Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December

Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I made the article after Ace Combat X Super Aircraft was deleted to improve the article to make sure it met the requirements that were given then it was speed deleted with no reason as to what was wrong with it so I remade it and posted on the talk page asking what was wrong with it but it was speed deleted again without telling me what was wrong with it so I could fix it.Sam ov the blue sand 17:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Pointed the AfD to point to the AfD mentioned by the deletion log. Anyways, primary sources ("play the game") cannot be used to argue for an article's existence (WP:OR) and there's no third-party reliable sources. It's also written in a way that nonplayers cannot understand what's going on, violating WP:FICT. Find third-party reliable sources that talk about this subject in detail, keeping in mind that fan websites, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. ColourBurst 19:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second Eletrosphere is a good source it has more info than us I always take away the fanfiction from it though but its not that much. Please point out any fanfiction (Fancruft also) you see there. I guess I could find a source to replace the Ace Combat place I'll get working on that. And how am I supposed to fix the article when I cannot edit it to make so that nonplayers can also read it.Sam ov the blue sand 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this "Eletrosphere" thing you're talking about? You never mentioned this in the original AfD. Unfortunately, quantity of information doesn't always imply quality of information, or even reliability of information. ColourBurst 01:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Acually I made this article without first obtaining the aircraft in the game so at first most of the info came from there then I added my own info. Eletrosphere has both quanity and quality only some of the info is fan based and I always delete that info.Sam ov the blue sand 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Reliable sources are needed, and you do not have them. Having lots of info does not imply reliability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • These are articles on in-universe information which is mostly derived from primary sources (the game itself). Sections like this are split out when they get too long for the parent article, such as List of Final Fantasy X characters. For example, the featured article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, includes plot and character summaries which given your incorrect application of RS means they should be deleted. RS isn't the be all and end all, primary sources are valid. Now, if the entire subject (the game) lacked reliable secondary sources, then it probably isn't notable, of which this is not the case. - hahnchen 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And there are absolutely no sources outside of the game which give the plot of MGS3, or the characters in FFX? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, game guides are definitely going to have information on them and fan sites. But generally, reviews and critical commentary are not going to cover the characters and plot. You're certainly not going to find a plot synopsis of The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask on LexisNexus. It's not just computer games for which this is the case, but with other articles using primary sourced information, such as the plot synopsis in Dog Day Afternoon. I'm not saying that the outcome of the AFD was incorrect (yet), just that your reasoning seems flawed. - hahnchen 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Fansites, if big enough, I consider acceptable sources, although not enough to ever get FA quality. I could be mistaken, but I don't think any good fansites gave this information, either. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
          • For a series as long running as Ace Combat, there's bound to be fansites and walkthroughs published in the gaming press. But that's not even that relevant as the primary source for the article (the game itself) is perfectly adequate and can be verified in game. As in the example articles mentioned above, why should fan sites be cited for plot synopses when we can use its primary source, ie the film/game itself. - hahnchen 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, there are several schools of thought on this. One would prefer plot summaries and character summaries not from the primary source material itself, but I realize it's hard to get this kind of thing without violating copyrights (of whomever writes the plot summary). I looked at Spira (Final Fantasy X), and the only WP:RS there is the Ultimania guide (my guess is that this is enough to satisfy WP:V). The other school of thought is that until somebody writes critical commentary on the subject of the planes in Ace Combat (this isn't impossible; people write essays on the impact of games and plots all the time, though how many end up in academic journals (or even in RPGamer and such sites) is unclear, due to the anti-modernist bias of most literature departments.), that aspect of the game is not verifiable. It might also be pertinent to take a mergist attitude and cut down and merge the planes into the Ace Combat article itself (and by this I mean one line per plane). However, I cannot accept The Electrosphere (the fansite that sam was talking about) as an RS because there is material that is known to be unreliable there. ColourBurst 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per ColourBurst and Amarkov. Fails WP:RS

I understand that and I will find one if not two but when I find them how will I edit the article when I can't edit the article?Sam ov the blue sand 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You can ask an administrator (try asking at User talk:Proto as Proto deleted it) to userfy you a copy, that is create a copy of the deleted article at User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft. You can edit it there to add the sources and come back here when you're ready. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam, you stated when the article was deleted for the third time that you have a copy saved (plus you have been able to recreate it already on multiple occasions). Proto::► 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually after the first time I had to find all the info again and rewrite it then I made the copy onto a disk as I do with all other articles I care about (better to be safe than sorry), so yes I have the info. But can someone create a link to where I can write another until its ready to come here. Sad I can't find any links all of them are complete crap like "This aircraft is believed to be able to fly in outerspace". I f somone could stumple upon one that would be great.Sam ov the blue sand 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• 'Endorse deletion fails WP:RS (per Amarkov), WP:FICT (per ColourBurst). Brendan Alcorn 08:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you even voting I don't think people care until I'm done with User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft so why vote on an old thing?Sam ov the blue sand 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List of famous men who wear briefs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

There are sources that clearly prove this is a notable list. The closing admin let his own judgment get in the way when he closed it. He was acting in a very very biased manner. This article should be undeleted so it can be expanded upon. It is not "listcruft, as you call it. KeyLigger 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Usual briefsism bullshit. I'm closing this. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Khalil Kalfat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Sources found to establish notability [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. cab 06:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you summarize what they say? ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't read arabic, but the autotranslator did pick out his name in sources 1-3, 5. The French source #4, in taking about another writer says that Khalil Kalfat strongly influenced writers in the 1960's. I don't know if it is the same person or not. --Bejnar 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually my reading is

"d’autres écrivains et critiques, comme Khalil Kalfat qui a contribué largement à jeter la lumière sur la génération d’écrivains des années 1960."

"other writers and critics, like Khalil Kalfat who has largely contributed to shed light on the generation of writers of the 1960's"

I don't think that's sufficient to overturn the AfD decision. Not sure how to proceed with this one. Userfy if someone with Arbaic language skills asks for it? ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, pending someone who reads Arabic to translate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• First find someone to work on it that reads Arabic, then userfy for them. Until that person steps forward, endorse closure. I note that the DRV requester here has babel boxes, not including Arabic. GRBerry 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I raised the DRV to assist the original creator who is new to Wikipedia. I'll wait for him to respond, as my Arabic is minimal and he's already insulted my skills in the language once. BTW, I believe that's his picture on source #2. (Matches what's on arwiki: ar:خليل كلفت). "cab 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. I am a native speaker of Arabic. I have read the Arabic sources (but not the French as my French is not very good) and confirm that the subject of the article is notable. Google gives 17 300 results for his name in Arabic All of the given Arabic sources are about the same person. The link to the Arabic Wikipedia is also correct. Also, I would like to add that these sources are not trivial. The article is within the scope of the newly formed WikiProject Egypt. In addition, I am ready to translate any text from Arabic to English or vice versa.--Meno25 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Any administrator can copy the article and paste it at User:CaliforniaAliBaba/Khalil Kalfat for example until the article is well translated and sourced then it is moved to the Main name space. After all, as you know, the best result of an afd is a rescued article.--Meno25 00:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gotfrag meets WP:RS because it is well known (Alexa rank of 7,373[6] and independent. This in addition to what Hahnchen has mentioned above. Brendan Alcorn 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Advocate's initial statement

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

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

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

It meets #3 in notability. The page has been extensively re-written and redesigned in the past few hours. Wikipedia's guidelines mention that a website is notable if it meets one criterion (of three). I strongly believe that it meets criterion #3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" because PGNx Media's content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes

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

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

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

• no opinion yet I have two major problems: (1) visibity; for an online thingy to have only 127 [unique google hits] is a red flag. (2) No reliable sources provided that independently assert the notability of the site. `'mikka 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mikkalai, I would appreciate guidance in further fleshing out your second issue. I quoted the website inclusion policies of notable reviews syndicators and PGNx Media did meet their standards for notability. In turn, those affiliates met Wikipedia's standards for notability, as implied by the fact that they have their own webpages. As for your first point, I also created the page for GameTab.com. If you take a look at its unique Google hits, you'll find that there are only 102 uniques. However, the article I created remained on Wikipedia. You have to take into consideration the rather narrow focus of PGNx Media: they are primarily a reviews website and have a strong syndication network. I would appreciate your help in improving the article to make this clearer. Infomanager 21:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually, the linked Google search for Gametab returns about 945,000 hits and has an Alexa rank of 17,130[7]. Although Alexa rankings are notoriously unreliable, note that pgnxmedia.com has an Alexa rank of 290,068[8]. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:RS is far more important than WP:WEB, so if it doesn't meet the former, it's out. It doesn't. -Amarkov <sup>blah</sup><sub>edits</sub> 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The information on the article comes from PGNx Media itself or its affiliates. As noted in the article, its affiliate have strict guidelines for what they consider to be a notable website. The fact that they choose to carry PGNx Media's articles implies that they consider their content to be notable. Further, its affiliates have pages on Wikipedia, which are linked to in the article. Please take this into consideration.Infomanager 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Don't see that RS guideline is a problem here. The claims made are not extraordinary, and don't need extraordinary support - many corporate claims are primarily self documentd, e.g. names of the board, etc.. Some are self supporting, for example, the Rotten Tomatoes claim. Do we not think that RT is reliable about it's sources? Same goes for Ziff Davies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42 30 December 2006 (GMT).
• Overturn I think that WP:WEB has been proven. As for a reliable source, I believe that Rich is correct in that the claims are not extraordinary. Most of the information can be found on the website's "About Us" page or by poking around. Other comments, such as its status on affiliated websites, can be found by clicking the links the article provides to its affiliated websites. Thinkjose 21:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am afraid that you are mistaken in the reliable sources issue: every student dorm homepage have reliable sources of the same validity. The issue is not about information who/when/what, but about asserting of notability. That it is linked from other webpages means zilch. There are plenty of webrings iof dubious wikipediability who refer to each other. Please show me a reputable reference that says this site is kewl. `'mikka 23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Mikka, did you mean to respond to Rich? Do you think that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are reputable references? Both of these pages have a Wikipedia entry so they are not of "dubious wikipediability". Infomanager 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To answer your question, I believe that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are reputable references. By including excerpts and full text of PGNx Media's original content, they are placing their seal (so to speak) on the website. Do you disagree? Thanks again for taking the time to look at this. Infomanager 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That is fine, they may be placing their seal on the website. You still must have reliable sources, which means at least one independent source, which you don't have. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by one independent source. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are independent of PGNx Media. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by IGN; Metacritic is owned by CNet. PGNx Media is not owned by CNet or IGN. Please clarify. I am confident that it meets the requirement and that it is merely a matter of making this as clear as possible. Thank you, again, for taking time out of your Saturday to work with me on this. Infomanager 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't follow this, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cokemachineglow found the "included in Metacritic" argument insufficient (despite my own keep vote). ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you for providing this, but Metacritic is only one of many independent sources that note PGNx Media's notability. Rotten Tomatoes distributes full-text versions of its content on its website. Infomanager 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
            • That's ok, I have no opinion on this case, I'm just providing a precedent (which by itself can change as we know). ~ trialsanderrors 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks again for your feedback. Infomanager 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment. While inclusion in a meta-aggregator like Metacritic is certainly better than nothing, it doesn't confer independent notability. Why aren't there articles about Gaming Nexus or Rewired Mind (two other Metacritic game-review contributors)? Sorry, I would suggest that inclusion is necessary but not sufficient for demonstrating notability. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Regarding Gaming Nexus and Rewired Mind: I have been looking for additional gaming websites to expand Wikipedia with. I have used these websites extensively in the past. Thank you for the suggestion. Infomanager 09:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Clarification of independence:' of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. There appears to be some confusion because Rotten Tomatoes carries some full-text reviews and Metacritic provides excerpts. These websites choose to do so independently; they are not ask them to continue or stop. They choose to do it because they respect the reviews and for no other reason. They do not share owners or editors, and neither website has a vested interest in the success of the other. Infomanager 07:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Please note that Thinkjose is the founder of the PGNx site, and so there are potential concerns with WP:COI. I should also point out that Infomanager is one of Jose's classmates at Yale. Combining the conflict of interest with a very low Alexa rank, I seriously question the notability of this article. --Alan Au 09:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are incorrect As shown in the history, Jose attends the University of Pennsylvania not Yale. Please verify these claims before making accusations. I have no involvement with the website other the time I've spent writing the article, and have recently branched off to edit additional articles. However, I thank you for your time. Infomanager 09:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. --Alan Au 09:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the quick edit; you bring up good points otherwise. Infomanager 09:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Overturn per WP:WEB. This website should be considered for its importance as syndicated review source. WEB #3 is met as both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes (as well as Game Rankings, Gametab.com, and others) are well-known, independent and distribute its content. Paul D. Meehan 21:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Rich Farmbrough. Brendan Alcorn 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Brendan Alcorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: PGNx Media's review archive is currently at 1,223 reviews. It has the 23rd largest archive on Gamerankings among active websites, 25th largest archive among all websites, and 35th largest among all websites and print publications. [9] Infomanager 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Those numbers are impressive, but keep in mind that the reviews are manually linked to Gamerankings. As such, it isn't clear whether or not they're using Gamerankings as a public media repository by the review authors to make up for a lack of primary site traffic. I apologize if I'm coming across as suspicious, but I'm still concerned because the original article was primarily structured as a vanity/self-promotional piece. This doesn't make the subject inherently non-notable, but I'm not yet personally convinced that it's *independently* notable. --Alan Au 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a few problems with your comment: 1) Gamerankings editors add or approve all content on Gamerankings. PGNx editors cannot add or link to (?) any content. 2) Are IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy also using Gamerankings as a public media repository? Suggesting this about PGNx Media, exclusively seems to be against Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. 3) I wrote the article to mimic how other website articles are written: Introduction, History, Coverage, Staff. If you have specific improvements, or concerns please let me know. 4) Gamerankings, as I mentioned above, is independent. There are no connections -- shared owners, editors, revenues, etc -- that can make you question its independence. As as side note, I apologize if this is not the case but it seems like you're taking "they're damned if they do and damned if they don't attitude. It appears that you have a pre-conceived idea that the website is not notable (a personal disagreement with an editor, perhaps) and evidence to the contrary isn't having any effect. Infomanager 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Clarification. Actually, anyone who registers a user account on Gamerankings can add links to reviews from other sites. Also, I have no complaint if you want to rewrite the article as an independent third party editor citing sources--my primary concern is the conflict of interest generated by the original article authorship. As for the personal accusations, I'm taking it to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the discussion here. Thanks. --Alan Au 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Further clarification: Anyone with a registered account can add links but they need to be approved by a GR editor before they appear on the GR website. I am the original author of the article (I wrote it this summer), but I since lost the txt file which is why thinkjose had to submit the first version. I apologize for what can be perceived as a personal accusation; it was hypocritical of me after citing good faith. I thank you for the civility you responded with. Infomanager 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: It seems that most of the concerns that people expressed for deleting the article have been addressed at this time. Infomanager 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Sorry I didn't bring this up earlier, but after checking around, I remembered that this article had gone through AfD twice (which is why it was on my watchlist). For reference, here's the second AfD for this article. To be fair, it was closed via CSD without a full cycle, but re-reading the comments there, I would like to recommend that this be relisted for regular AfD in the hopes of generating a more through discussion. --Alan Au 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: This should be clear from the above, but after reading the proposed undeletion page it italized that the person who proposed the undeletion has to be in favor, so I thought I would make it clear. Infomanager 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:WEB and WP:RS, the two essential policies that matter when dealing with websites, have been met. My personal notability requirements regarding websites (importance to its field and age) also appear to be met. Looks good to me. --- RockMFR 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep deleted. While it is easy to imagine this category being used destructively, it is impossible to imagine it ever being helpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. Any arguments that starts with "because I know better" should never actually be spoken aloud. Or on text, or whatever. I'm unclear on why all these dissenting voices failed to pipe up on the actual discussion for deletion, but that would have been the place for them to have made their opinons felt. Bad idea? Maybe, but that's just one mans's opinon and being an admin doesn't mean yout opinon (and willingness to mash the button) count for more than anyone else's. - brenneman 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is one of those cases when I struggle to say, "endorse closure" because I really don't like out of process actions ... but seriously, we don't need this stuff. WP:IAR, keep it deleted. BigDT 04:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• In the strongest terms, keep this deleted - come on, people, really ... Metamagician3000 06:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I'm not exactly thrilled with the way this ended up on DRV, but let's be honest - this probably would have wound up here one way or the other, to overturn a keep or a delete decision. As to what I think of the category - I'm undecided how far we should be able to take the ban on "identifying personal information". Perhaps some personal info might be allowed on an editor's user page. But that is a far cry from having a fully automated list of every child on Wikipedia. A category would generate such a list, and that list is far too dangerous to be floating around cyberspace. Quack 688 14:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - note the complete lack of any real argument by the keep deleted parties regarding why legitimate CfDs could be overturned by one person. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin - note the real concerns of those wanting deletion - and the complete lack of any substantive (non process) argument for undeleting. No one is argument this is useful, many see it as potentialy very dangereous. The consensus is clear.--Doc^g 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict- I agree with Doc Glasgow above). This is far too important an issue to be decided by a handful of random users who happened to notice it on CfD. The outcome of those debates was "no consensus", not a ringing endorsement of this category. As far as I can see, the first debate involved a grand total of eight editors, one of whom made the nonsensical comment "Keep per norm" (AFAIK no "norm" was involved in the argument and the nominator proposed "delete"). Issues of this magnitude should not be decided this way. As I've said, I'm not even happy about this debate here. This should go straight to the top. It's just not worth risking children's safety in the real world for the sake of some trivial category which has no value in building an encyclopaedia. If ever any incident was to occur as a result of keeping this category, Wikipedia would almost certainly be sued out of existence too. This is a case for "Ignore All Rules" if there ever was one. --Folantin 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, no substantiative argument? The fact that people disagree with you on whether it should be deleted is a substantiative argument. Why must we show a consensus to keep a category once it's been deleted, regardless of how justified the deletion is? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and to Folantin, if it's too important to be decided by a handful of people in a CfD, why is it not too important to be decided by one person with the power to delete things? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete. Any page that has been kept (either explicitly or through non consensus) at an XfD should not be speedily deleted by anybody. The only exceptions to this are proven legal issues (e.g. copyright) or WP:OFFICE actions by official representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation acting in their official capacity. That one user feels their subjective opinion that something might be against a proposed policy trumps consensus makes me wonder about their suitability as an administrator. Thryduulf 19:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Utter nonsense. Yes, the page was deleted 'out of process' - but it it here to see whether that deletion was a good idea or not. Most think it was, and we've given very strong reasons. All we have had back is process wonking. Please, fight the silly rules battle on some other issue - not this FFS! If you think Wikipedia is a better, healthier, page with a category like this, then, by all means argue for undeletion. But really, so far no argument has even been attempted as to why this is a good thing. If the speedy bothers you, forget the speedy; the CfD was a quirky crazy result - review that (or would you rather I opened a separate DRV on that issue?). Just answer the basic question - do you think that undeleting a list that enables anyone to quickly find and identify children is beneficial to Wikipedia??? --Doc^g 21:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a silly rules battle. It's called you are deleting things without a consensus to do so. Consensus is not an artifact, constructed from the rules to inhibit things. It expresses what the community as a whole wants, instead of whichever person happened to stumble on it and speedy delete it. This reminds me of the person who blamed the fact that people were disagreeing with him on the RfA process. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per WP:IAR, which if it were ever applicable, is in this case. This category has a significant possibility of hurting both real people and the encyclopedia, and keeping it doesn't seem to help building the encyclopedia at all. Mak (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... WP:IAR says to ignore process, policies and guidelines. The issue is that you are ignoring consensus, which IAR does not justify. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, it says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." In this case, "the rules" is that you have to follow a non-consensus on a !vote regarding something which could easily harm Wikipedia. Harming Wikipedia makes it difficult for me to improve or maintain Wikipedia. See how that works? Mak (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You can't just overrule what others think. The only time when you can is with Foundation level issues, which this is not. In other cases, you must listen to others, not just overrule them because of a percieved good. That's how Wikipedia works. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted because it's just not helpful to us, or to them, to have a big list out there of which of us are children. NO. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Amarkov makes highly persuasive points but ultimately this review seems misguided. No argument has been made to suggest hw this category served any positive purpose. A readily available list identifying the youngest members of the community to potential predators is unacceptable. The risk of it being abused is a real one and I see no reason to take a chance on so serious an issue. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Out of process early closure was reverted, this review will run 5 days as prescribed in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. ~ trialsanderrors 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • trialsanderrors is of course correct, and I apologise for being an ass and not keeping up to date with all the relevant policy. Hiding Talk 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even having a list like this is scary, created by an unregistered user [10] in the first place. We simply do not need a list singling out minors under the age of 13. Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. --Dakota 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Amarkov may be happy to tempt fate but I don't think we should. Proto::► 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I don't particulartly agree with Cyde on deleting this ad hoc. But it has been deleted, and I haven't seen any compelling arguments on why we should have this re-instated. I'm personally voting on the article itself and not in the manner it was removed. I don't necessarily subscribe to the News of the Screws style hysteria that there is a peadophile round every corner, but that doesn't mean that this page could be misused. And if there is no positive use for this page then I can only be swayed by the fact it could be misused. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Not helpful. Tempting fate. Gathers too much information in one place, though there are other ways of tracking down this information. Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life#Age_groups anyone? Those will need to go as well. Carcharoth 18:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per brenneman (and others). -- DS1953 ^talk 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. While I completely respect the democratic nature of Wikipedia as well as despise censorship, I think this falls under an issue of safety. I agree with many of the other naysayers: this category could be used as a dangerous tool by predators. We shouldn't make it easy for them. Valley2city 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

brenneman 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Category:Wikipedians interested in photography

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the U.S. last year there were approximately 4000 cases where law enforcement opened a case involving attempts to entice children into meeting sexual predators offline. [11]

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

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

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

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

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

It's also got a few other tidbits like:

• There were under 1000 arrests involving victims in the "internet sex crimes against minors" category. [12] in 2000
• The total number of complaints in 2005 was only 2664 [13]

