Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5

Floro Fighting Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I orginally wrote the page and I did it badly, it was quite spammy. Page has been reformatted to follow Wiki guidelines, and includes references and annoted sections. With the proper formatting and references I would ask that it be overturne.

Marcdscott 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid application of G4. It's a copypaste of the AFDed article. --Coredesat 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Where's the AfD? I could only find Floro fighting systems which was deleted under G11 (blatant advertising). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  The AFD was for Floro Fighting System (singular). I fixed the header to make it appear. --Coredesat 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete unless a proper AfD is located. G4 was not valid, rewrite completely legitimate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Striking per below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I did the speedy delete per the AfD. Feel free to ask me questions about it. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The rewrite contained new information including referenced biography, pertinant links to other wiki page which refernce the system and it's founder. Though containing similar information the AfD and the new rewritten article conforms to wiki standards. Marcdscott
• Endorse Deletion Does not meed WP:N, WP:V and was an advert. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 19:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per validly closed AfD. -- Satori Son 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

8mm Fuzz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

I am not entirely sure why this entry was deleted; it actually easily met some of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music) page WP:BAND. It specifically meets the following with ease:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

The following features in the Boston Herald are great examples: [1] [2]

as well as the following feature interview in Boston's Weekly Dig: [3]

Both of these sources are considered noteworthy by Wiki's standards.

It was particularly strange as the order of said criteria changed in the course of said AfD debate, causing one third-party editor to turn against his initial decision of "keep". Quite honestly, none of the editors seemed to address the criteria that was suggested as being legit (as noted by two other editors).

Also, Rule 7 may also be relevant; 8mm Fuzz are a visible and active part of the Great Scott scene that also produced such worldwide touring acts as Protokoll. Psilosybical 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Strongly. Maybe we can even get an admin to speedy overturn. You can't just overlook Boston Herald articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can't see the contents of the articles, but given that one of them explicitly mentions the band in its lead section, I'd say that's probably non-trivial. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) whine 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse delete - AfD ran its course. I recommended its deletion because the article was spam as it was written. Rather than fighting the deletion, I'd recommend writing a sourced, neutral, third person article that is far less promotional in nature. There's nothing barring the writing of a new article on the band, and it would be less contentious this way. B.Wind 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. We rewrite spammy-looking articles that otherwise meet our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Seeing as I'm behind the appeal, I can't really comment. However, what do people find to be "spammy" or "promotional"? Send me a message and I would be happy to oblige with any requests. But I honestly feel that I did a decent job of being neutral, "This is what happened" when I wrote the entry. Psilosybical Psilosybical 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• The group's diverse instrumentation and intense, neurotic live shows have made them a unique addition to the Boston music scene sure reads like spam to me. And do not overturn a perfectly legitimate AfD. If you want to write a non-spammy article which proves the band's notability, do so, but there is nothing in policy which allows an overturn of a validly-closed AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The DRV process absolutely allows the overturn of an otherwise valid AfD, does it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not at all. The DRV process can only be used to overturn invalid AfD closes. This is a procedural discussion, not a content discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Per the top box: Process is generally the reason for being here, but is also available "if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." That's what this is about. This is entirely valid, and can overturn a "legitimate AfD" if the result was incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• With all due respect, the line can be removed. It's otherwise valid. Psilosybical Psilosybical 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse original deletion, endorse request for recreation outside of CSD G4, the deletion was fine. As such, if a NPOV, non-spam, verified article can be written, DRV should exempt it from CSD. However, as a tip, it might be better to write it on a user subpage (eg User:Psilosybical/8mm Fuzz) and get an experienced writer to check over it, before moving it into the article space. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion followed through AFD correctly. Per every AFD it isn't a "not ever", if someone writes a better article they shold do so and put it up at the right place provided it is substantially different from the original then there is no problem. If you want a restore of the original to work on in your user space then let me know and I'll do so. --pgk 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the AFD was valid. It wasn't salted, so if you can write a non-spammy version that asserts notability, write it. --Coredesat 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Editors can reasonably disagree over what constitutes multiple. (E.g, in my book, two does not constitute multiple.) So if a rough consensus exists that the sources are insufficient and there is no indication of bad faith delete is a perfectly fine closure. ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse precisely as per Daniel. Try a new version with good sources, if they aren't good enough we can have another look. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm a bit iffy on this one, mostly because I can't read the Boston Herald articles without spending money; are they actually features? I can't tell. The Weekly Dig article doesn't really say a whole lot about the band, unfortunately. I'm going to say endorse, and suggest, as above, a more well sourced article be produced (preferably using sources that can actually be read). Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to reiterate that, if the line mentioned above as sounding "spammy" is removed, that there doesn't strike me as anything else that could be considered spam. Also, are there any suggestions as to how to cite a source that may only be available online temporarily for free? I mean, the features were published by two reputable sources and can be viewed (albeit not for free online) and it's my understanding that this is criteria for inclusion. I could get scans within a couple of weeks, but I'm willing to bet that that is a copyright violation. Psilosybical Psilosybical 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

University Hill Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article survived an AfD on 25 September 2006. However, reviewing the deletion log, I see the article was speedy deleted per CSD A7. I do not think that A7 should apply to schools (in fact, its application to companies seems to be an end-run around G11, which itself has been debatable). While my opinion in the AfD was "delete", I can abide by the consensus. An article that has undergone an AfD discussion, in which notability was consider, ought not be speedied so soon thereafter. Agent 86 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete per nom. A7 shouldn't apply to anything that's already been though an AfD and kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, not per nom. A7 does and should apply to schools, but nothing that survives an AfD attempt should be speedied, ever. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing should be exempt from any of the deletion criteria, speedy or otherwise, regardless of whether it's a school or company, and regardless of whether or not it survived a previous AfD. Our process is forever evolving, and (hopefully) continually improving. This was evidently contentious, so send it to AfD. Keeping on the grounds of a previous AfD survival is in itself an end-run around process (one of these days I'll find out exactly what an "end-run" is, though). Chris cheese whine 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion isn't meant to make it easier to delete controversial things without discussion, it's meant to relieve process restrictions in cases where an article obviously should die. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, do not re-AfD. If an article is reviewed to meet our standards, there's no way it meets a speedy criterion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeff, I've been giving you a bye for a long time now, but I may have to rethink my policy on this. There is absolutely nothing which can prevent the speedy deletion of an article which survives AfD only because the proper Wikipedia policies are not followed. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Per CSD A7: "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." This is direct from the policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Nothing trumps WP:V. If it ain't verifiable, it's gonna get speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Based on? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn CSD deletion, send to AfD, the AfD I was perfectly valid, according to my brief read and therefore interpretation. Although allowable under policy and guidelines, I really think it is not all that great to CSD an article which survived a legitimate AfD debate. Not saying the interpretation of what is notable was wrong (I can't see the article), but I think that common sense needs to be used here. Assuming good faith on the deleting administrator, maybe the {{oldafdfull}} tag wasn't added to the talk page (again, I can't see it), so maybe they weren't aware of it. So, yeah, my opinion is overturn and relist to make sure the community concenus has actually changed (WP:CCC), and that it isn't notable. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The delete button isn't an +4 extra strength potion to push your own POV. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete immediately; A7 does not apply to schools, period. Silensor 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. A7 did not apply as there was a (weak) assertion of notability in the article. If there's an assertion of notability, it's no longer an A7 candidate. If anything, this should be sent to AfD again. --Coredesat 07:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and do not send to AFD since it has already been there. On a contested issue such as schools, this is not what A7 was intended for since some people think that "being a school" is quite notable. Incidentally the city encyclopedia of Bergen has entries on all schools in town. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Amarkov and Sjakkalle... if its already survived AFD there is no reason on earth it should be A7'd immediately afterwards!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, obviously. It survived the AfD, it should still be on the site. -- Kicking222 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oof. Undelete as above; this, from my reading of the policy, is not what A7 is for. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• undelete this please no reason to speedy delete this really Yuckfoo 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Afd its notability is controversial. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn CSD deletion, send to AfD per Daniel.Bryant. Inner Earth 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)

This one is complicated. There was a move war between Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) and Dragan Nikolić (commander), which resulted in both the original article and the redirect being put for DRV. The discussion of the article was at Articles for deletion/Dragan Nikolić (commander) resulted in Speedy Keep after the nomination was withdrawn. It was then moved back to the other name, and was deleted there, presumably by mistake for the redirect, which was somewhat sporadically discussed under this name. . The question of which name, while interesting, should have nothing to do with the deletion.

