkov may be happy to tempt fate but I don't think we should. Proto::► 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I don't particulartly agree with Cyde on deleting this ad hoc. But it has been deleted, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments on why we should have this re-instated. I'm personally voting on the article itself and not in the manner it was removed. I don't necessarily subscribe to the News of the Screws style hysteria that there is a peadophile round every corner, but that doesn't mean that this page could be misused. And if there is no positive use for this page then I can only be swayed by the fact it could be misused. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not helpful. Tempting fate. Gathers too much information in one place, though there are other ways of tracking down this information. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life#Age_groups anyone? Those will need to go as well. Carcharoth 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per brenneman (and others). -- DS1953 ^talk 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While I completely respect the democratic nature of Wikipedia as well as despise censorship, I think this falls under an issue of safety. I agree with many of the other naysayers: this category could be used as a dangerous tool by predators. We shouldn't make it easy for them. Valley2city 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to attempt to keep my mouth shut on this, but the long line of knee-jerk "keep deleted so that predators don't use it" responses is driving me nuts. Can we have a nice long think about the chain of logic here:

1. The "predator" has to exist.
2. They then have to come to this category.
3. They then have to locate a target from this list.
4. They then have to contact/groom/whatever that target.
5. That target has to do raise no concern here on wikipedia.
6. Logical and gruesome conclusion reached.

Considering that: The incidence of predation is actually very low, that there is strong selection bias here on wikipedia for those who are highly computer literate, the very open nature of talk pages, and that there is another environment that is target rich and almost totally unmonitored, this is a tempest in a tea cup of a grand nature. Sure, it's possible that something could go wrong, but some realistic assesment of the risk needs to be taken place, and I'm sure seeing a dearth of that. There are ways where you are literally thousand of times more likely to die that get ignored, there's no rational reason to steam ahead without talking about this rather than mashing the delete button and lining up the "me too!s". If it's so bloody important then the foundation can come down off the mountain and give us some stone tablets. If it's not, than let the debate occur in some forum where we might actually get rational input.

brenneman 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that you dismiss all of the arguments against your position as not rational. It almost looks like discussion would have been pointless anyway; if you consider all of the opposing arguments to be irrational, well, you're not going to make any step towards a compromise. Frankly, this justifies why action had to be taken; discussion was stalemated, with one side not listening at all to the other. --Cyde Weys 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd logic. If I pick a random POV pusher, they are almost certain to be ignoring completely people who disagree. Is that a justification for an admin to intervene and lock in their POV? Of course not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "Tempting fate" is not a rational argument. It provides nothing in the way of context, has no attempt at assessing the risk:reward ratio, makes no actual progress to determining the scale of (or even the existance of) the underlying problem, it's an emotive response. It's purely visceral, as the majority of these responses are. The disadvantage of this forum is that it lends itself to thoughtless knee jerk voting, and is strongly disincentive to discourse. You've actually explicitly said above that you deleted it because discussion failed. Do we need a stronger argument for undeletion that that? - brenneman 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's do a risk/reward analysis.

Category:Wikipedians interested in photography

Reward: Wikipedians can find other Wikipedians with similar interests - this helps build a sense of community, and encourages them to work on related articles together

Risk: Someone with an inappropriate interest in photographers can use this information to track down and contact photographers.

In this scenario, the reward is trivial, but so is the risk. That counts as a keep in my book. Compare this to "Child Wikipedians". The reward is the same. But there are proven instances of people tracking down children online, and the consequences are significant.

Trivial reward + Noticeable risk = Delete. Quack 688 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lip service, but it's a start. Can we have some more details on "proven instances of people tracking down children online" please? Otherwise we're just making hand-wavings about the risk. Go to MySpace and see how long it takes you to find a "target" for Bob's sake. The very first hit in the search above says "im 14. im always bored. i get bored very easy. im single&watever happens happens." Are we actually saying that sexual predators would stop if we didn't make it easy for them? I am sorry, but I see zero attempts to back up any of the claims of "danger danger will robinson" with any evidence. Let's start with just one fact: How many arrests for child sexual predation based upon internet contact were there in the United States in 2006? - brenneman 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll play along, just so we don't have to have this discussion again. Yay for Google.

in the U.S. last year there were approximately 4000 cases where law enforcement opened a case involving attempts to entice children into meeting sexual predators offline. [6]

Your turn. Show me a single benefit this category provides that is worth that kind of risk. (Oh, one other comment regarding those links you posted. Road safety isn't our responsibility. MySpace isn't our responsibility. Wikipedia content is our responsibility.) Quack 688 08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'd normally shay away from "Ask Parry!" as a reliable source, considering that he gets his information from things that "been circling the Internet for the last three or four years", he makes this point:

In the United States alone, there are approximately 29 million teens and children under the age of 18 online. Roughly half are 13 and over. For there to be approximately 4000 annual cases, out of a potential 14.5 million users means your children are pretty safe online.'

