Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 23

Zydeisland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

there is proof that the site used to exist and was popular using the internet wayback machine at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.zydeisland.com Ikahootz 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: That a thing exists is not the same as establishing notability, but if you or other editors assert notability and provide valid citations, we may be able to get the admins to reverse the speedy AfD delete decision. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  It was not a speedy delete. The article was deleted in a valid Articles for deletion discussion in February. Please cite new evidence which tends to suggest the closing decision was in error, or that new sources have appeared which better verify the subject's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • • If you're talking to the original complainant, you may wish to split up your comment/reply. I'm not really the person with the stake invested in the matter. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was properly closed with no evidence provided contrary to decision. DRV rationale does not present any new information to suggest overturn. --70.115.226.102 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No problem with the closing of the AfD, which we are here to discuss. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid Afd. Any new information to improve the article? --Dragonfiend 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, here are some links that should help credit the notability.

http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=445 - a well known online gaming site (bible like) that quotes "The constant updates are just one of the many reasons for their almost 12,000 players. "

http://www.gamesdex.com/gameview.php/359 which sent almost 8,000 users to the site

http://www.geocities.com/zydeislandhelp/ fan site thats not been updated since the game was active in 2002

there were many other fan sites etc back in 2000 - 2002 but they have all become obsolete and deleted since, I'd say it deserves a mention here so that when people do look it up (which they do or the new domain owners wouldn't continue to renew their lease on teh domain) they can see what it was. the games fan base was for early teens in 2000 before they all started making websites, thats probably teh main reason there isn't much reference to it on the web. Critticage has an article and Zyde was bigger than that then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.172.116.172 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion: neither the deletion review rationale above nor the set of links above (which seem to fail WP:RS... a Geocities site?!) add any information about notability such that recommendations to delete were misinformed or underinformed. Evidence indicates that this was a properly run AfD closed in line with consensus. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Castles in France (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

The debate on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, was wrong and needs to be reversed.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the Wikipedia:WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Castles page.

(It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.)

3. The debate, such as it was, mainly centred on how to spell. Few reasoned arguments were given for deletion.

4. The debate was closed in a great hurry.

5. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

6. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

7. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France (see original). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

8. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

9. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

This category needs to be reinstated, particularly to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. (on behalf of User:Emeraude)

• Comment The Category was actually merged into Category:Châteaux in France, not deleted, strictly. I think this was correct, although yes the projects should have been notified. I would be against recreating it as "castles", on the whole. The ambiguities around castle/chateau are too well known. I think French castles should be "fortified chateau" in most contexts on WP, so the List should go to this title, and a Category:Fortified French chateaux (or "in France") created which is a sub-cat of Castles by country, & of Chateaux of France. Inconsistent with the other castle categories, but for good reason. If you have "Castles in France" as a sub-cat of Category:Châteaux in France that would be confusing. On a quick look round most of the articles now in the Chateaux category are country houses etc, and not fortified. Johnbod 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Not true. There are approx 250 articles listed, excluding User pages. 175 of those appear in the List of castles in France article and previously in the Category:Castles in France. They have been checked as being real castles, as indicated at the top of that page, by editors. As you say, the ambiguities around castle/château are well-known, but this is an English vocabulary issue. If the ambiguities are well known, better to have castle for castles and château for châteaux rather than confuse with just one category or inventing silly phrases like "fortified French chateau" (which is not the translation of château-fort) just for France. Emeraude 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep your hair on. Chateaux are castles - which is the problem. I see nothing silly about "fortified French chateau". Johnbod 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Except, when used in English (and this is English Wiki), châteaux are NOT castles, and that's my point. "Fortified French château" is silly when we have a perfectly good word - castle! Emeraude 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the recreation of this category for the reasons given by the person initially requesting the article be recreated. --164.107.223.217 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - From my perspective as a regular participant at WP:CFD, this category discussion did not seem all too unreasonable. This looked like a simple, uncontroversial semantics issue, and WP:CFD gets many rename requests that are based on semantics. It would have been inappropriate after the discussion had the administrator closed this discussion as "keep". The lack of input from the appropriate WikiProjects, however, is unfortunate. It would be useful to get commentary from the original nominator (User:Jamie Mercer) on User:Emeraude's comments. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge. I can see nothing wrong with the debate, but given the huge argument above I think a new debate proposing a reorganisation of the category with wider input might be of benefit. I suggest you advertise the new discussion to the France, Castles and any other relevant wikiprojects, along with perhaps a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and on the talk pages of some high-profile articles about French castles, including Château. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment - The Architecture project should also be informed. Johnbod 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and send back to CSD for continued discussion. The questions raised above are suitable for discussion there, with a wider participation the 5 eds. DGG 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist - It's unfortunate the information wasn't able to be aired the first time, but looks like a full discussion could now occur with all the necessary folks involved. A Musing 21:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge The debate was closed correctly, and reviving this category would create nothing but confusion and inconsistency. Haddiscoe 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion? Inconsistency? If you want to find castles in any other country there is a category "Castles in XXXX". If you want to find castles in France, the category no longer exists - you have to look for "Chateax in France" and use intuition to work out which of the entries are castles and which are not!. That's confusion. For consistency, it must be the same for every country surely. Emeraude 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