Fixed now; thanks, Husond. Septentrionalis 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Zanta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Allow me to start by refering all interested parties to Talk:Zanta#Proposed_deletion, where I responded to a prod tag placed on the article by User:Alkivar. I have created an entry here because I don't feel due process has been followed with the deletion debate on Zanta. I was not given opportunity to respond to User:Alkivar's concerns before the page was deleted.

First of all, let it be known that the Zanta article is sourced, contains verifiable (and indeed verified) claims, asserts notability, and possesses a neutral point of view. The argument for proposed deletion is grounded solely in the issue of whether a subject of predominantly local interest can be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.

I wish to take the opportunity here to respond to each of User:Alkivar's arguments in sequence, for the consideration of the broader community with the intent to reach consensus:

Challenge: "Ahh but you see the problem is that his "fame" is entirely local to Toronto. I would sy there is sufficient notability if say a newspaper in India or Japan reported on him. But as all sources for notability are local to toronto ... Lets break it down shall we from WP:BIO:"

Response: First, I never asserted that Zanta was "famous" or had any "fame", nor does the article make any assertions of the like. This is a distortion of my statements. I asserted that he was of "local relevance and interest" to Toronto. It is an exceedingly weak argument to say that a subject is notable if and only if that subject has been reported on by foreign newspapers and I don't want to believe that User:Alkivar honestly wishes to stake that claim. The question at hand is not whether the Zanta article is currently of interest to India or Japan, the question is whether the Zanta article meets the basic criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Challenge: "[Quoting from WP:BIO, User:Alkivar writes:] "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." — it doesnt really count if its only the local/regional paper. The local newspaper in my town of residence (circulation around 35,000 copies) has had 12 stories in the past 10 years with my name in them, and 1 of those 12 was entirely about my business as a DJ... does that make me WP:NOTABLE? I think you'll find just about everyone would agree thats a no."

Refutation: User:Alkivar's interpretation of this section of WP:BIO leaves something to be desired. The quoted section contains no reference to circulation numbers or whether the source must have local, global, or any other kind of distribution. Alkivar furthermore makes an unfair comparision between a subject (A) of contested notability and a subject (B) of no notability, then concludes that since (B) is non-notable, (A) is also non-notable. This is not valid reasoning. Drawing your attention back to the citation from WP:BIO, I challenge Alkivar to prove that the sources cited in Zanta are (a) trivial or, (b) not independent of the Zanta himself. You might argue that one of the sources (the video documentary) is trivial, but then we should be editing its information out of the article, not deleting the article entirely, as the majority of the content within the article is drawn from non-trivial, independently-written newspaper articles.

Challenge: User:Alkivar then goes on to point to different items listed in the notability guidelines of WP:BIO, pointing out all the instances in which Zanta fails to meet the criteria. E.g., "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors", "Notable actors", "Political figures", etc.

Refutation: The implicit argument here is that since Zanta is none of these things, he is therefore not notable. This argument is completely without merit. As stated near the top of WP:BIO, "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

In conclusion: I refute the claim that the article should be deleted because it is of predominant interest to residents of Toronto. Local persons of interest are analogous to local places of interest; and unless the articles are poorly written stubs with no potential for future expansion, there are no absolute grounds for deletion on account of localized interest. Citing from Wikipedia:Places of local interest: "If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." The same spirit of law which presides over articles of local places applies to articles of locally relevant people. I submit that enough reliable and verifiable information exists about Zanta to write a full and comprehensive article about it, as evidenced by the progress of the article to date. It makes sense for the subject to have its own article, in spite of the fact that it is not of global significance at this time.

Bottom line, although the subject of the Zanta article is not known world-wide it does not follow that he is non-notable. My argument is that Zanta is of relevance and interest to the largest city in Canada and that, since wiki is not paper, the mere fact of localized interest is not sufficient for deletion. Let me restate this: just because someone in the U.S. does not find a particular article notable, it does not make that particular article a waste of wikipedia's storage or any less relevant an encyclopedic entry.

Thanks for your consideration, and I welcome the input of as many editors as possible in reaching consensus on this issue. BFD1 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• "First, I never asserted that Zanta was "famous" or had any "fame", nor does the article make any assertions of the like." Then it's a valid A7 speedy. Endorse. Chris cheese whine 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hi, thanks for your input. You have misundersood my point. Notability is asserted; "fame" is not. There is a difference. This argument revolves around notability, not fame. BFD1 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't asserted that either. Have a nice day. Chris cheese whine 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above: First of all, let it be known that the Zanta article is sourced, contains verifiable (and indeed verified) claims, asserts notability, and possesses a neutral point of view. Please refer to the article (for which I have requested a temporary restoration for precisely this reason) for the assertion of notability. Thanks. BFD1 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: The Criteria A7 deletion requirement states that the article should assert the importance or significance of its subject. Criteria A7 deletion does not require BFD1 to assert the importance or significance of the subject of the article. -- Jreferee 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as i am the original deleter my opinion doesnt really matter that much here. I am not denying that to residents of toronto the guy has relevance and some notoriety, but as EN wikipedia is a global resource, I cannot see that Zanta has any relevance outside of toronto. I guess the argument boils down to "do local niche subjects retain notability outside of their region?" I would argue that no they dont and therefore do not have global relevance as far as WP:BIO is concerned. As such I concluded this to be a valid Criteria A7 deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• So then, by your reasoning, half the stuff in New York or Tokyo or Paris would be deleted because it is only of seemingly local relevance. This makes no sense. How is wikipedia a "global" resource if it doesn't touch upon interesting and noteworthy aspects of cities across the globe? Would you have wikipedia touch only on international/universal phenomena? And why delete it instead of marking it for review? --Xfireworksx 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I am not from New York, yet am aware of the Times Square Naked Cowboy, whose own wiki entry isn't in question. I am also aware of many people outside of Toronto who are aware of Zanta's existence (in part due to his many youtube videos and hundreds of flickr sets). The fact that he was recently featured on a television show that is shown nation wide in Canada AND the United States shows that perhaps he isn't just a local icon. Ruteger 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• There is no Wikipedia requirement that topics have global relevance to meet WP:BIO requirements. The Criteria A7 deletion requirement states that the article should assert the importance or significance of its subject. Both your apparent manufacturing non-Wikipedia criteria to justify your speedy deletion and your acting on it appear to be shocking behaviors for an administrator. Your apparent attempt to hide this from others by failing to provide links to the Wikipedia policy/guidlines you used to justify your actions also appear to be shocking. There may need to be a review of your conduct.-- Jreferee 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. The scope of Wikipedia is large enough to allow, for instance, notable statues, notable landmarks, and other such features of any city their own pages. Any tourist or torontonian encountering this loud, santa-hatted downtown fixture, clad in shorts in the dead of winter, would find him puzzling enough that an explanation from an encyclopedia would be of great value. People years from now encountering photographic evidence of this man would also appreciate it. The article had the correct tone, and included a number of references, at least one from a newspaper with international ciruclation (the Toronto Star). It is, at the very least, worth an proper debate and not a deletion "as per our IRC conversation".Xtormenta 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • — Xtormenta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • — Xtormenta is a newbie, but not a sockpuppet. She got the account to add to the Zanta article (regarding an alleged banning from the TTC reported on Talk 680 news) a couple weeks back. Perhaps conflict of interest, but also attests to genuine interest of article to general TO public. Xtormenta 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Didn't see the article, can't see the article, but if it was prodded and contested, it should be restored and go to AFD as such. If there were reliable sources involved and an attempt to meet WP:V, then A7 may have been a bad idea, especially if it asserted notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to AFD sounds good to me. When can I expect it? Thanks. BFD1 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete and move to AFD so that more people can have a look at it. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list on AFD per the roadster. Silensor 07:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD. Upon reviewing the article myself, A7 may not have been the best idea here, because it's definitely disputable whether the article asserts true notability (per WP:BIO) or not. At least give it an AFD run, and let it be decided there whether it should stay or go. --Coredesat 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist on AfD, a contested speedy which may survive AfD. Give it five days in the light to see whether it will. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Zanta is a cultural icon with notability in Canada. I also find it strange that a similar article, Naked Cowboy, is not being deleted which could seem as a cultural slant to the United States. Whatever the response here, there should be a similar response on Naked Cowboy, unless appearing as a 'character' for the USA network is enough for notability. --TaranRampersad 08:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Zanta has appeared the on the well-known Canadian television show Kenny vs. Spenny, which gives him a media appearance. If I'm not mistaken, this is the same reason the Naked Cowboy (who is very similar to Zanta) has a reason to stay on Wikipedia. This program is the best selling Canadian tv series of all time; it's not a minor program.Sarnya 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Send to AfD for a full discussion. Frankly, he's what is called euphemistically local colour, aka nutjob, and almost certainly fails WP:BIO although WP:LOCAL may apply. Anyway, air views properly. Eusebeus 11:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, Per WP:BIO, people who satisfy at least one of the items in WP:BIO may merit their own Wikipedia articles. Per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Zanta has been the subject of (1) McLaren, Leah. (April 30, 2005). Globe and Mail. Who is that capped man? Meet Zanta Ho Ho. Page M1 and (2) Gerson, Jen. (September 12, 2006). Toronto Star. So close to the stars, yet so far away; Tiny Penelope transfixes crowd Going with the Flow nets no result. Section: Entertainment, Page C3. Since Zanta has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself, Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE. In addition, per WP:NOTABLE, "Published works" is intentionally broad and includes published works in all forms. Both Globe and Mail and Toronto Star are Published works per WP:NOTABLE. Further, WP:NOTABLE does not require a minimum geographic region for the fame. The opinion that "his "fame" is entirely local to Toronto" as posted by an annomous Wikipedian is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO. Moreover, whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable is not relevant to whether Zanta is notable per WP:NOTABLE. Failure to satisfy all of the items in WP:BIO is not a justification for speedy deletion and not a justification to conclude that Zanta is not WP:NOTABLE. In particular to the speedy deletion, there is no identified WP:CSD#General_criteria for the speedy deletion as required by WP:CSD#Procedure_for_administrators. Because the topic fails to meet the speedy deletion requirements and the speedy deletion procedures were not followed in deleting the Zanta article, the speedy deletion needs to be undone.-- Jreferee 13:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Good morning everyone. I'm seeing no new arguments in favour of endorsing deletion and a flurry of established editors recommending this to AFD. Would someone please undelete this article already and move it to AFD? I guess I'm asking for a speedy restoration after an unfair speedy delete. Thanks. BFD1 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zanta -- Zanimum 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