I'd be more inclined to go with something like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children as my source. They have such nuggets as:

• Teenagers girls (13 to 19) are the most likely victims - not "children" per se
• 1 in 7 received a Internet come-on already - with no statistics on how old the "other" party was

It's also got a few other tidbits like:

• There were under 1000 arrests involving victims in the "internet sex crimes against minors" category. [7] in 2000
• The total number of complaints in 2005 was only 2664 [8]

So let's think about it this way: if Ask Parry reckons it's safe based upon his flawed "4000" numbers, how much safer must the internet be based upon the actual much lower numbers? This is a textbook case of reacting without thinking, or looking past the surface. Of course it is possible that something explotation will occur. It's just not likely.

brenneman 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, that's not how this works. You wanted to play risk/reward, I agreed. You wanted some figures, I found some. Before we argue over the statistics, it's your turn to move. Show me the reward that we get from having an easily accessible list of children on Wikipedia. Then we can all decide if that reward is worth the risk or not. Quack 688 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete: At this point, this is a matter of policy. No decent reasons have been made to keep the category. Brendan Alcorn 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that is the case Why did you vote undelete? 09:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and list. Something that survived XfD shouldn't be speedied, and especially not by an admin who'd participated on the "losing" side of that XfD. If it's such a bad idea (and I'm not disputing that), then it should be easy to gather a consensus in favor of deletion -- which also happens to be the proper procedure. If it's an emergency that justifies ignoring all rules (and I can see an argument for that), then it should at least be done by an admin who does not appear to be suffering a conflict of interest -- that's an abuse of admin powers, and I don't throw that phrase around lightly. Shimeru 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fuck process and keep deleted; those who don't agree might as well read WP:CHILD and about Wikipedia's constant endeavour to protect children's privacy. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Given the real and repeated incidents that have come up on AN/I over the past year involving users who were either real or pretend children giving out personal information and/or trying to engage other real or pretend kids in conversation, keep deleted. I'm a process wonk, but the rationale for reacting to those users — this puts the encyclopedia in peril, as well as any children involved, for no clear benefit — holds here. I think Cyde is being extremely high-handed, but in this particular case he's right. Nandesuka 14:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - should have been speedied on sight. I am voting here as an ordinary user, and not as either board member of the foundation, nor in my traditional community capacity. This vote should not be viewed as precedent for broader issues, nor as a "Jimbo said...". My opinion here should be taken on its own merits. I oppose the creation of all inflammatory categories and userboxes, and my view of what is inflammatory is quite broad. Here, we are not democrats, republicans, children, adults, etc. Here we are wikipedians. The obvious additional dangers of a category like this, both from a REAL and PR point of view, are additional factors weighing in favor of deletion. --Jimbo Wales 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as we should not let process or policy stand in the way of doing the Right Thing. That's the essence of IAR. Those arguing for overturn and restoration have not demonstrated a clear benefit of this category and have not addressed the clear risks that have been delineated. Those arguing for overturn and restoration seem to be standing on process flaws. consensus cannot, in the end, overturn doing what is right. Also, per ordinary citizen Jimbo Wales. But it would be nice if the Foundation would rearticulate principles in this case.... not that we NEED to wait for them to do so, as the Right Thing is obvious. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. I'm sorry this was deleted outside process, but would have argued strong delete if I had known about this category. This has a relatively low risk of danger to any one category member, true, but all those risks add up in terms of risks to the Wikipedia. Even one member getting hurt or even threatened will cause terrible public relations damage to the Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I can see no possible encyclopedic benefit to this category - unlike, say, the above mentioned photographers category, which could be quite useful - "Hey Jane, I understand you're a photographer hobbyist, what do you think of the photo of X I put up on this article, and can you take me a shot of Y for that article?" Unlike skilled photographers, there is nothing that children can do in terms of writing an encyclopedia that adults with childish interests can not. Adults can and do play Pokemon, and even Candyland. Note that child editors can NOT rely on other members of this category to be children, so this can not be used for socialization. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Desert Ridge Junior High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I had a feeling that, no matter who closed this AfD, it was going to be the wrong decision (and to be perfectly honest, I have purposely not looked at who closed it yet). The article asserts absolutely no importance for the school, and the only independent sources provided are trivial. AfD, as we all know, is not a vote, and literally every single keep !vote in this discussion falls under one of three categories:

• "There are no currently-accepted notability standards for schools, so none should be deleted." Well, that doesn't make any sense. If WP:BIO didn't exist, and I wrote an article (with trivial sourcing) whose content was "Kicking222 smells nice," that still wouldn't make the article suitable for WP.
• "If we delete this, we have to delete every school," a.k.a. "All schools are notable." That's obviously not true. Some schools are notable. Just because we delete one does not mean that no school deserves an article.
• "This school is notable." If anyone who stated this opinion gave reasons why, I would accept it. Of course, this was not the case.

This decision should be overturned, and the article should be deleted (or, perhaps, merged). The closer notes that AfD is not the venue to argue notability guidelines, and I agree, but no matter what guidelines one would favor, this school is still non-notable. Kicking222 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. This is absurd. By making a WP:BACKYARDS proposal, can I prevent deletion of any articles on backyards? This isn't even a secondary school here. Oh, and regardless of if all schools are notable, an article must still have reliable sources. This one does not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. What consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The consensus which discounts people claiming it's notable without explaining why. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As opposed to the consensus which discounts people claiming it's not notable without explaining why? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • "Only sources are the school itself and a directory..." That's a reason. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • As much of one as the fact that there isn't a school that isn't written about. -badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That's not a fact, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • When one turns up, let me know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Was there an actual argument buried in there somewhere? --Calton | Talk 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• endorse closure We had this zillion times. Schools are notable. Period. (alhough a second half of votes usually says no they are not). There must be a decision on that somewhere. `'mikka 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Um... no, the decision is that secondary schools are notable. Junior high is not secondary. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Badlydrawnjeff.--R613vlu 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Lack of a guideline does not mean we should keep everything; the lack of independent sources was never addressed by the Keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom and per Guy. Xtifr _tälk 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom. You can't argue to keep an article "just because" - there must be a policy or guideline reason to do so, and none of the keep arguments even came close to addressing the problem - a lack of reliable sources. --Coredesat 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom. Article contains no encyclopedic information. That it has a chess club and drama club is trivia. The AFD closing note appears to be a slippery slope fallacy. >Radiant< 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, this isn't the place to re-hash notability discussions, the AFD was closed within administrator discretion. Silensor 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure afd was closed properly.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure There is no consensus to delete schools. You can run 1,000 afds and that will still be the case. Since this can be written about neutrally and verifiably, there is no pressing policy reason not to follow the lack of consensus into default keeping all schools. Actually, despite being a born-again inclusionist, I loathe school articles. They attract vandalism and libels for very little encyclopaedic gain. They cause the OTRS team nothing but trouble. I'd like to nuke the lot, but there is no consensus to do so. Don't bother relisting this, in fact never AfD any school, they get kept. Baah.--Doc^g 01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Schools are inherently "notable". Stop trying to delete them and get on with something more useful. Standardise the articles. Merge them into city articles. Whatever. But stop stirring it with these nominations, and trying to rewrite policy in dusty corners like this one. It's generally the deletionists' echo chamber here. I've said it before, and I don't mind repeating it, if you people spent more time worrying about the quality of articles and less about the quantity of them, the encyclopaedia would actually improve. A million very short, well-written school articles, which covered every school in the world would be A Good Thing. A hotchpotch of halfarsed dribblings about some of them, with others deleted so that they never could be created as decent little things, Is Not. Grace Note 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Schools are inherently notable" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument for inclusion. At least one school I attended is so far from notable that I cannot even verify that it ever existed. Another is the only school in the English speaking world to have educated a pope. To suggest that both are "notable" is to mistake notability for existence, something we do not do for any other kind of content. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, non-trivial coverage by multiple sources not demonstrated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn No non-trivial secondary sources, therefore no way to expand the article in an encyclopedic manner. Schools have been deleted, so it is patently false that "there is no consensus to delete schools" or "all schools are notable." Re: badlydrawnjeff, the onus is on those seeking inclusion to provide sources showing notability, not on those favoring deletion to prove non-notability. This was not done in the AfD. Shimeru 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, per Silensor. Also, I am semi-new here, but what is the purpose of AFD if a DRV is opened before the AFD is even closed? This seems to negate the need for AFD all together. As far as I can tell there was no error, or new information, so why was this opened before the AFD closed? While the nominator takes the high road above claiming that he is just here because he feels that the debate is going to be closed wrong, I think it is pretty clear that he simply feels that that article is not going to be deleted as he wished (he was right). This is in effect an end run around the AFD consensus process and should not be tolerated. The admin closed the article as no consensus and was right, there was, and is still no consensus on the issue. KnightLago 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC) For some reason I read the nom as starting this before the AFD closed. Kicking222 has pointed out this is not the case. So I have struck my above comments and offered my apologies. KnightLago 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Silensor]] and others. --Myles Long 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Doc glasgow. Reasonable articles about schools should be kept under there are stricter guidelines for their inclusion. Paul D. Meehan 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, those arguing for deletion failed to make any compelling arguments to support their position. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Guy. --Calton | Talk 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. I'd have deleted it, I think it should have been deleted, but more to the point the only assertions for keeping were non-arguments. Must I again did up the analysis that shows that there is consistant block "voting" on schools? - brenneman 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no-consensus closure An admin is supposed to close the discussion in light of the arguments and evidence brought forth, plus the relevant policies and guidelines. They are encouraged to disregard arguments that contradict policy or guideline. Here, we don't yet have a topical guideline. Delete arguments aren't strong from policy. BJ did introduce some independent sources to the AFD, which went almost undiscussed. A keep close I'd have seen as a reversible error, but not a no-consensus or delete, both of which were within the range of reasonable discretion. Also, merge is a completely legitimate editorial decision after a keep or no-consensus close, so that could be done now. GRBerry
• Overturn, delete. Proto::► 09:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Doc. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, administrator was within his/her discretion and article content met relevant policies and guidelines. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per above. There are no notability guidelines, and the article is well-written. Brendan Alcorn 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Khaleel Mohammed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This AfD was closed as "no consensus" even though WP:BIO and WP:PROF failed for lack of WP:V and WP:RS citations. During the AfD, the author tried to provide one by introducing a {{copyvio}} from the subject's website (see Talk:Khaleel Mohammed#Copyvio) that remains unaddressed. Dennette 09:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As the closing admin, I provided some commentary on the situation on the article's talk page. However, my main rationale for closing the nomination as "no consensus" is that I honestly could not perceive a rough consensus to delete in the discussion. In any case, it seems to me that the debate on this article has been somewhat sidetracked to issues of notability, which after all are just guidelines, when the real issue would be whether the article meets, and whether it can be made to meet, the core policies of WP:V and WP:BLP. Yes, the article does need heavy editing. On one hand, the copyvio sections and any unsourced potentially derogatory statements should simply be removed; on the other, the various links presented as evidence of notability on the talk page, the AfD, and anywhere else should be turned into proper references for actual statements in the article. Eventually, if both sides of the notability debate are willing to work on helping the article comply with our policies, I'd hope we could have a brief, well-sourced article that hopefully asserts (with references) at least some notability. If this turns out to be impossible, the article may eventually be renominated for deletion — hopefully with a better chance of achieveing an actual consensus at that point. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. 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. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The copyvio material and template have been removed, but there are still no WP:RS citations establishing WP:N for the subject ... WP:PROF is just a red-herring to draw attention away from the real issue (WP:V), because none of the "claims" of notability are supported by independent 3rd party coverage, unless you're willing to include an academic homepage and the biography from a PR firm as reliable sources. Dennette 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete article. I nominated this article on the fact that there was no clear mention of any notability given in the article. I really didn't see anything in the discussion. Though, there was no consensus, the Keep side did not provide any basis for its position (ie good evidence to support notability). The only support was that his views are controversial, which I do not believe (I may be wrong) is not inherently notable. From my understanding, this should not be a vote. Just because, there are many who like the guy (possibly due to his beliefs) does not make him notable. They must provide arguments. Nlsanand 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but relist after the copyvio