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

brenneman 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overturn There are many reasons the foremost is a violation of Wikipedia is not a vote. Second he is clearly notable. How is the highest ranked Halo 2 player not notable. Despite the many votes against the inclusion of this article I have brought evidence proving that he passes WP:Notability. He has been cited multiple non-trivial independent sources. [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Second, he is currently ranked as both the national champion for 1v1/FFA and is apart of the number 1 team, Team Carbon. He has been interviewed by USA Network and currently is a star on MLG's pro circuit series on USA Network. The precedence has been set many times before, see Daigo Umehara, Ken Hoang, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Magic:_The_Gathering_players. The top ranked players in any genre is notable. I personally have no interest in Magic players, but that doesnt mean I think they should be deleted Valoem ^talk 05:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago Race Riot of 1919 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This was speedied with deletion summary sourcing problems (Jay Robert Nash), which confuses me. I've provisionally restored it for DRV consideration. There are five sources in the ref section, so I'm really quite confused about the deletion reason. At the very least, it was not a valid CSD. Kchase T 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. "Sourcing problems" is not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and list. Speedy criteria are supposed to be objective, thus, "sourcing problems" can not be one. Regardless, lack of sources has never been a reason for deletion, unless there is reason to believe there are no sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My view on Nash stuff: having bad sources should never be considered worse than no sources, and no sources isn't a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My view: Having bad sources is exponentially worse than having no sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I knew we'd find common ground somewhere. Regardless, this article has one singular bad source, and no inline cites. I'm not even sure this is really truly sourced through any of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • In the event this gets relisted, there's an inferior version way back in the history that doesn't reference Nash. Better than nothing.--Kchase T 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: See Jay Robert Nash. Nash intentionally inserts false information into his work. If the article is based on his work, then the sources are unreliable. I am not contributing an opinion as to the deletion of this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fair, and I didn't realize that. Having 4 other sources, however, would hopefully help that a bit. It would be nice to have the Nash stuff in WP:RS, but I can only imagine the shitstorm. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay Robert Nash "Jimmy Wales commented that he would be happy to remove any instances of copying if pointed out, but called Nash's books unfit as sources for Wikipedia regardless of any legal issues. "Nash's work should not be relied upon," Wales concluded, on the grounds that the deliberate insertion of errors "makes it unsuitable as a reference anyway." I suspect that is the issue being responded to. I know I've seen further discussion in the subsequent 8 months, but can't find it readily. GRBerry 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Roughly delete revisions made after October 2005 The Nash reference was introduced in these three edits (same user, same day) [18]. We can at least delete all subsequent revisions and have a clean version. I'd look for clearly salvagable portions of the current version though - recategorization, images, etc... GRBerry 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Commenting further, I think we can preserver the images, external links section, see also section, and categorization. I think we have to toss everything else out of the article that was added since October 2005, because we can't know what later edits were are either 1) also sourced from Nash, but don't say so because it was already listed or 2) used only because of a connection drawn from something else. The other three new sources could be mentioned on the talk page as possible sources to check. The Chicago Public Library link in external links offers as second steps multiple further sourcing possibilities, primarily primary sources. GRBerry 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete problematic sections/sources and restore per GRBerry. I must say I don't understand how editors (and many of you seem to be American, unlike moi) can delete an entire article on a signficant epsiode in Chicago's history... based on a sourcing problem with one writer? Maybe I'm missing something but I'm mystified. The event did happen. It's clear it's significant. Tag the article for poor sourcing, edit it till the cows come home, but delete? This should never, ever have been put for deletion in my view. If there's a poor source on Kent State shootings will that disappear from WP, too? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass... I'm really trying to understand how this ever got to the deletion stage in the first place. So if you disagree, help me to see the light. Shawn in Montreal 01:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Deletion and undeletion are basically judgements of whether the topic is encyclopedic. This one is. This was a major event in Chicago that has been the subject of at least one entire book: Tuttle, William M. (1997). Race Riot: Chicago in the Red Summer of 1919. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0252065867. . So there are certainly reliable sources on which an article could be based. If the article is riddled with subtly unreliable material, re-create it as a stub and start from scratch. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• I apologize for starting this mess, but the thing to remember is that Nash is not only unreliable, he's litigious: he puts stuff in as copyright traps, and actually honest-to-god for real called the Foundation in Florida to talk about lawsuits. Anything that cited Nash as a source had to go: I've been working with user:MadMax to clean up a huge load of organized-crime-related articles that cited Nash as a source, and we found at least two that were (as best as we could tell) wholly fictitious. If you look at talk:Jay Robert Nash, there's this big mess about the scandal that erupted when we incorporated his "calumny of the burning priests" into 1755 Lisbon earthquake... and then it hit the media. I knew this would be a mess when I deleted the article, and I strongly endorse its re-creation, but any and all Nash-based material must be expunged. I'd be participating in this more actively, but my WP access is limited over the holidays. Okay? DS 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, that explains it. And no apologies necessary as it's always nice not to get sued! I'd be happy to wade in and slash anything Nashian but as there are no actual citations on what is from Nash (right?) and I have no prior knowldge of the subject matter, I'm not sure I'd be much help. Is there anyone in a better position? Shawn in Montreal 04:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• • You should have stubbed it, not deleted it. There was no doubt that the riot actually happened, and some information in the article could have been quickly verified to create a stub of it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and cleanup sources. This article is a lot better written than numerous ones on Wikipedia. It records a significant historical event that is mentioned in standard history textbooks re the black migration to the North. The "Red Summer" of 1919 of which the Chicago Race Riot is a part is a well known item in black history.See for example Nicholas Lehman's "The Promised Land." A quick Google search on this topic brngs up almost 100 links. http://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+race+riot+1919

Related articles like Mass racial violence in the United States provide a references to the event as well. And there is an entire book on it, aforementioned,--> Race Riot: CHICAGO IN THE RED SUMMER OF 1919 by William M. Tuttle.

Recommendation: 1) Undelete, 2) remove controversial "Nash" reference. 3) Insert other references like Tuttle, and (4) place the cleanup-references tag so future editors do a better documentation job.Odinista 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. The speedy deletion button should not be used in lieu of cleanup, making this a technically invalid speedy. If you don't like it, go propose an addition to the criteria at the appropriate venue. Silensor 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and watch it get shot down in flames as too subjective for speedy deletion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete anything before Nash was introduced. Ral315 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In my defense, I had used Nash as a source as a reference to support claims made in a related talk page involving criminal involvement during the riots, specifically the claim that members of the Ragen's Colts may have instigated the drowing incident which had caused the riot as well as a possible explanation as to why police declined to arrest them when arriving at the scene. This information also appears in Carl Sifakis's The Mafia Encyclopedia and, I believe, Herbert Asbury's The Gangs of Chicago among others. I would suggest resoring the article prior to my addittions as only one specific paragraph was based on Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime. MadMax 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete. Sourcing problems do not justify article deletion. If poor sources were used for an article, that's grounds for thoroughly checking everything in it. In extreme cases one could even argue for stubbing the article and rebuilding from that stub. Not deletion. As for Nash's litigousness, avoid lawsuit paranoia; there is, IMO, no valid lawsuit there. Nash presents what he writes as historical fact; he cannot then sue if someone believes him and repeats his lies. Only the text is copyright protected, not the ideas presented. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per several above, most recently Morven; delete problematic material and place a note on the article talkpage warning that Nash must not be used as a source. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely seems like enough reason exists that it at least deserves a full AfD debate rather than a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (Overturn) I wanted to link to this for the Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) article which was part of Washington Park, Chicago, which was last week's WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week. This is an important event in need of an article. TonyTheTiger 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Emcee T (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

HIP-HOP ARTIST featured in NATIONWIDE MAGAZINES & NEWSPAPERS Emceetstaff 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Band is notable - has numerous singles, projects and a music video available at nationwide record stores. Worked with artists who have gone multi-platinum (Rappin' 4-Tay & Ray Luv). Featured in SF Weekly Newspaper - has toured on East & West Coast. All images are owned by me, that is copyright and taken by me. Please advise.

• (I was the deleter) Endorse deletion, nothing at artistdirect, nothing at allmusic, and all edits not made by anons were made by Users with names eerily similar to the name of the artist. (Shauntai (talk · contribs) and Emceet (talk · contribs) (Shaun Tai is the artist's real name)). The article has been deleted by four different admins now. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Blatant COI, anyone? Oh, and endorse deletion, arm-waving about notability does not create it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion, absolutely nothing here showing verifiability or notability, and there's a major COI problem. --Coredesat 01:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. Add some salt, too. MER-C 02:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, as soon as I delete something, it winds up here.  :) Definite self-promotion; on my way to spread a bit of salt, especially given the original poster's username. - Lucky 6.9 08:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no evidence found indicating that there was an assertion of notability, i.e., that the speedy was out of process. Major WP:COI issues; this may indicating the need for salting. --Kinu ^t/_c (éŕ) 19:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay potatoes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted because band was deemed "not notable" after proposal for deletion. This band is notable, passing the following criteria from WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. (These bands are most notably Fountains_of_Wayne, Lloyd_Cole, and Mark_Mulcahy). Additionally, one of their songs is(or possibly has been) considered for use in a Broadway musical. [19] pmppk 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I invoke the "guideline" clause to say it still isn't notable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, redirect to Chris Collingwood. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on Redirect. If the outcome of this review is that the subject is indeed not notable enough for its own article, I would happily create a redirect to a section under Chris Collingwood if I can be provided with its prior contents (or if the article could have its history restored, with the current version simply being a redirect). pmppk 22:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but relist. Valid AfD, valid result given the situation. Meets WP:MUSIC now, but should get a hearing at AfD to see if it's enough to really overturn it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but userfy to Pmppk so that he can merge to Chris Collingwood as requested. Xtifr _tälk 00:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Premature ejaculation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I'd like to have an external link on this page back again because I don't know about spamming policy. I just saw the other relate article and need to add my site as external link also because I'm belive that my web site has a useful and benefit content for the person who looking for it. I did't mean to make a spamming to wikipedia. If possible, please add my link back to this article again. I'm so sorry for my mistake and in the future it will not happen again. Thank you for your help. Ebiz4life 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong forum. You want the talk page of the article in question. This is for review of deletion of entire articles. Look at WP:EL if you haven't already.--Kchase T 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) First off, I'm pretty sure this isn't where you want to discuss this; try here. Secondly, it sounds like you're asking permission to add a commercial link to a Wikipedia article, and that is verbotten. I hope I was helpful. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I'd like to contest this deletion because a) I believe editors at least made a case for no consensus, based on a majority of Keep votes and arguments made b) the administrator User:RoySmith who decided to delete is a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians and seems to me to have a bias towards deletion even in light of majority Keep votes c) lit. theory types and practicianers of "poetics" (god, there's a word which deserves an apology) are rarely able or interested in applying their work to actual living theatre, the fact that he has done so also sets him apart from many non-notable scholars. Thanks Shawn in Montreal 18:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a point of reference, his seminal work in Theatre Journal 1997 got six cites. In any case, edit history is restored if someone wants to check the quality of the provided sources. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, although I reject the nominator's reasoning. Being a member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians (or the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians for that matter), while not something I agree with, doesn't invalidate one's WP activities or call one's motives into question. That said, I think there's enough notability that it's worth undeleting or at least re-running the deletion debate, as a lot of the best points were brought up after the majority of deletion votes were already in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would similarly like to contest this deletion. According to the Afd discussion here, there are, I believe, two different consensuses reached, an earlier and later one.

1) With the exception of one Delete vote, the Delete votes were cast in a 10 hour period, from 20:13, 23 December 2006 to 05:49, 24 December 2006.

2) The Keep votes, in contrast, were cast between Dec. 24th and Dec. 29th, a 5 day period.

This disparity between the Delete and Keep votes is explained by the changes made to the entry on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th. These two sets of changes addressed the issues of WP:NPOV, WP:PROF, and sources, the criteria by which the article was initially marked for deletion by AndyJones. I would like to submit that following theses changes, no further challenges were made to the entry on the above mentioned issues. In fact, as the Afd discussion shows, the main issues were those of hagiography, editting and clean up, not deletion.