IPhone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

In August, this article was deleted per AfD, and (later?) protected against recreation. I contacted the admin who protected it, Nihonjoe, and he userfied the old article content at my request. I have since re-written a whole new article in user space, at User:Schi/iPhone. I have requested comments on the page on the iPhone talk page and on Nihonjoe's talk page and haven't gotten any responses yet. I think the article in user space is currently acceptable for Wikipedia main space, where it will hopefully draw more contributions from other editors. The original article was appropriately deleted as pure speculation, but the new version consists of facts drawn from an array of reliable sources reporting on analysts' predictions, patent filings, and business deals. I believe this should survive the "crystal-ball" claim; in WP:NOT it says (my emphasis): "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." schi ^talk 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination per undeletion below. schi ^talk 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has been undeleted as I believe it now meets WP:V and WP:N. I've restored the histories as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have re-deleted it as this discussion had barely begun and as of yet "rumored" is not a valid verification. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? The article included was entirely based on reliable sources reporting on analysts' predictions and patent filings. schi ^talk 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this discussion is going to be pretty ineffective considering you've deleted the article so no one else can evaluate its content. If nothing else, can you restore it to user space (previously was at User:Schi/iPhone before Nihonjoe moved it to main space) so others can read it and evaluate it themselves? schi ^talk 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete, :*User:Zoe - I am unable to comment on what you mean by as of yet "rumored" and am unable to review your speedy deletion justification. I also question your speedy deletion over another administrators decision to undelete the article.-- Jreferee 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Critical Mass (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was deleted per this AFD. Admittedly, there were more delete "votes" than keep "votes", but if one takes a look all the delete "votes" were made on the 24th of November. No additional comments were made until the 26th of November and all comments after that were keeps. One person who commented on the 24th returned on the 28th and commented to keep. The article has been restored and moved to userspace, so here's a diff showing the change that the article went through between the version that was nominated for deletion and the version that was eventually deleted [4]. Note that although the unreferenced tag is still at the top, there are references in the the deleted article. It's always being said that AFD is not a vote, and in this instance it seems that the article changed enough that any consensus to delete may have been outweighed by the change in the article, and the apperance of sources. I asked the closing admin to clarify the process he went through in deciding that the AFD showed a consensus to delete, and the only respose I got was a reminder to assume good faith and a suggestion to go to Deletion review. Perhaps I could have phrased my question better.

Since being restored to userspace the article's creator and I have continued to work on it. Here is the article as it now stands. I would like to move this back into article space without fear of it being deleted again. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Be bold. I don't think you need have any fear of it being deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, but accept new rewrite. Obviously met WP:MUSIC, so there was absolutely no reason to go with a delete result and I cannot endorse it because of that, but the new article asserts it better anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse what was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the debate. New version still has some POV issues, but otherwise no objections to it going into mainspace, though. Chris cheese whine 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: another name might be appropriate, because there's also a Dutch eurodance group from the early 90s called Critical Mass and a ska band of the same name. I would suggest either Critical Mass (Canadian band) or Critical Mass (christian rock band). Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

About the name; it was originally at Critical Mass (rock band) and was moved right before the AFD debate to Critical Mass (band). I agree that "rock band" or maybe even "Christian rock band" is better because there are other bands called Critical Mass. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update I've moved it into mainspace at Critical Mass (Catholic rock). I've made a disambiguation page at Critical Mass (band) where I listed this band, the ska band, and the eurodance band. Does the eurodance band have an article? I tried to link to where I thought it ought to be but it's a red link. Perhaps that's the expired prod? Someone's userpage links to "Critical Mass (band)" and says something about the Dutch band being an article they wrote. Oh well. If someone finds it they can fix the link. I've pointed re-directs at "Critical Mass (Catholic rock)" from the rest of the previous and proposed names. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blak Jak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

You have articles on several other rappers with as much (or as little) info. Also, the fact that there was only one contributor does not make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. The rapper has certainly become notable as of late, with his two hit singles "Swervin'" (featuring Project Pat, who you do have an article on), and "Bobbin' My Head". His debut album, Place Your Bets, is set to be released December 19, on major label Republic Records.