issue is resolved (which of course can be done editorially since it's a No consensus closure). I find the keep arguments mostly unpersuasive, and the article and discussion low on independent sources, but editors can reasonably disagree over what facts meet notability criteria, and the closure expresses this. He's also just an associate professor, and I corrected this in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Amarkov. Paul D. Meehan 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per closing admin. The article has enough salvageable parts to be useful in rewritting. Brendan Alcorn 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment OK, then you can start salvaging it by adding his year and place of birth to the introduction ... the article has been around since August, and no one has added that basic information yet ... if he's so Notable, then it should be trivial to locate and Verify. --Dennette 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• While useful, if knowing that would be required to be notable, we wouldn't be able to write about Christopher Columbus or Homer... AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Overturn There are many reasons the foremost is a violation of Wikipedia is not a vote. Second he is clearly notable. How is the highest ranked Halo 2 player not notable. Despite the many votes against the inclusion of this article I have brought evidence proving that he passes WP:Notability. He has been cited multiple non-trivial independent sources. [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Second, he is currently ranked as both the national champion for 1v1/FFA and is apart of the number 1 team, Team Carbon. He has been interviewed by USA Network and currently is a star on MLG's pro circuit series on USA Network. The precedence has been set many times before, see Daigo Umehara, Ken Hoang, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Magic:_The_Gathering_players. The top ranked players in any genre is notable. I personally have no interest in Magic players, but that doesnt mean I think they should be deleted Valoem ^talk 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "AfD is not a vote" means that people whose opinions ignore policy, guidelines, or evidence should be ignored. It does not mean that people who happen to disagree with you on interpretation of the evidence may be steamrolled over. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am saying they did not give reasons for deletion therefore they are voting, not arguing and I gave a clear reason why that page needed to be kept. Every person except myself and DJiTH said "delete per nom" without any rationale. That is clearly the book definition of voting as oppose to arguing. Therefore, the result should be no consensus not delete. How is the highest ranked player of an extremely popular game, Halo 2, not notable? Also based on precedence he should be kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Walsh. He is not even the top ranked player and his page is kept. Ben Jackson has also been feature on a weekly basis on USA Network on the show MLG Pro Circuit. MLG is an international league and the largest league for Halo 2. If this deletion review fails then all sport competitors must be deleted. Valoem ^talk 05:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: All sports players? I think there's a fairly clear difference between a "professional" video gamer and a baseball/football player. This difference is noted in WP:BIO. Unfortunately, I didn't close the aforementioned deletion discussion. I suspect the result could have been quite different. How again do you alone override the accepted opinion of 6 separate Wikipedians? Coincidentally, the article is almost purely cruft, without reliable sources. Hell, it even includes a section about his "first gaming memory". alphachimp. 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Response Sports players extend beyond major professional sports leagues, you forget to mention less mainstream sports whose players are more than notable enough to warrent an article. Take look Bowling and Ping Pong. There are articles about players of these sports who are not even the best in the field. How about Magic players who have repeatly survived AfD and receive much less coverage than MLG players? What about poker players who win only one major title and are not even signed? Ben Jackson is not only the best of a major video game, but also a signed player. If there is cruft in the article it can be cleaned, deletion is not the answer. Furthermore his "first gaming memory" was covered in an episode on USA. Please view the television episode at www.mlgpro.com go to Boost Mobile Major League Gaming Pro Circuit: Episode 7 Full. Valoem ^talk 10:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment if you will look at my talk page User talk:SkierRMH you will see that there are concerns about the inclusion of electronic sports players. It isn't even clear what category they're be included in... and depending on what category they're in, there doesn't seem to be any consistency on inclusion/exclusion. I think that this should be clarified before another rash of these hits the AfD. Therefore, I'm remaining neutral until there is some clarification. SkierRMH 06:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. I'm commenting on my decision, not the arguments...seeing as DRV is a review of the admin decision. Obviously AfD is not a vote, but it's ridiculous to ignore the obvious consensus of 6 editors (vs. 1 dissenter) that this player fails WP:BIO and does not meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. alphachimp. 