What is Blabbermouth.net? it is a news source for information on heavy metal bands, such as album dates, sales, interviews, touring information visited by thousands each and everyday. Who owns Blabbermouth? the record company Roadrunner Records. It was deleted because apparently "no notability asserted (a7)" yet musicians from bands such as Slayer, KISS, The Haunted, Kittie have commented on the website and was mentioned on The Howard Stern Show. The article did not go through a AFD nor had any clean-up tags. It also features CD and DVD reviews by the staff at Roadrunner Records and it's linked on many album pages, i don't see any cause for a speedy deletion M3tal H3ad 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: In these cases, providing actual citations in this discussion can help inform the discussion immensely. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources below and [1]. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Leuko under CSD A7. And in the text, there was no notability asserted. The article makes no mention of the userbase that it has (except for "fans can post comments on selected articles") and no reference to show that it was the subject of an article by reliable sources were put up. The article was largely unsourced, and written in a totally unencyclopedic (and not always NPOV) manner. On a google search, most of the hits are either blogs or forums. Thats what prompted me to do a hit the delete button, and my rationale stands even now as I endorse deletion. --soum (0_o) 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read it before you deleted it? Did you read any of the links from interview excerpts with musicians commenting about the site? Did you read the interview with the creator who created it? The source is the website itself. You didn't add any clean-up tags, although i can clean it up if it is restored. M3tal H3ad 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. And comments like "Most recently was the tendency for Disturbed/David Draiman and KISS/Gene Simmons-related articles to be posted. These articles receive numerous scathing comments from Blabbermouth's users, who almost all have a strong dislike for Disturbed and KISS. This is very similar to the frequent articles on Fred Durst that would appear in 2003, which the users would often reply to in disgust", "These are a big draw for many of Blabbermouth's visitors, as many Blabbermouth users regard these articles and the comments that follow them as amusing", "The popularity of Blabbermouth.net is thought to be sending a bad image about metal and rock fans, but it is a select online community, so others advise not to take it seriously. Some of Blabbermouth.net's users have taken it so far as to criticize specific Blabbermouth.net users en masse" in absense of a reference smell original research to me. As for interviews, I read a few of them, but could not find links to their original source to verify them.

As for cleanup, you can anytime create a cleaned up version of the article. If you want the old text, any admin would retrieve the text and move it to userspace for you to work on.

Anyways, I have put forth my rationale. I would wait for others to comment now. --soum (0_o) 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea it had a lot of crap in it, but some warning would be nice so these things can be fixed... Rather then delete it. As for original sources many are magazine excerpts [2] or from Myspace [3] . M3tal H3ad 13:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source said here [4] source here [5] source here with Metallica [6] source here [7] heres the interview the creator mentioning Howard Stern [8] It's notable - it just needs cleanup. M3tal H3ad 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. Of course the notability of the site may be put in doubt, but I believe a speedy-deletion is too excessive — especially since some notability was asserted. I strongly advice properly listing this at AfD. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Put page back This is the most notable metal website online likely. Needs to be reinstated immediately, and there needs to be less of this administrative dictatorship. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No prejudice against deleting admins. Now that notability has been asserted any other deletion of this article should go through AfD so that the article has time to be written properly and the citations properly reviewed. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article as deleted not only contained no assertion of notability, it contained it at vast length and in prolifically self-cited self-referential terms. Not everything mentioned in passing on Howard Stern is going to get an article, and nothing should get an article like this. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Although the claims that real rockers edit there might be a tangential claim of notability, other than that, there is nothing there other than OR and self-references, and a lot of POV. If there are reliable sources to verify that the people claiming to be the rockers really are the rockers, and the article can be written so that half of it isn't links to the website, then I would not object to recreation, but what was there was not an encyclopedia article (I have self-censored). Endorse deletion. Corvus cornix 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you were going to write that it was a festering heap of shit and the average quality of Wikipedia increased by a measurable increment when it was deleted, then I'd not have self-censored :-) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The article was in bad shape, but the interview and Roadrunner Records connection asserted notability. Also, over 120 incoming wikilinks is a good sign that further investigation (Afd) would be useful. A quick Google search found this. Prolog 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