Also, you have this article protected, so no one with any notable info can create a page. I think this article should be undeleted, or at leat unprotected, so someone with more information can spruce up the page. Recreate, or at least unprotect. Tom Danson 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Major article in Fader, and the CD is coming out in a couple weeks and is guaranteed to chart. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Guaranteed to chart? Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --Coredesat 07:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD. Looks like it's worth a full AfD treatment, not a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect and let nature take its course. It was a valid speedy IMO for having no assertion of significance, but if someone can write a sourced article that DOES assert significance, so be it. Friday (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect but keep deleted. The article was a valid A7 candidate in the state it was in when it was deleted. However, given the one source presented above, it may be possible to find more and write a better article. If not, just wait until the album comes out (December 19 is only two weeks away) and see if it does chart. December 19 isn't that far off. --Coredesat 07:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Unprotect, but keep deleted per Cordesat. -- Kicking222 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This AFD was closed as 'no consensus' by User:Glen S, despite there being a clear consensus to delete, based on both (spit) numbers, and, far, far more importantly, Wikipedia policy. Does WP:NOR get thrown out of the window if a few people make a fuss? Apparently, the answer is yes. Accordingly to many of the keep !votes, 'WP:NOR does not apply to this article', which is, frankly, ludicrous, and shows a basic failure to comprehend what an encyclopaedia is. Many more said 'it's not OR as it has references'. It was a synthesis of references to produce its own conjectured suppositions - which is, by definition, original research. This was a poor close, failing to take into account any kind of consensus in the AFD, and failing to consider the quality and validity of the arguments. Overturn and delete. Proto::► 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, and transwiki to Memory Alpha per Alkivar. The speculative nature of the content makes it a very uneasy fit for Wikipedia, and those who assert that it is sources rely on defining fan sites as reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Memory Alpha is licensed under CC-by-nc-2.5; we can't transwiki our GFDL material there without the consent of all significant editors of the article. —Cryptic 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close, although I was leaning toward overturning. Why endorse? Because this is a textbook no consensus. One set of editors claimed that there was an OR violation, but the other set noted that there were sources. When in doubt - and I think there's significant doubt here - don't delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  I wrote a bit of a rant about how a 'no consensus' call in this situation is worthless, and counterproductive to both sides of the debate, then lost my train of thought. Jeff, one set of editors understood policy, the other set did not - having sources is not magical pixie dust that stops original research being original research. A synthesis of sourced facts to produce conjecture with no basis in the sources is OR, no matter if it had 17 sources, 170 sources, or 17 thousand sources, and I'm not sure if the minority of those in the AFD who argued for keep, nor the closing administrator, understand that. Apologies to those who did, but if you did, how could you justify using 'it has sources' as a reason for keeping the article when that wasn't the accusation leveled at it? Proto::► 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  A disagreement on interpretation of policy is not a reason to delete, and an admin should not use his extra tools to force a certain interpretation over another when no consensus on an interpretation such as here exists. For the record, I don't think the side that claimed there wasn't OR misunderstood it at all. I don't think either side did, honestly, a good case can be made in either direction, with or without pixie dust. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  So you're suggesting that a group of people shouting objections to deletion, no matter how poor their reasoning is, should prevent deletion just because there was disagreement? If this were what we did here, we would not bother doing Afd. The core goals and policies trump baseless objections every time. This is by design. Friday (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  I'm saying that, in the event of two legitimate interpretations, we shouldn't be deleting. Read what I'm saying, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  That's true, but not relevant to a situation where there is only one legitimate interpretation, as we have here. Chris cheese whine 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  That isn't true about this one, actually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. A couple people saying "but this CAN'T be original research, because there are sources!" should not count. Most fancrufty original research comes from sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Which of course by nature makes it non-original research since it is 'researched' by someone else already and hence no longer can be original. --Cat out 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete or make into a protected redirect to the not-intended-solely-to-be-OR version of this, at Starfleet ranks and insignia. Having a seperate article intended for fan speculation and original research is not what Wikipedia is about. There was a consensus among editors who understand the goals of Wikipedia to delete this. Friday (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I tend toward inclusionism on pop-culture topics but I do draw the line when it comes to non-canon stuff. The way I see it, even Trek-specific wiki Memory Alpha has a fairly strict canon policy and almost certainly would not be accepted there: they have a Starfleet ranks article with all the canonical insignia and the conjectural ones simply say "No known insignia". If a Trek-specific enyclopedia won't cover this, I see no reason why a general-interest encyclopedia should. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Sigh... It appears that this senseless drama is going to last all eternity... --Cat out 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. There was no consensus. Yelling things loudly, i.e., obsessively typing more words than those with whom you disagree doesn't make you right. There was a very large disagreement among worthwhile contributors, in spite of Friday's and Proto's insulting language above to the contrary. Also suggest that Friday and Proto temper their language to not disparage individuals who disagree with them. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Both counting noses <grimace> and policy clearly support deletion. The entire article was conjecture (as the original title of the article admitted) based on sources. JChap2007 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Deleters charged WP:OR, keepers were unable to defend. Since WP:OR is immune to the effects of consensus (or lack thereof), this should have been at best a no consensus, default to delete rather than no consensus, default to keep. Chris cheese whine 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Close but fits within the boundaries of admin discretion. Numerically it roughly hit the deletion line, but that's where the admin gets to decide. I do find the sudden concern with numerical consensus from this nominator somewhat ironic given his frequent delete closes against keep majorities (of course, those decisions tend to get overturned here). -JJay 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Majorities are meaningless, because AfD is not a vote. Chris cheese whine 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion. Make sure you tell User:Proto, who starts his renom by indicating the "clear consensus to delete...based on numbers". --JJay 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that comment is going to seriously impact people's ability to assume good faith on your part in future. Chris cheese whine 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• If you are speaking for yourself, then please refrain from commenting on my remarks in the future. If you are speaking for others, I think you are engaging in unverifiable speculation. --JJay 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Any particular reason why I should not comment on your deliberate misrepresentation of Proto's comments? It actually says "based both on numbers and ... Wikipedia policy". There's no way that your comment could possibly have been made in good faith. Chris cheese whine 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Your failure (or is it inability?) to assume good faith is quite impressive, along with the dramatic italics and accusation- but just reinforces my previous comment. User:Proto says a lot of things. I mentioned how he "starts" his renom. --JJay 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• He actually says "(spit) numbers", making his distaste for doing AFDs by numbers very clear! To then portray this as him advocating a vote is twisting his words beyond belief, intentionally or no. Morwen - Talk 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• He can spit all he wants, but he still mentioned it. Of course, your claim that I portrayed him as "advocating a vote" is twisting my words beyond belief. --JJay 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, JJay, you are the one who is the word-twister. I'll take this up with you on your talk page, as you've reached a new low, even for you. Well done. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse close: Article contains 17 sources, pure and simple. There were also some personal feelings going on with the nomination itself, in my opinion, as a previous AfD on Warrant Officer (Star Trek) was overturned for its deletion and, to be very blunt, I think this POd some people and they next targeted this article for deletion. Way too many feelings, in both directions about this article, to say it was a clear concensus for delete. -Husnock 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  The keep arguments were not sufficiently strong to suggest any reason for keeping it. Consensus is irrelevant, because WP:OR and WP:V are explicitly above consensus. Chris cheese whine 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  You are absolutely right. Since article is neither original research (it is based on freaking sources) and that it is verifiable (see the books). It is automatic keep. --Cat out 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  "Based on sources" does not mean "not original research" (as was pointed out to you repeatedly in the AfD). That it's in a novel of some kind does not mean it's verifiable (see WP:RS). More importantly, it's clearly not verifiable if to check the information you need to repeat whatever steps you've taken to find the information in the first place. Either way, whether or not the article was or wasn't is not what we're here to discuss. What we are here to discuss is whether or not the claims were meritous. Those claiming it was OR put forward their case for it very clearly. Those claiming it wasn't, didn't. They just said "It's so not OR", leaving the whole part about the conjectural nature of the material, and the filling in the gaps, unanswered. Since they weren't answered, the correct conclusion to draw is that the claims of OR are valid. Chris cheese whine 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Ok so if the people who make star trek write a book about star trek, that makes it an unreliable source. So DO tell me, what would be a reliable source (for the sake of argument)? --Cat out 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Anything that meets the criteria in WP:RS (which excludes self-publication). You seem to be making the mistake that every small detail about every book ever published on the subject merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Chris cheese whine 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Please do not change the subject. So I ask you again. What would be a "reliable source" for star trek rank insignias since I can't use The Star Trek Encyclopedia (as per your argument). Don't cite a policy cite the types of sources you feel I should be using. --Cat out 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Without wanting to rehash the AfD itself, the onus is on you. Chris cheese whine 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  The evidence has been provided. If you're challenging it, explain why. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per Husnock's stunning display of bad faith in deciding why people voted to delete at AfD, and per Proto's arguments. It should be noted that the original title of the article was CONJECTURAL Ranks and that during the course of the AfD many keep votes displayed a certain level of disdain for policy simply because they liked it. The arguments used to suggest keeping (which would ostensibly lead to no concensus) should have been overlooked by the closing admin as spurious with the possible exception of Newyorkbrad. Most tellingly, in terms of is this a proper close, is that many keep votes denied there was any original research in the article whatsoever. If the article is undeleted, and people go to remove the OR, what will remain will not be an article. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't live in Cuba. If I have a personal opinion that there were some personal motiviations for the AfD, then I have every right to say so. And I never called a specific person to such a charge nor called anyone names, unlike you who spoke of me as "contemptible" on the Admin Noticeboard [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnock (talk • contribs)