I would, thus, like to point out, similarly to Shawn in Montreal, that the administrator User:RoySmith did not take into account the consensus of the community when deleting the entry, whether based on a strict tally of votes, or based on the discussion that reflects "a sense of community." And, certainly, User:RoySmith did not consider the changes that were made on Dec. 24th and Dec. 26th, that improved the article as is evidenced by the Afd discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the entry still needs improvement. Yet, as the entry's history hopefully shows, the entry was continually be changed in the spirit of making it a valuable entry for the wiki community. Sincerely, Gregorthebug 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak endorse deletion. I'm not convinced that it was a substantial enough change. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comments from the closing admin (me). First and foremost, there were NO votes to keep. There were similarly NO votes to delete. AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion leading to a consensus. Next, the comment about my membership in ADW is just plain silly. It's a joke, man. Get a life. Finally, I didn't look at the raw numbers (see my first point) so much as read the arguments and the article and come to a conclusion. I discounted some of the Keep sentiments; one was a single-use account (i.e. sockpuppet), and another was a first-person-plural essay. Who's we? Was the editor representing the interests of some group? Very strange. After all that, and my own reading of the article, I came to the conclusion that a consensus had been reached (and which I agreed with) that the article didn't meet the notability guidelines. Anyway, just an explanation of where I was coming from. Do whatever you want. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I was just coming to DRV to list this myself. There was absolutely no consensus to delete. It was the opinion of most editors that it STAY. I wouldn't say there was a consensus to keep the article, but it's ludicrous to suggest there was a consensus to delete. I wasn't especially shocked when I saw that the closing admin is a member of Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. Honestly, I don't think administrators who are strongly deletionist or inclusionist should be making controversial closures such as in this case. What the hell happened to policy? Lately AfD is just about administrators acting out their own biases in complete disregard to the will of the community. Owen 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion' and keep deleted. The changes made to the article during its AfD wouldn't affect my vote, at least, and apparent sockpuppetry, or at least votes from brand new accounts, accounted for some of the Keep votes. No real evidence was provided that Reynolds is more notable than many, many other professors. I don't think the closing was out of process. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment. I won't vote on this matter, since evidently my account is a single-use account, and seems to cloud the issues more than benefit them. In the hopes of clarification, I will say the following. The Bryan Reynolds entry was the first wiki project that I have worked on. I have done my best to cross-reference the entry with other valid entries. I have done my best to improve the entry according to any suggestions recieved. As of yet, I haven't had the opportunity to work on other entries, but I certainly had every intention to do so. And hopefully, the entry on Reynolds has shown that I am quite dedicated to trying to improve an entry to the best of my ability. I have used the plural pronoun at times, because, yes, with some friends I have collaborated on the entry. The list of references alone took us quite a long time to research and collect. In this respect, I don't see what is wrong with a group of friends working on a project together from a single account (If I am incorrect here, please advise).

It's not really apropos to this review, but as a meta-issue, sharing of accounts is contrary to official policy. I don't see anything wrong with several people of similar interest collaborating on a project (in fact, that's probably a good thing), as long as they don't actually share an account. Each person should log in and make edits under their own account name. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've been the only person to ever log into my account. And actually I think it is perfectly apropos to this review - just look back at your comments. Your justification to delete the entry almost squarley rests on excluding the sentiments of some users. For clarification, please explain how the entry does not meet the notability criteria? Gregorthebug 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You asked if there was anything wrong with a bunch of people working together from a single account. I answered your question. I'm not going to get dragged into a long drawn-out argument. i explained why I did what I did. If it's overturned in review, I'm OK with that. Really. I have no stake in this. The only reason I made my comments on the DR at all was because it seemed impolite to not explain my thought process, and then again later in direct response to your request for information about wikipedia policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting my intentions aside in this matter, I find it frustrating that the merits of an entry are evaluated according to its editor, and not the content of the entry itself. If you refer to the Afd discussion, I thought the notability of Reynolds was addressed, and the wiki notability criteria reached:

Further to WP:PROF, note that: 1) Reynolds is seen as an expert in his field, 2) by independent academics in the field; 3) his work is well-known; 4) his work is widely cited, 5) Reynolds has come up with a new concept -- a critical theory and methodology: “transversal poetics,” and 6) has received two notable awards/honours for his work. From this it is clear that Reynolds passes every category of the WP:PROF and not just one as required: “If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable.”

In terms of what Rbellin has said: "No real evidence was provided that Reynolds is more notable than many, many other professors". The contention has never been that Reynolds is more notable than "many, many other professors". At the same time, it is clear that Reynolds is a specialist within early modern English studies, at the very least, if not contributing to theatre and critical theory studies, as well.

He was awarded Chancellor's Fellow in 2005 by the University of California: "Chancellor's Fellows are faculty with tenure whose recent achievements in scholarship evidence extraordinary promise for world-class contributions to knowledge, and whose pattern of contributions evidences strong trajectory to distinction." http://www.ap.uci.edu/distinctions/chancfellow.html

In 2004, he was named by the University of Alabama’s Hudson Strode Program in Renaissance Studies, directed by Gary Taylor, as "one the six most brilliant Renaissance scholars in the world under 40," "for work on ‘transversal poetics.’" http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/1926.html

Now I could understand an argument claiming that it is not sufficient to be notable in early modern English studies/Renaissance studies to warrant a wikipedia entry. I do not think a claim can be made that Reynolds is not, as a professor, notable within his field. Gregorthebug 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Allow relisting after rewrite in user space Afd is not a vote and there's nothing scandalous about calling oneself a deletionist which is a pretty reasonable thing IMHO. I believe that the closing admin's decision was fair enough. I am concerned that the current version of the article is wading deep into resume territory (the page number by page number mentions/references section is a little silly for an academic who is supposed to be world-class). It is not clear to me at all that his work has been "widely cited". I think though there has been sufficient changes in the article to warrant a relisting given the time disparity between delete and keep votes (this is a subtle detail, I think, and perhaps something a closing admin is not necessarily expected to take note of?). On the other hand, the article needs a good cleanup and pruning to avoid the resume/faculty bio/book author page feel it currently has, as well as the jargonese. Recommend rewrite in userspace before a relisting Bwithh 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion CV bloating trying to do an end run around WP:PROF. But the closing admin was quite right. Eusebeus 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see a consensus supporting the original deletion. I am neutral (weak, weak keep), but beleive the article should never have been deleted. TonyTheTiger 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

What is the big idea??? Bacl-presby 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The "big idea" is that, after seven days of discussion, there was nothing added to the article which explained how the church is anything more than your run-of-the-mill church. And please see the top of this page, which explains what WP:DRV is. It is not "try to get something undeleted without presenting any arguments as to why it should be undeleted". User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment....sorry, I don't know how this is run; obviously in the last five minutes, I'm told that this is "your-run-of-the-mill church"....I'm appealing this hastily swung decision, by folks far from the place, as this is one of the beefs I'm having with wiki; when I find Mercedes McNab getting more space here than a historic church, an integral part of Doors Open Hamilton, and in the overall history of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, it amazes me that one person's tirade against a bunch of Church Stubs, leads to the dismembering of a number of posts....

  Hopefully, the input already recorded, (and remember, the stub was there as more input was going to be added....) and what was added within the recent debate is one reason to keep this intact for now...however, I could be wrong....

  BTW, Does including this into a {{Wikiproject}} keep its life as well??

  Bacl-presby 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  No. Wikiprojects don't trump site-wide policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As I posted on my talk page, I'd be happy to userfy if someone wants to expand this. There were a few potential sources mentioned in the discussion, but their actual connection to the church were unexplained so they couldn't get due scrutiny and I couldn't just add them to the article retoractively. The article itself didn't assert any notability whatsoever (other than possibly an implied claim due to its age, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:SCHOOL), so there was no way for me to leave the article in article space. If someone wants to expand this and add a (sourced) claim to notability I have no problems changing the closure to no consensus so it doesn't get G4-ed. On the idea that a local admin should close those discussions, that's a bit, uh, impractical, no? Also, Wikipedia is global in scope so if someone writes an article on a local topic someone with no connection to the place should feel informed after reading the article. And a list of priests without context doesn't really do that. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sure, wiki is a global thing, but there are a signifigant number of users and editors in the Hamilton-Southern Ontario (close proximity to Toronto area, (but DO NOT say that Hamilton is Toronto, or visa versa)....I just find this exercise is a farce.... Bacl-presby 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS--what happens if I just start the article all over again??
    • If it's the same article it will get redeleted. if it's a different article it might stand or be renominated for deletion depending on content. As for your hope that local admins should close those discussions, it pretty much flies in the face of the idea that closing admins should be neutral and decide based on the merits of the arguments brought up in the discussio rather than on personal knowledge. If they have personal knowledge they should weigh in as editors. In any case, the article is now userfied at User:Bacl-presby/MacNab Street Presbyterian Church (Hamilton). ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure despite my contrary opinion in the AFD. I tried to add a claim to notability to the article, but apparently it wasn't recognized as such, and it certainly wasn't a great one. I do believe that the article needs almost a complete rewrite, and from my memory any version that had multi-sentence prose paragraphs or used sources would be substantially different, so I didn't object to the close. Since the page is not salted, there is no reason not to just write an article on the subject from the offline sources. Remember that there is no deadline. GRBerry 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT Thank you; that's what I'd like to hear (t.i.n.d.); so perhaps a new article on MSPC in 2007, along with other details. Bacl-presby 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be useful if you get this done before this DRV closes (Jan 4), so we can move it back to main space as part of the closure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • QUESTION What? So it can be added where? Bacl-presby 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I just moved the article to your user page. Are you actually paying attention? ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• You mean, the original deleted article? Paying attention to what...I usually don't spend my time looking at this page, hence I don't know what to do when an article gets deleted!! Bacl-presby 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, just click on the link. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so you know, if you want the article to have a better chance of surviving when it's moved back into article space, remember to integrate the information from the sources given in the AfD back into the article and cite them. ColourBurst 16:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing here but a list of ministers, none of whom seem to be notable, and none of which is sourced except for the last one. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Sorry, I'm often inclusionist but in this case the WP policy against serving as a directory of things seems to apply. As a Montrealer, I live in a city where, as Mark Twain once famously remarked, you can't fling a brick without breaking a church window. Canada has scores of churches with their own history, with artifacts aplenty, etc. But that doesn't mean WP should be turned into a church directory. Sorry. That's my opinion after reviewing the article in question.Shawn in Montreal 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete In terms of process 1) I see no consensus on this afd 2) the nomination cited 'unverifiability', but that objection was overcome in the debate. In terms of substance, sure the article is bad - but that's a reason for cleanup not deletion. If no good article could be written here, then a merge would have been more appropriate. Notability? See WP:Pokemon--Doc^g 13:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TrekBBS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

• Overturn and Delete I wanted to start off with saying this review is not that I disagree with the outcome of the AfD, but because I believe the closing admin did not follow Deletion Guidelines for administrators which quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

WP:V is not negotiable. The article contains no reliable sources, and is thus unverifiable, then closing a debate based on consensus is not a valid action to take; the article must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. It makes claims that can not be validated. The problem is that there are no reliable sources at all, for anything in the article. No sources means no verifiability. No verifiability means no article. It was said that the article could be made verifiable, but there are no sources cited nor found. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. I have reviewed the AFD and found the keep votes were not based on policy and provided no refuting evidence against the policies that were listed. For an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist. The keep opinions were based on "It's notable" but could not prove it was with any sources. They also ignored the issue of verifiablility, which was the main concern. (This is the AFD in question) --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the concern is with this month's second AFD, not the August 2005 one. I've now linked it above. GRBerry 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Before anyone claims canvasing, I have left messages about this review on ALL persons who participated in the second AFD, (keep or deletes alike). --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete - I agree that the retaining admin. did not pay heed to (unresolved & unresponded-to) issues of verifiability and notability. --EEMeltonIV 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Tough call, actually, but my personal view is that the passing mentions in newspaper articles are indeed trivial, and therefore fail the test. Legitimate difference of opinion, but if we want to improve the quality of the project then we need to be serious about sourcing - without any reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in detail, we can't verify that the article is neutral. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and delete per policy, as another example of the failures of our sourcing policies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete the article fails WP:V WP:RS and WP:WEB, editors arguing keep did not prove that this article met any of those criteria, one even arguing that the article should be kept despite failing WP:WEB.--RWR8189 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. What is it with all the "I can just completely ignore guidelines if I feel like it" keeps that I've seen lately? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think I was quite clear with what I meant. I don't mean that guidelines should be followed to the extent that policies are, but you also can't reject what they say like you can with an essay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. As one of the original 'Keep' voters, I felt that, while the article did indeed fail the various WP guidelines, such guidelines are not intended to be binding in all situations, if the website was notable to the general user. However, upon reading the article again, it doesn't seem to contain any useful information, and is actually a collection of external links, although perhaps a little of it should be merged into the article as suggested by the closing admin. Thedreamdied 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, has there been a culture shift at AFD and DRV towards RS! (Even Badlydrawnjeff is on the deletion side?!) It's a good shift; I like it. Anyway, it's a borderline case; the information merits inclusion, just not its own article. The article was already merged to Trekdom#TrekBBS, so I recommend re-redirection after or in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 23:03Z