More likely it's evidence of internal link spamming. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really not the case. Featured articles such as Slayer, Christ Illusion, Angel of Death (song), Reign in Blood and Megadeth heavily use Blabbermouth.net as a source. I'm pretty sure that if you go through the rest of the articles also, you can see that referencing from this website has been done by established editors for verifiability, and not spam purposes. Prolog 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Send to AfD'. The original deletion was valid as no notability was asserted, however notability has been asserted in this review and this deserves investigation at an AfD hearing. Thryduulf 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jeopards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• The Jeopards (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Jeopards (German band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

See also The Jeopards (band) and The Jeopards (German band). Deleted and, in some places, salted repeatedly as an A7 although most versions had clear assertions of notability. Improper to speedy them per A7, should have gone to AfD. Overturn and list. badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Four deletions at three separate titles by three separate admins, and guess what? All were created by the same user, Cruzenstern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And this addresses what, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That several others concur with calling it an A7. Some sources and/or published albums would help. Endorse. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the international touring establishes notability. The versions I saw all noted as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Brass tacks. My googling didn't find verifiable links. Many many listings on clearinghouses, many not English-language (so difficult for me, at least, to read), several myspace hits, some non-English forums, some tour date listings. No reviews. Got any, Jeff? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant to A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • While I agree, I've been advised by Admins I've promised not to sell out that DRV is also for reviewing whether articles would survive an AfD review, and if not, allowing speedies to go through anyway. I realize this is in contravention of the whole asserted purpose of DRV, and am waiting for my life to settle down but intend to visit this topic on the DRV talk and DRV purpose pages with an eye toward making the written policy consistent with the facts, or vice versa. Until then, I'm trying to wealk the fine line between trying to advise the letter of the policy and not getting too much in the way of process. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd not allow for that. Whoever requested that of you made a very inappropriate request, as that's an entirely incorrect assertion by whoever requested that of you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You mean the selling out or the changing the policy? Both were things I volunteered. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • The selling out. DRV should not be about running the AfD here that should have happened instead of a speedy, and shame on the multiple people trying to make it as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, the promise put me in a bind, so I'd like to relieve the tension by having the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review or by making the edits to the Purpose of DRV, or getting the folks who I believe are part of the problem to have the conversation and find out if there needs to be a new consensus. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • P.S. I am attempting to start the conversation on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion review. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, appears to be a valid A7. --Coredesat 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So an article that asserts notability is a valid A7? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Doesn't assert notability = A7. That sure looks like an A7 to me, and if four (well, six) admins agree that that's still A7, then there's a pretty good chance it's A7. Furthermore, there's nothing about international touring, and there's nothing to prove that they're even going on the tour they're "planning" to go on (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Stop being so confrontational about it. --Coredesat 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you reading the most recent deletion, for instance? If the article asserts notability, it's not an A7, no matter how many admins make the same mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine, then, overturn and list. I strongly believe this will not survive an AFD, however, and I doubt it's worth the time. I'm tired of being trolled. --Coredesat 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, certainly, having your improper endorsement pointed out is you being trolled. That makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• The version of The Jeopards Radiant deleted on March 20 is as clear an A7 as a band article can possibly be. The three versions (one per title) deleted by JzG and Irishguy are very different from that but are nearly identical to each other; they mention tv appearances, which is enough that I'd've prodded it instead. (Which clearly would have been a complete waste of time, given that the article's creator continued to repost it despite the title being salted.) There's nothing to suggest they'd pass WP:MUSIC, though, and the only sources given in the article are the band's myspace page and this, which has all of two sentences. While I don't speak Czech, that's not a whole lot to build an article out of. Vaguely endorse unless someone comes up with a reason to overturn that isn't just process for process's sake. —Cryptic 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That it may survive an AfD if it actually got looked at like it's supposed to? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, within the range of discretion. – Steel 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • False, again. Assertion was clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• COmment: Here's a cached version of another deleted version. Note the multiple television appearances and being finalists in various contests. Note the national tour. Those are assertions of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Jeff here. The reading I make is that once notability is asserted, A7 is no longer valid criterion for speedy. If anyone's got a problem with that they should change the policy, not subvert it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: Wrong process. Notability having been asserted, article should, if need be, go through AfD and be reviewed properly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion. A7 can be both loosely and strictly interpreted. In this case it was loosely interpreted, but the deletion was done correctly. I also think that this DRV is somewhat POINTy (and pointless) and smells like a cocktail. A Darvon cocktail. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Speedy was, indeed, improper. Overturn and list. Why not? If it stands a chance at being kept, let it breathe for five days. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • No, speedies are not meant to be loosely interpreted, they are "worded narrowly" for a reason. Thus, there was nothing correct about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, it's worded narrowly, but can be interpreted otherwise. It's up to the deleting admin to decide. Furthermore, I really don't like the idea of having a DRV just to prove a point. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • How can it possibly be interpreted to delete an article that asserts notability? And no, this isn't to prove a point, it's to undelete an article on a notable band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • If it walks like a duck... Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yup. So why are you endorsing again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