Yes you did. You called me a joker, and you accused everyone in the AFD of bad faith, repeatedly. Proto::► 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Plea: Please, everyone, can we not repeat the Afd? Anyone who wants to read people arguing about sources can see this all very plainly in the Afd. We're not trying to repeat the Afd- we're trying to evaluate the closure of it. Friday (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  Which seems to be the source of the problem, isn't it? --Cat out 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• A story: back in the town where I used to live, there was a fellow who used to go around downtown and on campus with signs declaring his belief that John Lennon's death was the handiwork of an unholy conspiracy between Richard Nixon and Stephen King. Quite a story, and I can understand your skepticism, but he had proof! From reliable sources! which he would display, namely newspaper headlines from the New York Times and other (very respectable and reliable) newspapers, from which he had helpfully decoded the secret messages demonstrating the depths of this conspiracy. Eventually, he wound up in King's hometown, where the local police, for some reason, remained entirely unconvinced by his copious references. (Hmmm, checking Google, it looks like he's joined the 21st century and now has a website.)
• The moral: it's not the lack of footnotes you have or the sources you cite, it's what you do with the information that makes original research. So overturn and delete, per my original recommendation. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure I see nothing wrong with the closure of this AfD. VegaDark 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close (keep) If there is this much effort to the discussion it must be that the subject is both notable and verifiable, because otherwise there wouldn't be anything much to argue about. It's not a vote, but if so many people from various places in WP think it is worth keeping, it is. Keep is the safe policy when in doubt.DGG 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  "If there is this much effort ... it must be that the subject is notable and verifiable". No, that is very, very, very much not the case. Have you seen some of the AFD discussions? The more worthless and unsuitable (for an encyclopaedia) a subject is, the longer the AFD seems to get. "Keep is the safe policy when in doubt" - no, Wikipedia policy is the safe policy when in doubt. Proto::► 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn and delete, improper close.  !Votes to keep do not trump the policy of verifiability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete WP:OR is policy that can not be suspended by a minority (or even a majority) at AfD. Eluchil404 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close result seems about like what I expected... was unaware we couldnt direct transwiki to Memory Alpha or I wouldnt have suggested it. Since we cant do that ... It should remain on wiki.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close Like I said in the original discussion, some parts of the article are properly sourced, while the rest is OR that just happens to be based on proper sources. And the more I read it, the more bits and pieces of OR appear. So let them get rid of the OR, tidy up the rest, and show us what's left over. If they don't improve it anytime soon and insist that none of it's OR, fine, we'll go for another AfD joyride and I'll probably vote delete. But starting this up again half a day after the original thread closed seems a bit soon. Quack 688 09:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  If the AFD closure is clearly wrong in your opinion, or is very questionable in your opinion, then going to DRV is entirely appropriate - this is what DRV is for. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete This should have been closed as a delete, whether you weigh the opinions of all of the editors- OR is OR is OR- or simply take a head count. -- Kicking222 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete completely OR. Viridae^Talk 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close I did not vote in the original AfD, since I don't really think this stuff is all that important. But from a procedural context, it is clear that claims of "original research" in this article (as distinct from a few sections of the article, which would be a cleanup issue, and not grounds for deletion) are utterly without merit. Thus, the decision to keep is entirely correct. (Complaints about notability have some validity here, of course; but there did not appear to be any consensus on that point either.) Ben Standeven 03:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Please read WP:OR. Please, especially, read the section on synthesising referenced work of others to produce your own original work. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. "Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed." Why was this article not deleted, if it contained original research? In any event, Alternate ranks and insignia of Starfleet does not contain any "synthesis" that I can see, only a list of hypothesized ranks. Would you care to give an example of this supposed synthesis? Ben Standeven 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    • 'A list of hypothesized ranks' - this is synthesis. The known facts (occasional mentions in various canon books and fanon websites) are used to hypothesize ranks within Starfleet. That is a synthesis of referenced facts - the article consists entirely of 'This character wore a badge, and it has been conjectured (in fan sites, if referenced at all), it means he was rank X. It barely even reaches the lofty heights of synthesis, it's just conjecture. Proto::► 09:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

      • So if a book mentions a "Grand Admiral" rank (say), and describes its insignia (I confess, I don't remember ever seeing a description of Thrawn's insignia), it's "original research" to say so? Don't think so. And there is no policy against "synthesis" or "conjecture" by third parties in Wikipedia, only against original synthesis or conjecture. Ben Standeven 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

        • But the conjecture isn't by third parties, it's by the article creators. In your example, to mention a Grand Admiral rank would be fine as it's referenced to a official book. The conjecture is then creating lovely big images of what the image might look like, or borrowing a Star Trek fan's website (not a reliable source)'s lovely big image of what Thrawn's insignia 'might' look like, and using that on Wikipedia. Particularly when an assemblage of various people's speculations about insignia is then used to assemble - to synthesize - a whole series of alternate conjectured ranks. Even the Star Trek wiki has higher standards for Star Trek cruft than that. Proto::► 10:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

          • Then we do seem to be on the same page; but I feel we should keep the article (which is not inherently OR) and axe the unsourced pictures (which presumably are OR). I also don't agree that "a whole series of alternate conjectured ranks" is any different than a single conjectured rank. Ben Standeven 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• endorse close of this one there is a difference between original research and using references Yuckfoo 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yuckfoo, also, please read WP:OR. Please, especially, read the section on synthesising referenced work of others to produce your own original work. Proto::► 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete - WP:NOR is not negotiable. Original research requires references to be done properly; that's why the word "research" appears there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - The article represents a clear breach of WP:OR. The article itself accepts that the alternate ranks are non-canon and the discussion of conjectural ranks seems to be admitting OR in its title. This debate seem to be the classic example of the fact that AfD should not be a vote- no number of keep votes can disguise the fact that this article is inherently and unsalvageably flawed. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete under both WP:NOR and WP:FICT, why should fancruft of non-existent attributes of fictional universes gum up an encyclopedia merely because of the popularity of underlying subject matter. Carlossuarez46 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Clear case of no consensus. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - not just because I agree with the decision that it was no consensus, but because I don't think we should appeal to DRV every time we get an AFD we don't like. I'm not at all necessarily saying that's the case here, but that's how it seems. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  Uh, Pat? Are you endorsing the closure because you don't think Deletion Review should review deletions? Proto::► 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, I'm endorsing closure anyway. I think the closure was proper, is what I'm saying. -Patstuart^talk|edits 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, let them try to clean it up under the new name and then revisit it if needed. No consensus was a reasonable conclusion from that mess. -- nae'blis 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  It was only a mess because the Trekcruft editors deliberately turned what should have been a relatively straightforward deletion of an OR article into a morass of whining and accusations of bad faith to obscure the issue. It fooled the closing admin into closing an obvious delete as 'no consensus'. Proto::► 13:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dekoy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)— (AfD)

Overturn 69.61.253.106 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This article was deleted as unnotable, however several of the rules from the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page WP:BAND would seem to apply here as defining the band as notable.

Specifically "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

The following reviews would qualify - there are others as well. Side-line Music Magazine, a print and web magazine [6] Regen Magazine [7]

2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. As referenced in the wikipedia entry, Dekoy debuted with their first album placing on the Deutsche_Alternative_Charts.