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is relatively clear that the people who "voted" did not research the subject in question, hence they simply "voted" instead of bring counter arguments. You even said so yourself that they were "votes" not arugments therefore the votes should not be counted. Ben Jackson passes the professor test with flying colors and has been cited by multiple independent sources. The best players in any field is notable. Therefore Ben Jackson is notable and passes WP:BIO. Valoem ^talk 07:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I've never used the expression "vote" in relation to this deletion discussion. I'd really hesitate to judge the underlying research and motivations of those involved in the deletion discussion on the simple basis of the length and depth of their comments offered. Such a judgment would run deeply against WP:AGF. Perhaps they simply saw no need to differ from the reasonable arguments offered supporting deletion. alphachimp. 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment (moved from talk page) Thanks for your response, but I had already countered the initial reason for deletion by showing how he passes WP:BIO "cited multiple non-trivial sources" and "the best in his field". I was wondering how Ben Jackson fails WP:BIO when other people who receive considerably less coverage such as Daigo Umehara, Kai Budde, Randy Buehler, and David Williams (card player) are kept. Also a prime example of a person who was kept based on receiving coverage from "multiple non-trivial independent sources" is Ken Hoang see his AfD. He is considered the top ranked and most sucessful player in Super Smash Bros. Melee (a game that is considerably less popular than Halo 2). In fact this page became so famous that the article itself was cited in a news article: http://www.thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=28078&page=5
        • Ben Jackson is the undefeated champion of the 2006 season of MLG ffa/1v1 and 2005 champion. I hope you will reconsider after this. Valoem ^talk 07:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment He is not the subject of a multiplicity of published works. His league is not fully professional. Not all members of his team merit inclusion. In ten years, nobody will remember or have any interest in him. alphachimp. 07:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment His league is fully professional. Jamie Gold the currently WSOP champion has had no notable achievements besides the 2006 WSOP winner. If he does not win anymore tournaments will anyone remember him? That statement "In ten years, nobody will remember or have any interest in him" coming from an admin is shocking. It is clearly a very bias and opinionated statement. How could you say that? Anyone who plays Halo will most certainly remember him and even more importantly if he continues his achievements people out of the gaming community will remember him. Also if you viewed my citations you will see that he has been sourced by multiple published works. Valoem ^talk 08:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: When Mr. Gold participated in the 2006 WSOP, it received extensive coverage by major media sources: The Washington Post, FOX News, etc. Mr. Jackson hasn't been the subject of anything close to that kind of coverage. I'm sorry, but he's just not particularly notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. "They all disagreed with me" isn't a valid reason to challenge. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The reason Jamie Gold was mentioned was because he has achieved less in his field then Ben Jackson has in his field. Jamie Gold has only won one WSOP event while Ben Jackson is the undefeated 2005 2006 champion in a very popular game. No one has nor will be able to counter the fact that Magic The Gathering players have their own articles and received less coverage. Also Ken Hoang and Daigo Umehara have both survived AfDs and are less notable then Ben Jackson. Until you can give reasons why they can have articles and Ben Jackson can not, you have no argument. I have a much stronger argument then "They all disagreed with me". Good job at reading what I wrote and trying to discredit me, Bull. Valoem ^talk 21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting, but I'd be open to deleting them as well. However Daigo was in a documentary and Ken I guess was covered on MTV. A nationally distributed source for your person could steer me your way. Although to be honest there's a certain arbitrariness to all this. Nupur Lala, the winner in Spellbound (documentary), was kept according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nupur Lala. However you won't find her article as it was reverted back into a redirect without comment or objection. Frank Neuhauser never had an article even though he is notable for being the first winner and lived long enough to be interviewed in the film. (He might still be alive, who knows?)--T. Anthony 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (Non-relevant aside follows) I decided to turn Nupur Lala back into an article per the AfD. If there's a reason I should not have done that tell me at the article's talk page.--T. Anthony 11:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• A good reason why Ben Jackson can't have an article: Not enough people care about his title for his possession of it to confer notability. No members of the media noticed when he won, and no members of the media would notice if he lost. Some honors just aren't notable. If my cousin won Miss America, she'd be on every news wire in the country. If she won Miss Seedless Guava, it might make the local paper if it was a slow news week. You see the difference? That difference is the same difference between someone like Mr. Gold and someone like Mr. Jackson. I'm not trying to be rude, but there it is. As for your other examples... I'm not convinced that they should have articles, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. There is extensive media coverage from multiple major media sources, the single argument by Valoem should have trumped any of the !votes which failed to take this into consideration. It looks as if this was pure vote counting, sadly. Since this was closed without comment by alphachimp it is difficult to tell either way. Silensor 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  See my arguments above. Quite frankly, I saw no need to explain consensus via a comment. alphachimp. 