• Comment - Including it in another article doesn't alleviate issues of un-verifiability; if the vote decision is to delete TrekBBS, most of the stuff copy-and-pasted to the Trekdom article (which in and of itself is riddled with OR and verifiability issues) should likewise be axed. --EEMeltonIV 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point, but that can be dealt with on that article (it already had a paragraph on TrekBBS); I still think a redirect is a good idea. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 04:18Z

• Overturn and delete. Article is unsourced, no convincing evidence presented that there's any likelihood that it will or could meet WP:V. Original research, personal testimony. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete unless someone can produce reliable sources. MER-C 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. i tried to merge it into the Trekdom article but seems the owner of the site and its fanboys want to use wikipedia for free advertising and wont allow it to be merged. So delete it instead. Calabrese 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - if it's a POV and unsourced article, then turn it into a stub. If we are convinced that it's notable and the only issue is that the article needs to be improved, there's no good reason to delete it. BigDT 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Calabrese. Have you spoken to the owner himself, Christian Höhne Sparborth? If you are assuming that I have come to speak as the owner, than you are in error. I only manage the board. Just wanted to clarify that. Bonnie Malmat 74.229.52.5 08:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Once again, verifiability is not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Despite a clear consensus to delete in the AfD, this article was kept as 'no consensus', with the rationale being that several sources had been added, thus invalidating earlier 'delete' comments. However, plenty of comments noted problems with this article in addition the lack of sources, and in my opinion the decision not to delete was the wrong one. Nydas^(Talk) 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete Consensus was very clear, and the "sources" are pretty shady (Urban Dictionary? Come on!) At best this is a neologism, and even if it's a widely-used one (which its 370 unique Google hits don't suggest) Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Aaron's decision doesn't seem to be supported by any of the discussion, nor of the sources in the article. Clear consensus, clear violation of WP:V. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The "Delete" arguments were weak at best; I count three "per nom/above" votes, or they quote guidelines, not policy. I see citations in the article from the Washington Post, Salon, and the American Dialect Society, which satisfies WP:V in triplicate.-- weirdoactor ^t|c 18:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • None of those sources discusses the usage other than the ADS link, and that's a mailing list, not a peer-reviewed (or any other kind of) article which discusses usage. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with you on the quality of the sources, but they hadn't been there when most of the recomendations were made. - brenneman 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete The only keep opinion after the article expansion was by the expander - and he offered that opinion two times, so one of them clearly needs to be treated as only a comment. The final opinion refers to the most specific relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, which says that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." That final opinion was that the article should be deleted for failing that guideline. The Salon thing is clearly and obviously a passing mention, not about the term. Ditto the Washington Post article. The American Dialect Society sources are listserv email records, clearly not a reliable source. The very first opinion offered after the one by the article expander was explicit that the article was not yet sourced enough for Wiktionary. The remainder of the discussion was a delete to a no-consensus. Consensus after expansion is clear for deletion. Consensus prior to expansion is similarly clear. GRBerry 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist, which is to say, endorse the close. I can see why Brenneman closed as he did, the debate was on the old article. The new one almost certainly fails the same tests ("Jewdar, a recently-coined jocular slang word", um, right) but the close was correct, it should be AfDed in its current form. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete as per GRBerry. Bwithh 20:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. That was most definitely a substantial change, so you can't just assume people have the same opinion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• The timestamps of all but one of the delete recomendations were prior to the re-write. None of them had returned to say "yeah, still delete" or anything similar. I'm fairly certain that a new AfD will reach the same conclusion, but since sources had been added the proper place to debate them was in a new afd. I'm hardly in love with this article, and I know whet I'd like done with it, but this venue is not afd, and I stand by the close. - brenneman 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Discussion of the original 2 or 3 sentence version of the article wasn't relevant to the present article and shouldn't still be considered. I think the term "jewdar" is neither clever nor funny, and it invokes unpleasant stereotypes, but is Wik-worthy. I left a longer discussion at Talk:Jewdar. -- House of Scandal 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Relist (endorse) per closing admin (first choice) or Overturn and delete (second choice) - closing as no consensus was reasonable given that the article was completely rewritten after most of the !votes. Personally, I don't think we need an article on every word or phrase that some famous person has invented, but that's a question for AFD, not DRV. --BigDT 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist the substantial changes and new sources make it seem like it is no longer a neologism. I could be wrong, but enough has changed that many minds may have changed too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete or relist at worst - irrespective of the additions, the article is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia - as the additions were effectively worthless, the closing admin should have closed as a delete. Proto::► 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "the article is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia" - Interesting. "CLEARLY". "NOT SUITABLE". Huh. Do you speak for the whole of Wikipedia, or just yourself? Are there any other articles you'd like to tell us about that are "clearly not suitable for Wikipedia"? I wait with bated breath. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Thompson (researcher) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article vastly expanded see [20] compared to old version [21] Article has been fully sourced with WP:RS sources.

I have recreated the article after examining the previous AfD, and my own vote in that AfD. The general belief was Paul Thompson was not notable on his own. The previous article failed to mention some important facts:

1. A movie titled "9/11 Press For Truth" was based on Thompsons research.
2. Thompson has given over 100 interviews including on Fox News and Air America.
3. Thompson was featured in Esquire magazine in the "Genius Issue" where he was noted as a "terrorism expert"
4. He has testified to a Congressional Panel regarding the 9/11 commissions final report.

These are issues in which his research in general, not his just his book have come into play. It should also be noted the original reason for the AfD was that he was the author of a book that was going to fail its own AfD, however the book did not.

I would also like to note I originally voted to delete, however much more information has come to light as listed above.

NuclearZer0 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I was informed after starting the DRV that "merge and redirects" do not require DRV's [22] Sorry for the trouble, it seems this DRV is out of proccess. --NuclearZer0 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect though I see no reliable source for the 100 interviews, and that was not a "Congressional Panel," it was an informal briefing for Cynthia McKinney and Rep. Raúl Grijalva. The article is better as a redirect to his notable timeline. His person can be discussed in said article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  Both issues adressed in article already. citation for Congressional Briefing ^ July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response - Did They Get It Right?. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (July 22, 2005). and citation for 100 interviews ^ Kristen Matthews. "Tracking The Terror", The Sunday Star Times (republished), March 13, 2005. Quote from last source is "He has done more than 100 radio interviews in the US and was profiled in Esquire magazine's “Genius” issue last December." So I think that covers the issues presented by this user. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn/allow recreation. Essentially the status quo. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep as redirect or mergeI have never endorsed deletion when political view is involved, but I endorse deletion here because there is not substantial material in the bio article not in the book article, and the two should be merged. The additional sources mentioned are all related to the book. If he write another notable book, then it would be another matter. As is, I think it would be better to move the material to the person, and have the book a redirect, butit doesn't matter much.129.25.135.110 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous comment added without signing in, but by DGG 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• His research spans before and after the book, he is currently writing a second book for HarperCollins, and has been asked to testify before congress nto based on the book, but on his knowledge, the movie spawned from his research which included the website which contains more information then the book alone. So its him and his research that is covered and noted. You can see the full Esquire article which doesnt cover the book, but what Paul Thompson knows and has accomplished. --NuclearZer0 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. Substantially duplicates the article on the book and we have far too much of this shit already. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • • • Book article doesnt contain any information on author and what does get added gets removed constantly [23] --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Only because the duplicated parts that were there keep getting removed and added. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jeff, we only have one subject here. I don't care whether it's at the book or the author, it's only one subject. And a pretty dismal one at that - the guy very clearly has no qualifications whatsoever in the field, and it's just another example of the "truthers" working backwards from the conclusion. We have altogether too much of this shit. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Odd Esquire says he is a authority on terrorism, Richard Clarke the former counter-terrorism czar of the US government uses his book to teach courses, HE was invited to a congressional briefing to speak on the topic of terrorism and the final 9/11 commision report. This is all sourced in the article, so it seems your personal opinion on what he knows is outweighed by the resliable sources presented. And he has a book published by Harper Collins, so apparently they think he knows a thing or two as well. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Also in the future please try not to classify people, divisive labels like "truthers" is quite against the idea of cooperation on Wikipedia, and while we are nto censored, please try to tone down the language, if you are stressed out you can always take a wiki break. --NuclearZer0 05:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn AfD as merge and redirects do not require DRV's anyway. I was informed this after I started the DRV, and the admin explained that the person re-creating the article need to do a good job. I examined the votes of the previous AfD and the items listed above address those points. I went on to add 10 WP:RS sources as opposed to 2 from the older version. The older version only had 2 sources and one was first hand, which now there are no first hand sources, and the sources present include newspapers and magazines such as Esquire, The Village Voice etc. --NuclearZer0 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect --Tbeatty 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  This isnt a vote, it doesn't go by numbers, if you have some points to make you should state what they are so the closing admin can review them. --NuclearZer0 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. To the extent this bloke has any notability under this name, it's because of the book The Terror Timeline, as Paul Thompson is a pseudonym crafted for attaching to The Terror Timeline and associated work. Morton devonshire 00:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  This has already been covered, have you read the Esquire article? the whole aryticle is about his research and how it spans before the book, spawning the website, and after the book leading to Harper Collins asking for a second book, and how the 9/11 Press for Truth source specifically states his research inspired the movie, not the book. Then we have the Village Voice article which highlites him not the book, have you read the article? He was asked to testify before congress based on what he knew and has researched, not what was in the book. Then there is the SD BEAT article which talks about him and his past and how he go tinto researching etc. Seems most of the sources in the article are about the person, not the book. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note Following votes attributed after Morton pasted this DRV on the controversial noticeboard: [24] Which it should be noted, users coming from that noticeboard were suppose to state they were per the last AfD User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Note they are all regulars, probably explains the lack of explanation and just the vote. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect per above. Eusebeus 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect per Guy, Morton above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect his notability is limited to the one book which is already covered --rogerd 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: As separate article per nom. Notability well established beyond book. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• return to Redirect per Guy, Morton. --Mmx1 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• return to Redirect; although DrV might not be the proper venue, I proposed merging it back again. As "he's" still a pseudonym, his notability dervives from his work. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  This has been covered, we allow pseudonyms, do you have a guideline or policy that says otherwise? Have you actually read the article yet? We had a nice discussion on the talk page where you seem to have not read a single source, hope you had the chance to go over them before voting. Happy New Year. --NuclearZer0 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect.--MONGO 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Please present an arguement, DRV is not a vote. --NuclearZer0 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I reread the current version and the version redirected. Plenty of sources in the new version, but no additional assertions of notability. Still agree with redirect; if necessary, delete, redirect, and protect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  This has been addressed in the article and above. Nice to see instead of claiming New York Times, Esquire and House.Gov arent WP:RS, that you moved onto a new arguement. However having a book published, being asked to testify at a congressional hearing, being featured in Esquire in their "Genius Issue", having your research (not book as noted by source) spawn a movie, being featured in The Village Voice and giving interviews on Fox and Air America on your research all seem to say otherwise. Please note Arthur Rubin also is from the same noticeboard as highlited above. --NuclearZer0 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Interesting. It still wasn't a "congressional hearing", it was a hearing held by a member of Congress. Not really the same thing, now, is it? His notability is still pretty much derived from the book; if there hadn't been a book, there wouldn't have been any notability. Why not merge it back into the book, anyway? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, Congressional Panel, per the source. I think we are gonig to forever not see eye to eye, I have given you sources saying his research is notable and the article sources saying the book came from his research which continues on, not sure why you keep insisting his notability is from the book when the sources seem to disagree. Then again this is kinda like you arguing The New York Times is not WP:RS I guess. --NuclearZer0 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Leykis 101 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article Speedily Deleted only becuase it contained previously delted material Greataff 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Keep Article has eveolved from a pedestrian POV article that was poorly written to lesser and lesser by the day article, each day this article was becoming encylopedic. Either this page should be undeleted or User:Pilotguy and other dissenters should give a real reason and take this through a dispute process rather than remove the article on site. Greataff 08:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion article at time of deletion was some kind of how-to dating guide and would never pass AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This looks weird. The deletion reason amounts to a G4, although not worded as such. The log is also clean of prior activity, so it wasn't at this title. Using a search, I find a 2005 VFD resulting in delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/"Leykis 101". I also notice a merge tag for merging with this article at Tom Leykis. GRBerry 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It was a how-to. A one-para mention in the Tom Leykis article and a redirect might be appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Follow-Up Article was about 1/5 of the programming material of Tom Leykis, a show what has millions of U.S. veiwers. This isn't an atricle about a two-bit radio station content, this is an article about a major topic on a radio program that causes a lot of contoversy. If you look on that vote for deltetion page, you'll notice all of them are from 2005, that vote was taken a whie ago and was not present on this page. None of the merits of the page were imprortant as... "Why was this page delted before a recent vote and proposal for deletion could be made?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greataff (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC).--Greataff 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was previously Leykis 101 (without the quotes). An AFD previously deleted the article, which is a perfectly good reason for a speedy delete. Ckessler 00:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been recreated again. Still has no sources. GRBerry 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment And deleted again. Oh what fun. This version had sources, but nothing I'd take as either reliable or independent. What a mess. I keep waffling on the fence about endorsing the deletion as a G4 or sending it to AFD again with the sources. If it stays deleted, salt is called for. If it goes to AFD and then gets deleted, salt will be called for at that time. GRBerry 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this should be a clear and obvious redirect to Tom Leykis. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki Many say that there is deleted content where? Oh, well becuase it was speedily deleted many who had this on their watch list haven't had a change to comment becuase now it no longer appears. I guess there is no hope for this article in wikipeida. Many however, say that this is a how-to, this article does have merit existing in wikipedia's suster project for how-to's. --Greataff 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki As per my vote on the article's discussion page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Project 490 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I don't know to what degree a dating technique can be copyrighted, if indeed it can at all, but the article as written uses some very specific terminology and such that might be considered Leykis' intellectual property. Transwiki should only be done if we are absolutely certain that it's safe to do so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I can initiate transwikiing if the copyright status is clarified. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