Additionally, it can be noted that Dekoy is very well known in the Cincinnati Area Futurepop/Goth/Industrial scene - such as it is. Rule 7 may have bearing as well.

• While I'm not sure if the reviews would actually qualify, if you have any sort of evidence regarding the Deutsche Alt Chart, this could be rather cut and dry. Got anything at all? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieving the DAC report now, I should have it within the next day or so.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone please temp-undelete this (and protect blank, as usual) so that nonadmins can comment on the debate? --ais523 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse, allow recreation The article that was deleted deserved to be deleted; the sources were low-quality, the page was mostly advertising, it didn't assert much notability, and it was written in an unencylcopaedic style. If the sources given in this DRv are correct, though, the subject is notable and should probably have an article, just not the one that was deleted. Allow undeletion to userspace if a user thinks the information here would be useful in writing another article. --ais523 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, allow recreation, the AfD was fine and utterly indisputable (and the old version absolutely deserved deletion). There were no procedural errors here at all. But the new sources sound promising, and, as Jeff points out, if the chart info can be verified, this should be a cut-and-dried keep in future. I recommend against userfying the old, bad, version (I suspect that a better article would be created without its influence), but won't actually object. Xtifr _tälk 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history) — AFD 1, AfD 2

The administrator who deleted this page said the result of the vote was to delete, but I counted the votes and it was a tie.--Sefringle 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was re-created by Karl Meier, not as a repost but as a stub, but I think we probably ought to finish this first. I have undeleted the history so people can review it. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• AfD is not a vote. I stand by my close. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, you wrote: "If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website ...". You deleted the page because it doesnt have reliable sources? How is that a reason to delete a page? --Matt57 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're kidding, right? Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Matt, independant reliable sources which assert Ali Sina's notability to a satisfactory degree are required. he currently does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. ITAQALLAH 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Mackensen, you could have kept the article and told people to find reliable sources. Its not that reliable sources dont exist for this article. Its just they havent been included in the article yet. Give people some more time to include reliable sources. There are hundreds of articles that are in development and dont cite third party sources such as Zakir Naik, which is also under review for deletion. If Ali Sina was deleted due to lack of third party sources, it would be fair for Zakir Naik to be deleted as well. --Matt57 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • This article was nominated for deletion a year ago as well, but in a year's time, no one found any reliable secondary source. Actually, this is true for the last two years, since creation of this article. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • And how long do we wait for people to find and add these sources? A day? a week? a month? As pointed out it had been in existance for a long time and no one bothered, it was on AFD for a week and no one bothered. If material in an article isn't verifiable it should be removed pending the sources, if that means the whole article it is deleted. If someone later finds sources then the can come to WP:DRV specify those sources and if need be the material will be restored to resolve that issue. (Assuming there weren't any other issues in the AFD). We don't keep stuff hanging around indefinitely waiting for someone to put it right, quality not quantity. --pgk 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually was a keep by vote count Keep 18 Delete 17 Neutral 1 . Mackensen please reverse the delete since the results are contrary to your claim.Clearly there was no consensus reached thus its a keep per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion which states: An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to KEEP --CltFn 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Policy also says: "Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." TruthSpreader^Talk 05:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No, this is not a vote, BUT the deletion was controversial and failed to gain consensus. I am, nonetheless, surprised to hear of a lack of reliable sources given the number of hits the site is alleged to have. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion it is quite surprising to see that this article failed to have much in the way of reliable sources given that the hit counter for FaithFreedom.org (his site) is showing over 4 million hits. In light of that User:Mackensen correctly determined that deletion was the proper course of action. (→Netscott) 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The arguments to keep are extremely weak. Many of the people voting keep seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is simple very little that can be found about this personality in reliable sources. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - I'm not wasting diskspace copy pasting what Netscott said -- Tawker 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - as per →Netscott. --TruthSpreader^Talk 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Although there currently are few reliable sources found on the article other than his website, he is notable, and for that reason he warrents an article.--Sefringle 03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If he is notable then you should have no difficulty finding reliable independent published sources; notability on Wikipedia does not mean "I have heard of him". There has been almost a year since the first AfD, in which reliable sources could have been found, and there has been more than 2 years since the article was created. If you think the article should exist on Wikipedia, you are welcome to find reliable independent sources, but given the length of time in which those sources could have been found, it looks like they do not exist. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you're supposed to be commenting a second time, Sefringle. Although I do not agree in saying that he is notable, if for arguments purposes I did agree, an article about a so-called notable person that has no reliable sources can serve no meaningful purpose on Wikipedia other than to advertise his website for him. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn He is very notable, having debated famous Muslim leaders, and produced a very influential website. At the very least we should make it clear that the author of this website calls himself Ali Sina, and have Ali Sina be the title of the article about the owner of the website. Arrow740 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Where are the third-party sources about that? —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If the hit counter is to be believed and the site passes WP:WEB then an article about it may be warranted. (→Netscott) 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it meets any of the criteria at WP:WEB. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • A self proclaimed exchange of insulting/stupid e-mails with scholars doesnot constitute a debate anyways. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn How can you delete the page when the result was a tie, the result should be NO CONSENSUS.--CltFn 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was mere advertisement of his website without any secondary source reference. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per "You're kidding, right?" --Striver 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion — independant reliable sources, anyone? ITAQALLAH 03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and shiver at the thought of what Wikipedia would look like if mindless headcount were a substitute for valid arguments. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • *cough* - 152.91.9.144 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And you don't want to know how I feel about that. At least it's only determining eligibility to possibly be picked. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and applaud Mackensen for taking a little initiative. -FunnyMan 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Netscott--Aminz 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: In total there are 36 votes. 18 Keep, 17 Delete and one neutral. The result is Keep. OceanSplash 08:05, 5 December 2006
  • No keep results comes when 75%-80% people say it keep. The result was neither keep nor delete. ---- ALM 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If he does not exist how his articles can appear in books and why in the editorial review he is called A Major Scholar Check out [Amazon.com?] Can you show the rule that says 80% of the votes must be keep in order to keep an article? Are you saying only 21% of the editors can overturn the vote of 79% of the voters?OceanSplash 08:26, 5 December 2006
      • It is not a poll. What the above comment means is: in practice, if 80% of the people think it should be kept, it is usually an appropriate encyclopedia article, whereas with less than that amount it is more common that the article may not meet Wikipedia content policies yet have a majority that are not considering those content policies. —Centrx→talk • 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We always says that AFD is not a vote and your comments count. I have seen it happening for the first time and I am impressed with the admin who has done that. If we cannot prove the existance of a person using reliable resources then all the other comments set aside, the article does not has any rational to exist. --- ALM 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per my AfD vote. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 09:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, closer made the correct decision. Proto::► 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Another revolting piece of evidence that some admins here doesn't respect the opinions of other Wikipedian's and believe they can make such decisions on their own, despite no consensus being reached. Properly around 90 percent of Wikipedia's articles should be deleted if we should act and delete articles according to Mackensen's criteria, and the article did have a lot of valuable information that could have been developed instead. It's too bad. But the Faitfreedom.org article will be interesting to work on instead, with Ali Sina as a redirect to that page. -- Karl Meier 10:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's get on it then. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I read through the AfD, and it seems to me that the keep arguments are that because he Googles well we should ignore the fact that all the sources track right back to himself. There appear to be none (0) reliable sources of biographical data on this subject. It is the site, not the person, who is notable. The article has been around long enough that if the lack of sources was fixable, one would have expected it to be fixed, so the close seems to me to be valid per Mackensen's closing arguments. As to Karl's comment, allowing opinion to override policy would be revolting. It would also make this entire endeavour completely worthless. Feel free to fix the sourcing issues, at which point we can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that we shouldn't have articles about writers that want to remain anonymous? Anyway, I just did what the deleting admin recommended and fixed the problem with the sources and recreated the article as a stub, but for some reason that was removed too... -- Karl Meier 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. As I said in the AfD page, he isn't notable, he's anonymous, runs a site which claims to be an 'organization'. Overall It's a good thing for the article to have been deleted so that wikipedia is no longer used as a traffic generator. His 'debates' with people are like someone posting their IRC chat logs and saying "I have discussed with 100+ people the benefits of sleeping late". And - the AfD isn't a vote, there were no convincing arguments to keep the article (from my observation). thestick 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It very well might be the article on wikipedia that was taking traffic to his website, as his article (if I can remember) had the full agenda of his website. Hence, search engines would give his website a higher ranking when the description on his article was matching with website's description. Herald_reply 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Not enough sources independent of the person (see WP:BIO). Raphael1 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. There are a lot of people who are far less notable than Ali Sina, but who neverthless have their own article. So either delete all the articles about bloggers, webmasters, and online famous persons, or just keep the article.--Vincent_shooter 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  see inclusion is not an indicator of notability, we don't set such precedents and a mere assertion that they are "less notable" doesn't mean much. If for whatever level of notability they have more verifiable third party reliable sources, then they are already well ahead. --81.19.57.170 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As Mackensen said, we can recreate the article if we can bring reliable sources. Thats what we'll do. --Matt57 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you provide these reliable sources now and stop this article from being deleted. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you hold on? It will happen with time. If enough sources are brought in the article will be undeleted. --Matt57 03:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the history of the article. It has already been given one year to prove its notability since its last AFD. Actually, the article has been on wikipedia for more than two years. No body can do much about it. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Not enough sources, Identity Disputed, Existence Disputed, and i think matt57 is very fascinated by this disputed Ali sina group work and anti muslim bias.Mak82hyd 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion As per everybody.F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Karl Meier has now created a short article on Faith Freedom International which demonstrates notability by reference to coverage in reliable secondary sources; I have therefore boldly redirected Ali Sina to that article. FFI is up for AfD, but is unlikely to be deleted, in my view. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is only one non-trivial discussion over this website and that is by worldnetdaily, which is an American conservative news site. We need multiple to prove its notability as per WP:WEB. Other coverages by jihadwatch doesn't have much in it as they are almost its sister websites. Other links on the article are all trivial coverages. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per admins comments that "If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website ...". The article was a bit lopsided. I guess we wait for his book to be published and then recreate the aticle as that would then automatically generate the sources. It certainly sets a nice high standard for our editing pages that could be construed as contrary to Sina's views. Ttiotsw 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per those above, but especially per "You're kidding, right?". Small round of applause to Mackensen for very sensible close. Inner Earth 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per my AfD vote. Wikipidian 22:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Tentatively overturn on the grounds that no consensus was reached on deletion when article was deleted. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Even a combination of biased sources can be used in an attempt to grasp the truth, and I find the article before it was blanked and an AfD notice was slapped on it to be informative and potentially expandable. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This user has recreated the article in a user sub-page at User:Rickyrab/Ali Sina. Inner Earth 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Yes, I have. If someone can be bold and delete the article, then I see no reason why someone else can't be equally bold and recreate it as a user page or on another Wiki. Furthermore, the article notes that there are sites critical of Ali Sina. Why was this criticism not noted directly in the article? Did we maximize this article's utility before deleting it? I think not. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote and Mackensen acted entirely correctly- no amount of Wikipedians 'voting' in AfD can save an article unsupported by any reliable sources. The article had existed quite long enough for such sources to be found. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - no consensus came to and a nice smell of votestacking and POV-warring.Bakaman 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. The issue was reliable sources, correct? Here are the reliable sources. Iranian.com has published work by Sina. Jim Ball, a talk show host on Sydney's 2GB radio station, has covered Sina and his work with Faith Freedom International. ICSSA, a Canadian Muslim pro-Caliphate think tank, has published a debate with Sina that was conducted with the pact that Sina would shut down FFI if he lost the debate. WorldNetDaily did coverage of Sina and FFI. FrontPageMag.com hosted a symposium on "gender apartheid and Islam" to which one of the invited speakers was Sina for FFI. How many more reliable sources do we need? — coelacan talk — 19:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd point out that the sources just listed above were recently decided to help toward "reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB" by the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International, and the first criterion (the one these sites satisfy) of WP:WEB, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", is substantially similar to the first criterion of WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." The important point is that all these citations focus not only on Faith Freedom but also on Ali Sina himself, and TruthSpreader (who has voted "endorse deletion" here) said in the AfD, regarding the FrontPageMag symposium, "This event adds notability to Ali Sina, not FF." So that's agreement from TruthSpreader that it's notable for Ali Sina's article, and certainly even more so if it was notable for Faith Freedom in the end. — coelacan talk — 06:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Ali Sina is a contributing author in the book Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam which was reviewed in Foreword Magazine and is being used as a required text in Political Science 491 at Rutgers University. — coelacan talk — 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, this is somewhat similar to GNAA. Khoikhoi 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? — coelacan talk — 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Britain Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (AfD)