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• So long as the ostriches rule the asylum, or at least outnumber everyone else who is bothered (not many of us, of course, given the thousands with better things to do), this will keep happening. Obviously should be overturned because it is of absolutely no account to alphachimp whether this encyclopaedia includes this guy or not, but unfortunately that clear piece of common sense will not prevent him, and others like him, from impoverishing it and upsetting contributors who want to add stuff that they have noted, even if others haven't. Grace Note 04:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Consider your attacks noted. I see no reason to include such a non-notable figure on Wikipedia, per the logic expressed above. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it. alphachimp. 04:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Attacks"? I'm sorry, but I'm just too busy laughing at how precious that is to be able to read any "logic". Please though, spare me. I know what the "logic" is and have read it many, many times. Try having a crack at mine, which is that it's absolutely nothing to you whether he's in or out and destroying someone else's page is simply hurtful to the contributor who wrote it without any actual benefit to you, barring the small thrill of tearing down what someone else cares about but you don't. If you feel "attacked" by reading that, maybe a short period of reflection on why would help, given that it's presented to you in the kindest way, without any intention to hurt you, merely to share another perspective with you. Grace Note 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment (neutral on the actual nomination itself, because I haven't reviewed it enough), nobody WP:OWNs pages on Wikipedia (by necessity), so applying ownership is not appropriate. In addition, every single edit you make is prefaced with "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Too many people already get the idea that "their" version of an article is the one true version of the article and is immovable already, and we should really discourage that kind of thinking, because it's detrimental to the building of an encyclopedia. ColourBurst 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment toward Hit bull, win steak You seem pressed in stating that Ben Jackson was not covered by a major news source when he was. What do you call USA Network? I have a direct citation disproving your statement. Why this bias toward this notable character? If you feel that none of the people I mentioned deserve articles (even though they had repeatedly survived AfDs) you can put them up for deletion review. The fact is as it stands right now people less notable then Ben Jackson have articles therefore the precendence has been set. It would not be doing this person justice if he is not allowed an article. Valoem ^talk 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• A reality TV series is not a major news source; in fact, a reality TV series is not a news source at all. In the past, with much higher-profile shows like Survivor and Big Brother, the consensus has been to add brief passage on each participant on the show's page, with separate pages only for participants who are otherwise notweorthy for activities independent of the TV series. For one example, look at the participants in Survivor: Marquesas. Hunter Ellis has a standalone article because he subsequently became a TV host for several independent shows on The History Channel. Sara Jones, voted out the week after him, did not, since she's not particularly notable outside of her participation in Survivor. If you wanted to smerge a few lines of the information that was in Mr. Jackson's article into the parent article on the series, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. We could do that with the articles on the other participants as well, if you're worried about consistency. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd missed this earlier. To be honest I'd still prefer deleting Ken Hoang and Daigo Umehara to bringing this article back. However I guess I vote Overturn then AfD all three of them.--T. Anthony 06:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn & Undelete Valoem makes excellent points above. We should not concern ourselves with trying to decide if someone will be notable in the future. Jackson has proved himself to be notable now, which is what matters. Paul D. Meehan 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete per Paul Meehan. Article subject has proved notability now. Brendan Alcorn 08:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - DRV requesting user has presented multiple (four) non-trivial media sources, in accordance with WP:NOTABILITY; however, I sympathise with User:Alphachimp in his reasons for deletion: it was a close call and it just so happens the general community consensus is now in favour of keeping this article. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Notability is more than just published sources; it is also about independent sources. The two MLGaming sources are clearly not independent, given that he works for them. The Californian article is independent and reliable. The GotFrag interview is as far as I can see independent - but reasonable people could disagree over whether it is a reliable source. Those opining at the AFD found that he did not meet WP:BIO and consensus there was clear. However, the different set of people opining here have different opinions, and many are frankly treating this more as AFD round 2 than a deletion review. GRBerry 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. The new sources that have been presented are non-trivial. --- RockMFR 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete per above, namely new non-trivial sources. Paul D. Meehan 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note Potential sockpuppeteering issues, see WP:ANI#Possible sockpuppet attempting to disrupt AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)