7chan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

has become newsworthy and "reasonably notorious". 72.70.19.171 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the article so I cannot comment if it should be recrated or not but can you provide sources to demostrate its newsworthyness. Being able to provide relaible sources of this will help is substantiang your claims and would make an argument to undelete stronger. Without sources it will only be your word and that will not be enough. --70.48.109.189 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Both www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759563/posts and, on his own site, http://www.halturnershow.com/HalTurnerRetaliatesForAttackOnRadioShow.html Hal Turner is forcing 7chan into the news because of supposed "attacks" on his site and show. As i understand it, the previous artical on 7chan was only deleted because of a lack of news. I'm unsure if his personal site counts as a news source, but i believe Free Republic does. 72.70.19.171 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Overturn, under the stipulation that a third creditable source be provided. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Overturn and Keep, Alexa Traffic rankings - !Malomeat 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Stipulation not met, try again. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, none of the above are reliable sources that merit overturning the AfD. This (the original location of the Free Republic article) is a forum post, this is a blog (and a 404 atm) and Alexa rankings are not indicators of notability. We are absolutely not restoring an article based on accusations of criminal behaviour against the subject when there are no reliable sources to verify that they have any merit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm really not sure about this. 7chan is probably to the point where it is notable and verifiable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but if the article was merely an attack article, it would be better to rewrite it from scratch. And a reasonably verifiable source has to be found. Also note that this article, if created, will be a vandal magnet like 4chan and Candlejack. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as written, although if someone wants to create a fully sourced and verifiable article on the subject in their user space, we can consider that when we see it. I would not say that 7chan is the primary subject of the Free Republic link, and in any case virtually no information about 7chan is in that link, certainly not enough to base an article or even a stub upon. Alexa rank (currently at 18,000 or so) is higher than many deleted articles but not nearly so high that we should through our verifiability policies out the window. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. "News sources" provided are unimpressive. The freerepublic web forum link is sourced to [25], a local new jersey site of uncertain reliability. The other link is to a blogspot blog. Bwithh 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources, at least you aren't trying to use Slashdot... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment and question I once again point out that the 4chan article has very little about its "notoriety" (or, should i say nota-wryyyyyyy-ity) outside of the bomb scare. 4chan has not been the "primary subject" of any real news stories either, but once again, 4chan has an article. is this entirely based on Alexia traffic ratings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.19.171 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
  • comment and answer Please read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. It may be that article also needs to be deleted. If you can find reliable sources that are independent for this article's topic, you may have a case. But discussion about other articles is of very little value; even if they had been discussed previously, precedent is not binding because consensus can change. GRBerry 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just because you've never heard of something before does not mean it is not notable. Many People visit this place everyday. Even more are affected by it (See: Hal Turner, Habbo Hotel). - !Malomeat 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That doesn't even provide notability, much less reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the explanation is that those articles do not like to refer to their involvement. Check their talk pages, and you will see them mentioned. - !Malomeat 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What about a protected redirect to Hal Turner until more sources can be found? Anomo 05:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, no reliable sources. Naconkantari 07:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Overturn deletion and keep: Causing major websites to be thrown offline sounds pretty notable to me. All the page needs is some good writers to keep it purely factual. Furthermore, 7chan has been sourced on various sites for the attacks. They are even linked to from the Hal Turner wiki page, and being the source of attacks it is only fitting they have their own page.

• http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/
• [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759563/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759563/posts]
• http://historymike.blogspot.com/2006/12/racist-thug-hal-turner-facing-wrath-of.html
• http://hackbloc.org/site/content/view/43/34/
• --Captain Cornflake 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Blog, blog, blog, blog, blog... nope, no reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and SALT to prevent recreation. For those commenting here about 'sources' for this article, please see Reliable sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are No original research and Verifiability. About the blogs, WP:RS states:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking

And,

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

I think that puts the 'sources' arguement to rest. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

incoming links suggest an article is needed about this closing nightclub and deleted version was better than current version --Henrygb 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gangsterz2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Gangsterz 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article should not have been deleted as it did not meet the criteria for deletion. The page had just started and the guidelines clearly state that a new page should not be deleted. We at Gangsterz2 would have edited and expanded the page to make it have alot more information. This article had usful information anyway and it could be of some use to some people. If you would please reinstate this page so we can add more things on. There was no discussion at all and it was deleted without debate even though i put a hangon on the page and posted in the discussion page. Thanks, G2Pie G2Pie 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• This should technically be speedy overturned as a contested prod. However, I don't think it's worth it, as with most cases where the person stanrs their case with what "We at the thing the page is about" would have done. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I restored it (not technically an "overturn" because the deletion was valid). It strikes me as an A7, so if someone wants to tag it as such we can treat this as a speedy review request. otherwise I'll send it to AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And I've speedied it. Again. G2Pie and the other creators of Gangsterz 2 ignored multiple requests to provide even a minimal claim of notability while it was being speedied at that title, and chose to wikilawyer instead (see deleted revisions of Talk:Gangsterz 2). We've wasted enough time here. —Cryptic 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion please link to the part in WP:CSD where it says new pages cannot be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD. Not a big fan of gaming the PROD system to squeeze a speedy out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be in favor of a system where A7's, G11's and Prods can be restored and sent to AfD if one admin supports (and implements) it. ~ trialsanderrors 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's the way PROD works (or is supposed to) already. Wouldn't the former proposals introduce admin shopping?--Kchase T 07:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well right now Prod is supposed to be an automatic restore. What I'm proposing is that an article gets restored if one admin thinks it has enough merit to run it through AfD. I'm not sure what you mean with admin shopping, what it essentially does is to move the discussion from here to where it belongs, at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
        • That's not how it's supposed to work, I'd vehemently oppose that. What I'm opposed to here is that we restored the PROD and then speedied it immediately to change the basis of the argument. I think that's gaming the PROD system, and I'm not a fan. It sat on PROD for 5 days and no one bothered to bump it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The line "However, such undeleted articles are open to be speedy deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules" has been part of the Prodded articles blurb since its inception. I think it's safe to say that it has the necessary consensus since I haven't seen it challenged yet. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Certainly, and I'm not trying to overturn that here. What happened here was the challenged prod was undeleted solely to change the basis of the undeletion. This isn't speedying a prodded article, this is undeleting an article to delete it in a way that isn't as easy to overturn, and that's why I'm not fond of this gaming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Do you want me to close this and let User:G2Pie refile a nomination? ~ trialsanderrors 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was pretty clear A7 material, maybe even G11 (gasp!). The only plausible assertion to notability was "fast growing", which means little.--Kchase T 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7s, PROD is not a Get Out Of Jail Free card. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion why undelete something that would immediately be re-deleted as an A7? Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, clearly a speediable article, and the prod was back in April! And please point to supporting documentation for the claim that guidelines clearly state that a new page should not be deleted. (Besides, the article was 17 days old when it was deleted, hardly "a new page"). User:Zoe|(talk) 18:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rafed.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Pretty much we have an AfD here where people voted to ignore WP:WEB for whatever reason. AfD is not a vote, yadda yadda yadda, no reliable sources with non-trivial information about this site were presented, just some weblink directories and Alexa results. Clearly precluded by WP:WEB. W.marsh 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Notability aside, the information is not verifiable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete. Per above and AfD. Sahrin 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-islam.org (second nomination), another article by the same author as Rafed.net, where the same arguments for web directories as a WP:RS are being made, and the WP:WEB criteria for notability are being ignored in favor of the Alexa and Google Directory popularity rankings. --Dennette 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete verifiability is not optional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and delete, fails WP:V. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, no credible sources were identified. An easy mistake to make - much smoke and mirrors in the Keep camp. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please note sources have been added to the article since the above remarks. Tyrenius 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• endorse closure among the sources that have been added are a Senior Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University referencing an author. Only that makes for two third party sources. Then we also have the Shi'a News article, and also the high ranking at both Google and Alexa list of most popular sites. The sites popularity is not in question, third parties are included in the the article and everything is sourced. This is not afd 2, closure as no consensus was valid. I also would like to criticize nom for not informing me.--Striver - talk 15:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Informing you? Is there any particular reason why you should have been informed? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, i found some Arabic references from Sistani: [26] Search for this string "مركز إحياء التراث الإسلامي", it can be also found here: [27]. The book "Oil in the Gulf: Obstacles to Democracy and Development" By Daniel Heradstveit on page 140 gives Rafed.net as one of the sites that spread sistanis scholarship. --Striver - talk 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just got confimation that most of [28] is a coverage of the site. Again, notice that the site making the endorsing coverage is seestani.com , the site of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest Shi'a marja and a major political factor in Irak. --Striver - talk 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The policy behind the WP:WEB guideline for notability is WP:RS, and seestani.com does not satisfy that, nor do any of the non-English language references that you have just cited. --72.75.72.174 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's WP:N, and I think the problem is that it can't be made to fulfil WP:NPOV with these sources. I don't know how someone could expect the site of a Grand Ayatollah to give neutral coverage on anything. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! ... forgot to wikilink "notability" ... Good Trump with the NPOV call! --72.75.72.174 08:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete, no reliable sources. Naconkantari 07:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • Ehh... guys, i reall don't understand this. Why is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani "not neutral"? And even if he was not, why is that and issue, i have never ever heard that the thid party covereage needs to be "neutral"? And Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani not being notable? Why is he not notable? If he is not notable, then who is? I feel that this is a very infair treatment of the subject! --Striver - talk 10:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, note that WP:WEB does not require a notable or reliable source, only that the coverage is not trivial. And it says not a word about "neutral". I don't undertand why this page is held to non-existing standards? --Striver - talk 15:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It is not enough that something is notable. It may be notable, but if you can not write a neutral article, using reliable sources, you can't have an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep G.A. Sistani's endorsement is sufficient to attributed anything to Shiism and it's more reliable than any other western source but for your reassure I found a ref from "Council on Foreign Relations" - A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis - which mentioned this site: Shiite Muslims in the Middle East --Sa.vakilian 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Where does it mention the site? I will admit to not having read the whole page, but I did do a search, and did check all of the links. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It does not matter who says it if they only say it on their own website (are you denying that G.A. al-Sistani has any connection to http://www.sistani.org/?) ... that's the short definition of not being a WP:Reliable Source with a WP:Neutral point of view to establish WP:Notability with WP:Verifiability by Wikipedia standards, because WP:V is the policy issue here, not the WP:N or WP:WEB guidelines.
    And I agree with Zoe that the Council on Foreign Relations reference makes absolutely no mention of Rafed.net, so whatever else it has to say about anything or anybody else is moot. --Dennette (talk · contribs) 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant that it confirms that sitani has a site there... anyhow, ill let him answer that. But how about the book reference i provided, why is that not enough? And in fact, it does not even mater if http://www.sistani.org/ is sistanis page, WP:WEB does not require that, it only requires that multiple third party sources make non-trivial coverage, and i have provided three examples of this. I see many references to WP:N and WP:V here, but i do not see that reflected in WP:WEB. This is totally unjust to demand coverage that is not demanded by WP:WEB, why this double standard?! --Striver - talk 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (web): The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