How can a minute group of four or five people get a reasonable information page like this deleted so quickly? The Traditional Britain Group is fairly well-known. People like Simon Heffer just don't accept invitations as dinner guests-of-honour for minor groups. The quip by one of its detractors that their dinner notices must be paid for is pathetic. Firstly, notices on the Court & Social pages are not always paid for (although they may have paid for theirs). It is at the discretion of the page editor. Secondly, all major dinners, memorial services, etc., appear on these pages under the same terms and conditions. It is not "advertising". I think you need to reassess some of you notability terms and conditions. Total and absolute reliance on the press is not enough. You might be hard-pressed, for instance, to find anything at all on the Chelsea Conservative Association, but it has been very active for over a century and is notable. I think you ought to reconsider this deletion which appears somewhat spiteful. Chelsea Tory 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note This was at the bottom of the November 29 log, but seems to be new from the time stamp, so I'm moving it here. ~ trialsanderrors 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:IDONTLIKETHEARGUMENTS isn't a reason for overturning. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AFD process looks fine to me, and the reason makes sense. From an individual's point of view, it would seem to be a big and powerful group, but in the Grand Scheme of Things, it's just not an important enough group to meet notability. This kind of organization are a dime a dozen. -FunnyMan
• Endorse deletion, perfectly valid close. This appears to be more vanispamcruftisement from the Lauder-Frost fanclub. A redirect to Western Goals Institute would be OK, although I note that the WGI article is a vile piece of soapboxing and needs a Wikihatchet taken to it. At least some people will have heard of the WGI, I live in England and can't recall ever having heard the Traditional Britain Group mentioned in the media (which, given their minimal Google presence, is not all that surprising). Guy (Help!) 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

E-Sword (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Out of process clousre. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination), the only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. He raised notability concerns. Multiple comments called for keeping the article and addressed those notability concerns. Closed as delete due to no cited sources, but this wasn't raised in AfD & should lead to cleanup, not to deletion. As there was no consensus for deletion, it should either be kept or sent back to AfD to discuss any WP:V concerns. Karnesky 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• This debate turned on an assertion of notability. Keep voters asserted notability without providing a measure of proof, which is no assertion at all. I saw no other honest way to close the debate. Of course re-creation with actual sources, in an encyclopedic tone, remains a valid and encouraged option. I endorse my original close. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If there are no sources, there are no sources. It doesn't matter how many people discuss that. Articles with no sources get deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. This is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. My objection was the AfD process, not whether the content of the article satisfied WP:V. Isn't AfD about WP:CON and not one admin's opinion?

However, allow me to provide a few sources here--I have no interest in recreating the article myself, but these could improve a restored or recreated article. It demonstrates that an article COULD satisfy WP:V and WP:SOFTWARE. It was awarded a best software award by PocketPC Mag in 2004 and was a finalist in 2005 and is nominated in 2006. It has been reviewed by "Dr. Gizmo" Al Fasoldt of The Post-Standard (August 11, 2004, but I don't have an electronic subscription) and in York Daily Record (again--no subscription, but google news archives had an excerpt). --Karnesky 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not trump policy. Verifiy with reliable sources, or delete. No reliable sources of notability have been forthcoming. Endorse closure. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse WP:IUSEIT doesn't trump WP:RS or WP:V but if you have enough sources now be bold and create a new article. Whispering 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually DON'T use it (and don't think I could--I use Linux). And many of the people who claimed to use it on the AfD were anonymous or brand new accounts. I don't think you should even recognize those claims here. What harm is there in undeleting and cleaning it up or undeleting and actually discussing whether deletion is warranted? --Karnesky 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That discussion already happened. The article as it stood was an advertisement with no sources. That is not acceptable. You are free, of course, to create an article with actual sources, although you've indicated that you have no interest in doing so. In that light, your insistence that the article be undeleted is perverse and borders on the irresponsible. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes--and the discussion reads to me as "keep" after notability concerns were raised. WP:RS and WP:V weren't raised. It is not that I have no interest in recreating it--it is that I am unqualified to do so. I know what I've read from a few reviews. I don't think I'm being perverse or irresponsible in wanting process to be followed. Why contribute when people ignore WP:CON? Perhaps I do protest too much, but it is because I don't see anyone talking about process. --Karnesky 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure they were--by the nomination, even if indirectly. As an administrator I'm expected to be capable of adding two and two together and producing four (or five, for very large values of two). I didn't ignore WP:CON, I ignored the arguments that ignored policy. If there were sources you should have added them to the article. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree, I guess.WP:SOFTWARE does state that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" is a criteria for notability. I don't think my argument in the AfD (which made that point) should have been ignored--I think someone should have asked me to provide actual references for the published works I found through the search I cited. That--to me--is consensus building. --Karnesky 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't provide references when asked. You don't provide references when the article is at risk of deletion. You provide them as a matter of course. This is a basic requirement for building an encyclopaedia. Chris cheese whine 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out where I was asked? The first time I saw this article was in AfD. The AfD didn't ask for references, but I pointed out that there were references. Yes--I could have added them to the article or to the AfD, but there was never any call for that. --Karnesky 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I said you're supposed to provide references as a matter of course, not wait until you're asked for them? Chris cheese whine 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you wrote. At the risk of wiki lawyering, WP:Deletion policy states that the correct procedure is still to follow WP:V and to tag the article with {{cleanup-verify}}. I am not an admin (so can't see the page), but I don't think that was done. It states that "if it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Arguments in the AfD said that it would be verifiable. Why recreate from scratch when we could just cleanup? --Karnesky 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, and a Farepak hamper to the admin. Keep arguments had no grounding in this or any other reality. Chris cheese whine 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• restore and improve, per Karnseky. This may not be the usual way of looking at these questions , but I'd say that the very fact of this much disputation about the question this would indicate a sufficient probability of notability and suitability in general to keep the page and improve it. I tried to add a little based on the web site, but I'm no specialist.DGG 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, per WP:V:

  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. (emphasis mine)

  Although I can't see the deleted article, judging from the close, I'm going to assume there were no sources. During AfD, even when requested, no sources were brought up. During this DRV, to this point, no sources have been given to assert notability. Sorry, but until you can, Wikipedia doesn't want an article on this, per official Wikipedia policy. This is non-negotiable. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, reading this AfD is like going back in a timewarp to the time when AfD was called Votes for Deletion and you could still cite WP:ILIKEIT without being ignored. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the closing admin was kind enough to allow re-creation as long as it fulfills WP:V/WP:RS. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Important comment - This software is part of a package known as The Sword Project which recently also underwent an AFD - however, this one was closed as keep or merge. Perhaps it could be undeleted for the sake of merging. -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have voted to Keep this article---but my vote appears to be too late.

[I didn't know it was a candidate for deletion until after it was deleted.] [I'd provide citations in this response, but I am on a 2400 baud line --- Yes, the speed that was considered fast back in 1989.]

I don't remember ever seeing any tags on the article, or talk page about anything.

• From my reading of the Wikipedia Deletion policy, an article has to be tagged with the appropriate tag, prior to deletion. In this instance, I'm guessing that the _apparent_ lack of sources is the issue. The sources were listed under guidelines that were acceptable back around 2002.
• A simple [cleanup]tag would have indicated that an editor thought something was amiss with the article. It might not have cleaned it up, but it would served as notice.

From Notability [Software guidelines]

• Newspaper articles. It has been reviewed in some seminary newspapers.
• Books: The e-Sword license pretty much prohibits any books about this software from being commercially published. Non-commercial publication is acceptable.
• User Guides: Official user guide is available from the home website. Unofficial user guides are available in English and Spanish, usingthe Internet. These are all distributed under a free (gratis) license. Documentation in some Indonesian and Philippine languages is not available on the Internet,but uses other distribution channels. Translation of the user guides into roughly 15 other languages is underway.
• TV Documentaries: None known.
• Magazine reviews. Karnesky (17:10, 5 December 206) mentioned some awards and nominations for this software. Both e-Sword, and Pocket e-Sword have been reviewed in articles that were either about the category (Bible Study Software) in general, or the product by itself.
• Notable Software Vendor: I'll let somebody else decide whether or not Equipping Ministries and/or Rick Meyer is notable.
• Included with a distribution: a) e-sword runs on Windows, so that is one barrier to being included; b) the e-Sword license prohibits commercial distribution, so that is a second barrier to included in a distribution;
• Numbers: e-Sword claims five million downloads. I've forgotten how many Pocket e-Sword claims. Since both are freeware (gratis) there is no telling how many copies have been distributed by third parties. Likewise, there is no way of knowing how many copies were deleted by people who downloaded it. By Contrast, Findex claims that one million certified copies of Quickverse have been sold.[That is their website --- probably the "about us" page.]
  • e-Sword has been downloaded by inhabitants of over 160 countries. The "missing" countries are, with the exception of Greenland, in the 10-40 Belt. Organizations that used to smuggle Bibles into the Comblock, are now smuggling them (and e-Sword) into the 10-40 belt countries.

From Verifiability

• Most of the material in the article was constructed from information that is available on either the official website, or documentation written by users. As such, it might meet the criteria for "dubious reliability" --- in specific self-published sources. Those sources were mentioned in the article, albeit that might not have been obvious.
• On the "Talk Page" the only question I can remember, is why the New World Translation was given so much space, especially since it was,in theory, not available as an e-Sword resource. AFAIK,The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has not publicly made any statements about copyright violations of that, or other resources created from The Watch Tower CD. They dealt with that issue with the module creator. Whilst that specific copyright violation was not referenced elsewhere, piracy has been mentioned in other reviews of e-Sword. Those citations could have been added there --- had anybody asked for more specific citations.
• The section "Biblical Language Study" (Or something like that) did contain a criticism that should have sourced. Easily corrected, and overlooked because it was so close to me.
• The section "User created modules" [Or something like that] _might_ qualify as original research, since it was added before the section "Best Practices"in "The e-Sword Utility Program FAQ" was created. [Which also gets back to the "dubious source" issue.] Issues with user created resources have been mentioned in reviews. Those could have been cited.
• The Sword Project:

a) e-Sword and The Sowrd Project are two different projects. e-Sword is gratis, but not libre. The Sword Project is Free Libre Open Source Software. b) There was a section that discussed some of the differences between the two projects, and reasons why they were often confused for each other.

• I think that covers all of the sections of the article. Anything else would have related to either how to use the program, or the resources for the program.

Re "You provide references as a matter of course".

• References were listed, and followed guidelines from 2002. Should they have been changed to reflect current guidelines on references. Probably. A simple statement statement on the "Talk Page" probably would have sufficed, to get them changed to reflect the 206 policy. If specific statements were questioned, they should have received a "citation needed" tag. There are at least two bots that do nothing but add those tags to pages.
• Kudus to Karnesky 00:06, 6 December 2006 for risking wiki lawyering. A simple cleanup would probably be easier than an article rewrite. And if the article is rewritten, what is to prevent it from being a candidate for "Speedy Delete" on the grounds that it has already been deleted? jonathon 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)