Note that it does NOT demand that the sources are Notable or Neutral, only that the coverage is non-trivial and that the source is independent of the site itself.And this is all done by the book references i gave, a university scholar referencing an author! --Striver - talk 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

True, the sources do not have to be Notable, but they must be Neutral and Verifiable, which are policies that trump any guidelines like WP:N, WP:WEB, or even WP:RS ... sources related to the subject cannot be used because of WP:NPOV, the policy that is the foundation of the WP:RS and WP:INDY guidelines ... simply saying that "somebody important said something about the subject" does not satisfy WP:V, the policy that is the foundation of the WP:N, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, and WP:BK guidelines ... the issue goes beyond the minutia of WP:WEB (which you have previously distained because "it is still in a guidline phase and has not been accepted as a policy") and rests squarely on the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V ... please see the essay Why do articles get deleted? for a clearer explaination. --Dennette 15:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i am not satisfied with WP:WEB, but i have to base my arguments on it for the time being. The source needs to be neutral? Were in Gods name did you get that from? Most cerntanly not from WP:NPOV, plase provide a quote. WP:V? Verifiability is about being able to verify a claim. Are you claiming that the book i refered to does not exist? If not, exactly how is WP:V related to this issue? Please go into details. WP:RS is not related to this issue either, otherwise a site like Faithfreedom.org would never have survived its two afds, boasting zero (0) reliable sources. You have just given a host of arguments that are totally irrelevant to determining notability of a site, what you have shown are policies related to writing an article, not to determining notability! --Striver - talk 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: According to Talk:Faith Freedom International ...

This article was nominated for deletion on July 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete.

How it came back to survive two more AfDs is not explained on the Talk page or edit history, but

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Dec 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

And even now, the debate for deletion of that article continues (see edit history) ... but that is all off-topic anyway, since Faith Freedom International is judged on WP:ORG, not WP:WEB.

OK, now I understand Striver's confusion ... Faithfreedom.org is a redirect to the parent organization for the website because the website was judged by consensus at AfD to be not notable enough for its own article, just as Ali Sina (judged by WP:BIO) is redirected there as a result of an AfD (redirect and merge instead of delete), but all of that history has been lost in the many redirects ... exactly which survived multiple AfDs is still irrelavent to this discussion. --Dennette 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My misstake, i sought that it failed the latest and was overturned in drw, while in fact, it failed the earlier one but was recreated and became no-conensus in the later, still having 0 (zero) RS or Notable sources. The article is about the site, obvious if you read it, it even as a "Traffic rankings" section. --Striver - talk 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NPOV applies to the wiki editor, not to the source. See Explanation of the neutral point of view. Tyrenius 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the source of a great deal of frustration from me, i feel that people just throw out random policy reference and think that should somehow be enough to support a delete argument, while at the same time ignoring what i present or take into account what WP:WEB accutaly says, going so far as dismissing a source for not being NPOV, a horribly ridiculous statment!--Striver - talk 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

juicifer 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Endorse Closure even though I too disagree with the CA's reasoning of no consensus. The AfD was open for 10 days, longer then the 5 day minimum that is required and proper noticed as placed on the article[29] and WP:AfD[30]. The AfD was also listed on the anime and manga's deletion sorting page on the 22nd[31]. Lack of knowledge about an AfD is not a legitimate grounds to reopen the debate if the debate has been properly noted on the article and WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need I say anymore? Un-delete my article.

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

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

• Endorse deletion Yell that it's notable 'til you're blue in the face. Your insistence won't magically turn a non-notable website into a notable one. Danny Lilithborne 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if you've to use the existance of a company's Wikipedia article to demonstrate its notability, the article is in deep trouble. And just take a look at the 19 gorgeous Google hits [32] - another telltale sign of a non-notable company. No wonder reliable sources have not been given to assert notability, either in the article or on this very page! Without reliable sources, you can write a billion words of your most fluent English, and the article will still be deleted. That's how important sources are. Kimchi.sg 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh - a non-notable company. Please demonstrate notability through verifibility, namely reliable sources, and I will reconsider my opinion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as hopelessly non-notable. The article's one attempt to claim notability is that the webmaster supposedly recieved a (unspecified and unsourced) compliment from the co-writer of a web cartoon. If that were all it took to get an article, we'd have to totally abandon the very concept of being an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Seeking advice Could I have done this differently? Was it inappropriate to foist the editor off on DRV so quickly? Replies here, on my talk page, or via email are appreciated. I'm still a newbie admin.--Kchase T 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's usually best not to start or suggest a DRV (or AFD, or RFA, or RFC, or any editor-heavy process) if there isn't a reasonable chance that it might succeed. It would probably have been preferable to introduce the author to the relevant deletion guidelines (e.g. WP:CORP, WP:V, etc) and pointed out some good articles in a similar field that the author might want to work on instead. A DRV is really only for when there's a question of whether deletion process was followed, or if substantial new information arises since the deletion occurred. Neither applies here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. I will do so next time. Thanks, Starblind.--Kchase T 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• User:GageShoichi tried deleting this discussion. I have restored it. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Overturn deletion The links provided in the AfD [33] [34] [35], would seem to meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC (multiple non-trivial sources), and much of the discussion about them occurred after the argument was added. Though the nominator's view didn't change, the only !vote after that was keep. Consensus can change based on new information (though it's still possible that the others !voting delete saw the dialogue and it still didn't sway them).--Kchase T 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. It's not a vote, but there still wasn't consensus as to whether or not WP:MUSIC was met. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weakly relist, sorry Nick, but I'm not sure if I agree with you 100% that they were unreliable sources. I think the best route here would be to relist in an attempt to determine whether these sources fufill WP:MUSIC or not, by determining whether they are reliable or not. Of course, DRV isn't the forum to do that, and there is every chance that they could be considered unreliable, but for now, concensus at that AfD seems to say that they're not unreliable, and that is what stands at the moment. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete notable Canadian performer who unfortunately makes me realize that I've moved from the Much to the MuchMore demographic. Also no consensus to delete -- Samir धर्म 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

AfD is a discussion not a vote. None of the individuals indicating the article should be kept actually provided any material which would show the article meets WP:WEB. Tarinth claimed to have found some via google, but no google searches I did provided any non-trivial coverage of the site outside a bunch of rehashes of the press release which WP:WEB clearly addresses as not being enough to satisfy the criteria for notability. In fact a search is here [36] which shows their home page, a blog, wikipedia, a forum thread, and then the start of a bunch of mentions of the press release. If there IS non-trivial coverage, great. I'd just like to actually see it. Crossmr 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I began to use it in my User page (which is now garbaged) and I planned to use it in my contribution after some minor refining (as adding an icon in the top bar) since it allows to create a box with an header, a footer, and other features. You can see it in [37], for example. It is very useful and I see nothing similar here.--Dejudicibus 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I cant find the Afd (there may have been one but I cant see it) and without seeing the Afd discussion, I am appalled that this article has been deleted with 816,000 google hits: this reporting engine is one of the best open source report engines. I have recreated the article as User:Jayvdb/Saved pages/JasperReports from the Google cache[38] in order that I can make use of the material that I saw a few weeks ago. I see, now that I have previewed this Deletion review (and looked at Special:Log), that User:Aaron Brenneman performed this deletion. John Vandenberg 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further evidence MSN Live Search comes back with 35 hits on "Chuck E. Chaos" which disproves the failing of WP:BIO by passing the Search Engine Test. [39] CURSE OF FENRIC ^{home talk usage} 23:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Question. Could somebody give me an idea of what the deleted page looked like so that I could recreate it with sources? Tom Danson 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See [40]. ~ trialsanderrors 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genocide Awareness Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The administrator clearly misread the article. The article is about an ongoing pro life project in which pictures of aborted fetuses are posted at university campuses. It is a project that most pro lifers and most pro choicers in North America are aware of it. It is very notable. The pictures rotate from campus to campus. The administrator clearly misread and said the project was temporary, which isn't true. I wrote that the pictures are only posted temporarily at a particular campus. However, the project is ongoing. Therefore, since it is a well recognized on going project, it is notable and should be reinstated onto Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs)

• Speedy close The article has not been deleted. It is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide Awareness Project. Deletion review is for challenging decisions that have already been made. -- Fan-1967 14:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• What is this? A failsafe in case the AfD fails? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Likely a new editor unsure of process. The appropriate process at this stage is to offer arguments in the Deletion Discussion. Fan-1967 16:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly, but it's written as if t he article is already deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Log shows it was deleted, then restored. Now in AFD. Fan-1967 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oh. Well then speedy close this, it was already undeleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

This is a valid article, which survived three AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (second nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (third nomination)) but was recently deleted by User:Duja with comment Delete crap. See WP:IAR. I don't see how deleting an article about a valid, encyclopedic topic, upheld by dozens of users in AfDs is "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Note also that Duja already voted for deletion of the article in second nomination, so now he is using his admin abilities on an article he was already involved with. Nikola 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Overturn Evidently a case where admin powers have been abused under a flimsy WP:IAR figleaf. If there are problems with the article, edit the content or submit it for a third good-faith afd nomination (third existing afd was speedy keep due to bad faith) after a proper grace period. Bwithh 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Bwithh, WP:IAR does not create a license to run amuck. Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn, per nom. --Еstavisti 22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'll take "Reasons WP:IAR is piss-poor policy" for $200. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Although I'm a serial endorser of deletions normally, this one I must say should be overturned, and taken to AFD if wanted. AfD trumps CSD, always, with the exception of WP:OFFICE. That aside, the apparent COI related to the contribution of the deleter to the second debate makes this an open-and-shut case. I actually urge speedy overturn and relist, as this was clearly not the best way to go about deleting this article, crap or not. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn As per Wikipedia:Use common sense, a legitimate application of WP:IAR is one that nobody notices. Obviously, someone noticed. The fallback is for the rule ignorer to persuade the community that they improved the encyclopedia by deleting this. I've just now dropped the DRVNote flag on the deleting admin's page, but they have declared a wikibreak, so they may not even return to make their case in a timely fashion. I can't conceive of a solid case for deleting this without taking it to AFD, but I remain open to them making a case. GRBerry 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The following comments were added after the closure of this DRV:

Y'all weren't paying attention to this, then. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was announced (and widely acclaimed by the commenters) at AN/I, (see link provided by Calton). A speedy closure of DRV after 4 hours, without a chance of a wider input, and without giving anyone a chance to see a bigger picture. It was an out-of-process deletion indeed, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Oh well, guess I'll have to get rid of this the hard way. Duja► 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about endorsing the deletion since it was clearly out of process (though I share the WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns of the deleter, but I am rather annoyed about the DRV closing so fast. If process is important (as the overturn "votes" above insist surely it is no less important at DRV. 15:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs).

• WP:IAR advocated by Duja works in both ways, not to mention the snowball clause: quite a few persons considered this an uncalled-for violation. `'mikka 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I jumped the gun (I make no illusions about that; my bad), but the article is running through AfD right now, meaning that it will be deleted through the proper process soon. I think I'll just stick to !voting in reviews, rather than closing them. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Historically significant US company, out of business, not advertising, links to amateur radio topics LuckyLouie 19:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion if for no other reason than that a specific criteria wasn't declared. It can't be A7, as there was an assertion ("among the nation's very oldest producers of radio equipment"). G11? Maybe, though that's highly debatable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Even if they had been cited, neither Articles-7 or General-11 apply, IMO - I mean, it explicitly states that it's a defunct company, so it's difficult to make a case for it being blatant advertising, and notability was asserted. Don't know what "no country" means. List on AfD due to lack of independent sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was definitely a well-known company [41]. I think we have too many company-related articles and I favor tightening WP:CORP for COI reasons, but when it's a defunct company it's less of a problem. Anyway someone should write a new article, I suspect what was there before was a useless stub and that's why it looked like an advt. 67.117.130.181 04:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. I don't understand what speedy criteria this is supposed to fall under. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Northern Irish people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Objection to POV proposal, or lack of understanding of the subject. Mal 13:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, unanimous AfD, no new evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What "new evidence" would you like? --Mal 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this missourced, inaccurate sentence. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Which sentence are you refering to? --Mal 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The entirety of the article's prose. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 20:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, AfD procedure was proper. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nevertheless, Northern Irish people continue to exist. --Mal 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Deletion review" is not to be confused with "please determine if a racial sub-group exists or not". Nobody here is saying that they don't exist, and their existence is largely irrelevant to the purpose of this section of Wikipedia, which is to determine if deleted items (articles, templates, whatever) were done so improperly. An AfD was opened, discussed, closed, and the article was deleted, all in accordance with Wikipedia policy. As a result, everyone (so far) has endorsed the deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Is this not the place to object to deletions? My apologies if I am in error, but I was under the impression that it was. I am not contesting whether proper procedure had taken place - I am objecting to the fact that the article in question was proposed for deletion because it's purpose was misunderstood (and also neglected). The article subject is verifiable, notable and consistant with many other similar articles and therefore, quite obviously, belongs in this encyclopedia. If all this page is for is to clarify whether or not the article in question was deleted properly, then I assume there would be no objections if someone were to re-create it. --Mal 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. I suggest you read it, since it seems to me that you're just sore that the article was deleted, a perception I wouldn't have if you were to provide any evidence to back up your (rather nebulous) claim at the onset of this review. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, DRV is not AfD II, no new evidence presented, WP:ILIKEIT applicable. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. OK people - some of you are admins I think. But you haven't been particularly helpful. The following paragraph, from the page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, is how I came to add this entry on this page. It states:

Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any admin can be asked to do this, or a request may be made at WP:DRV#Proposed deletions, but such undeleted articles are open to be speedily deleted or nominated for WP:AFD under the usual rules.

Perhaps some of you have a problem with the "on a reasonable request" part, and that is why you are suggesting I need "evidence". But I am asking you: evidence of what? That Northern Irish people exist? I can assure you all, most categorically, that we do.

EVula: What is "rather nebulous" about my claim? I don't see that it could be viewed as any more or less nebulous than the claim made at the onset of the deletion process - that claim was that the creation of the article was POV. Indeed, one could take a quick look at the userpage of the person that proposed the deletion of the article, and quickly discover that the user considers his or herself an Irish Republican - a position that is polar opposite to my own stated poitical belief on my user page. One might therefore suggest that this user felt that anything asserting the existance of Northern Irish people is contrary to the stated political idiom of Irish Republicanism which clearly rejects any notion that a separate state could exist on the island of Ireland. Again though, this is irrelevant - we are editors here because we deal in facts. The fact is that Northern Irish people exist. What more evidence do you need?

Don't dare to assume what how I feel about any given matter by the way. I may be "sore", or I may not - that is irrelevant (actually, a rather more appropriate description would be incredulous). Your job is to assume good faith and to be civil. I created the article in good faith, following the examples set by other similar articles already existant in Wikipedia.

Daniel.Bryant: the last part of your comment is hardly very tactful, and I might just as well suggest to you that you don't like it.

The guide for deletion discussions states this: "it's best to base arguments on the policies of no original research, verifiability, use reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not." Northern Irish people, and the existance thereof, is hardly WP:NOR. Nor is it unverifiable. Plenty of sources can be found which prove these peoples exist. It seems to me that anyone who is not familiar with the Northern Irish could be served well by an encyclopedia article on the people who make up that population. Indeed, examples of numerous such articles can be found on Wikipedia and, as I said, I based the creation of this article on some of those.

Finally I would like to say that, as far as I can recall (I can't tell for sure because the discussion took place on the article's talk page, which has also been deleted), the initial discussions with the user who proposed the deletion indicate that s/he had patiently waited for a certain length of time before proposing the deletion, to give me (or others) time to develop the article from its skeletal form. Unfortunately, due to the relative complexity (not least in regard to political sensitivities) and the fact that I became rather more busy in Real Life™, I didn't have the time to improve it. I will have the time in the forthcoming month to get the article up to the standard of similar articles though.

I believe this is a reasonable request for undeletion. If this is not the place to request undeletion, please direct me to the section of Wikipedia that is. Thank you for your time. --Mal 08:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to do the following: (1) get yourself very familiar with wikipedia policies wikipedia:Verifiability, no original research, WP:CITE, reliable sources (2) create a well-sourced draft in User:Setanta747/Draft page (well sourced in the sense or reliable sources that explicitely say that Northen Irish is a separate ethnicity), and (3) come back here well prepared. Easy as 1-2-3 :-) `'mikka 21:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. You seem to be under the impression that it was deleted through WP:PROD. It was not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think you understand what Deletion Review is for, Mal, which is why I provided a link for you above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ken "Pope" Parry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Reasons not to delete (especially the subject of notability) are detailed on the Talk page.

Unqualified Speedy Delition Paul McDonald 16:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as the deleting admin. Article subject was a Boy Scout volunteer and school administrator. No claim of notability provided so speedied under CSD A7 and author notified with {{nn-notice}} template. Based upon his response on my talk page, I believe his terming this an "Unqualified" speedy deletion is that he believed the General criteria where the only CSD criteria. It should be noted that this article was previously speedy deleted by Zoe & Jimfbleak. -- JLaTondre 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Jimfbleak (note that I was also one of the speedy deleters). User:Zoe|(talk) 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per above. Naconkantari 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Assuming the deletion is endorsed, shouldn't the talk page then be speedied? -- Kicking222 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it would be speediable, but I recommend posting the reasoning behind the nomination here and not on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Not sure what the text was when it was speedied, but the talk page of the article contains an assertion of notability that should go to the greater community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit history is restored now. ~ trialsanderrors 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see an award from a local scout council (per this link, over 50,000 people have received the "Silver Beaver" award from their local councils since 1931, which would mean several hundred a year) as being an assertion of notability. Fan-1967 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per Fan-1967's link above, the man's only claim to notability is a minor award given to several hundred scoutleaders per year and never covered in media except Scouting internal newsletters and an occasional note in the local-trivia section of local newspapers. I wouldn't speedy-delete this were it my decision, seeing that one editor thinks the claim is notable, but I don't see this as having any chance to survive a new AfD. Barno 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So you wouldn't speedy, but you endorse the speedy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, but by the criteria that "I wouldn't speedy because badlydrawnjeff thinks the claim is notable", nothing would ever be speedied, which is the way badlydrawnjeff wants it. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not really, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, yes, if he disagrees with a speedy, it wasn't a valid speedy. Speedy deletion is only supposed to be for cases where any uninvolved observer would agree with deletion. There's a reason that WP:CSD doesn't just say "If it has no chance of passing AfD". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Then we might as well throw WP:CSD away, as badlydrawnjeff will object to all speedies on general principle. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the key is that CSD is for cases where the overwhelming majority of people would agree with a speedy. Theoretically, no article would get 100% agreement. Fan-1967 19:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid application of policy, little assertion of notability, not really reliable sources, does not seem at all verified. Having a job and getting a minor award does not make you anywhere near notable. Correct speedy. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. "The Silver Beaver is the highest award given to those who go quietly about their business implementing the Scouting program and performing community service." We don't write articles about people who go quietly about their business. Also, per Fan-1967, I am seriously worried about the very real prospect of 50,000 people with no other qualification with an encyclopedia article. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Being a public school administrator and winning a minor scouting award does not confer notability. Unverified and no assertion of notability. Valid speedy.--Dakota 06:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per lack of notability and verifiability to the point that this would never in a billion years pass an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question 1 Since all the discussion seems to be taking place here, what is the talk page for (see above)?--Paul McDonald 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The talk page is normally for discussing an article. However, in deletion related debates, the discussion is held on the applicable deletion page. This allows folks who might not stumble across the article to easily see the debate and contribute. Placing your comments on the talk page caused no harm as you told everyone above so they would be able to find it. -- JLaTondre 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question 2 If the Silver Beaver is indeed considered "non-notable" then shouldn't the article on the Silver Buffalo award be modified (see aforementioned "talk" section)?--Paul McDonald 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a significant difference between having an article and being mentioned in an article. Every topic is going to have individual items that are not that notable on their own, but that provide back-ground information of interest. -- JLaTondre 15:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • After all, we have articles on military honors such as (U.S.) the bronze and silver stars. However, our guidelines say that notability is only considered automatic for winners of the highest honors, such as (U.S. again) the Congressional Medal of Honor. Fan-1967 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's apples and oranges. For example, we have an article on Eagle scouts, it's a featured article and one of our best, and never going to be deleted. However, nobody would argue that all 1.5 million Eagle scouts should be given their own articles, nor would being an Eagle scout generally be considered a claim of notability in a biography article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Thank you for taking the time to review the article. After reviewing the articles, and as the author, I will also endorse deletion of the article. As a note, it is much easier to understand this way, given that actual discussions and reasons have been given--rather than to come back from lunch and find the article deleted with no real explanation given.--Paul McDonald 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

MIT Resonance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Resonance (MIT) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)