*******Because it was a valid A7. And it seems you're the only one who disagrees (well, except maybe MalcolmGin). Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. What's the importance or significance that was asserted here? Is it being on a TV talent show? Could it be an appearance on a local Hamburg TV show so obscure that google can't find it? Or maybe it's being acclaimed the best band in Bremerhaven? Presumably it isn't being listed on the user-editable Coca Cola site either. The national tour seems to be a single gig at the Theaterbar in Berlin, capacity in the hundreds apparently. Whatever notability there may have been claimed here, I'm not seeing it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion G3 applies, as the editor had been warned not to recreate the page again here. badlydrawnjeff is more than aware of it, as I mentioned it here. I also suggested here that badlydrawnjeff userfy the article and add sources before bringing it here, given that it won't survive AfD in the state it was reposted in. Without sources (which don't exist as far as I can see, given I checked before nominating it for AfD a while ago) this is a waste of time bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assessment, but I didn't want to say it myself. Given the first and second points, I'm changing my opinion back to endorse deletion per WP:DISRUPT. I didn't realize that Jeff knew about this already. --Coredesat 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm having trouble parsing this. It's okay to essentially censure Jeff with a guideline but it's not okay for Jeff to use carefully thought out interpretation of policy to disagree with how an admin implemented a deletion? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Such crap. So you misinterpret policy, threaten the editor with that misinterpretation, and then complain because someone calls you on it. I'm wondering if the true disruption is coming from those who can't be bothered with proper interpretation. By the way, G3? This was not pure vandalism, so shame on you, ONiH, for even advancing that theory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:VAND states it is - Repeated re-creation of pages that have been legitimately deleted via process pages, or speedy deletion. Re-creating a page once may be an understandable mistake - repeated re-creation after the user has been warned not to do so may constitute vandalism. Such recreations can be requested and discussed on deletion review. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • So you give him a bullshit answer and a bullshit warning, and you expect what, exactly? Yes, he should have broguht it to DRV first, but talk about setting a guy up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I expect anyone bringing an article to DRV to bring an article that has a chance of surviving an AfD, especially if the person in question has been made aware of the lengthy history of the article (also deleted at Jeopards by the way) and it has been suggested to them that bringing a sourced article here would be better. Exactly what stopped you finding sources before bringing the article here? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I fully expect this to survive an AfD - DRV is not for running the AfD, and I don't see any use in bending over backwards to counter improper deletions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Please, just show me one reliable source that proves this band pass WP:MUSIC? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • I'll be glad to in the proper forum. I do not feel the need to endorse this farce further at this point, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Has it not occurred to you that people (especially say someone who took this article to AfD before) might be more willing to overturn this if you provided a source, assuming you have one of course? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Nope. Past experience doesn't indicate that that's the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • You're not winning anyone over, Jeff. In fact, you're more and more convincing people that you're acting like a troll, and sooner than later, people will stop feeding you. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • Then those people who would make such an attack should be dealt with appropriately. If I'm not winning anyone over, I'm not winning anyone over - if people are going to endorse inappropriate deletions, other action will have to be taken. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • Actually, calling someone a troll isn't an attack. It's supposed to be a wake-up call to stop trolling. And I don't see the point of these threats you keep making. The best way to win people over isn't to threaten them or to use these processes. Just make another article that fulfills WP:MUSIC. Bam. You win and you can gloat over it. Game over. But I don't think you can do an article like that, because I think this band blatantly violates WP:MUSIC. Which is why this DRV is a waste of time. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                            • Same difference - it's accusing someone acting in good faith of doing bad-faith activity with the intent to demean their contribution. The problem, of course, is the continued misuse of speedy deletion, which this article is yet another example of. I shouldn't have to rewrite the article if one previously existed that met the standards it was speedied under, it's forcing those who create the content to jump through additional hoops. Was the first deletion an A7? Possibly. If they were told (and I'm not sure if this happened) "You have to assert notability" and then they did so, and then they get deleted and threatened for recreating the content, and having the whole SPA thing factor into it, it simply ain't right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                              • I'm still don't see the problem and am not convinced that it was a misuse of speedy deletion. Furthermore, given the number of endorses, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. In the end, no matter what happens, common sense overrides any policy. We don't want to become drones who just regurgitate policy, do we? Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                                • • Drones might work better in cases like this, where the creator of the article is what kept this issue escalating beyond reasonable reaction. Common sense also says that, maybe, if an article keeps getting recreated and someone uninvolved requests the same, that maybe an AfD isn't a bad idea. This has nothing to do with "common sense," and there's really no such thing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, userfy the article and add sources if any wants it. --Dragonfiend 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While notability was claimed, I don't believe that it was demonstrated, and the claims of notability were unsourced. This seems like a request to send it to an AfD that it has no chance of passing, which would be process for process sake. --Minderbinder 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The claims of notability do not have to be sourced, and I believe fully that the AfD would pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD. Notability was asserted, which means that A7 does not apply. Regardless of whether the assertions of notability can be verified and regardless of whether they are sufficient for the subject to warrant an article is irrelevant. A7 is purposely worded this way so that the quality of the claims can be debated at AfD. DRV's purpose is not to second-guess AfD, whether that becomes part of its purpose in the future is irrelevant, it isn't part of its purpose now. Thryduulf 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, overturning this would be following policy for policy's sake, not for Wikipedia's sake. The articles as posted would never survive an AfD anyway. Fram 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Processwanking at work. Results count, not bureaucratic fundamentalism. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, CSD is worded narrowly and should be interpreted narrowly for a reason. AFD it if you want to, but don't glaze over policy that isn't supposed to be glazed over. Catbag 05:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Believe it or not, this is a real game for the Game Boy Color. That aside, the article deletion is odd, the log says "{{db-empty}}", but then goes on to list the content (and what at least looks to be a good start). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Waste of time. Contents of the article was: Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time. This debate is already longer than that. Feel free to create a genuine article on this, which establishes notability by reference to multiple independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Obviously a poor speedy. If it's such a "waste of time," simply undelete it instead of endorsing a misuse of speedy deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Or, instead of wasting everyone's time, just get on and make an article which contains an assertion of notability, which the deleted article did not. The deleted text is of no value in creating an encyclopaedia article. Just get on and do it. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Being a game for one of the most popular gaming systems ever is an assertion, not that A7 would apply to games anyway. Just go on and undelete it if you feel this review is a waste of time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Or, Guy, you and other admins who make a habit of speedying in contravention of stated policy might wish to change the policy and see if you get consensus, or failing that, maybe consider actually following consensus (i.e. the de facto consensus of the policies as they actually stand)? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't deleted by A7. It was deleted by A3. Please recheck WP:CSD. --Coredesat 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• That wasn't clear to me as I can't see it in any logs. If the article was empty (I also can't see that), then of course A3. If it was a notability speedy, then not. Since I can't see anything, I won't bother to opine about the actual DRV unless an admin sees fit to make it clear here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. what I thought it said, per Guy's comment/opinion was "Extreme Sports with the Berenstein Bears is an Extreme Sports game for the Game Boy Color. The game is #20 on Seanbaby.com's list on the 20 worst games of all time", which is different from "" (i.e. no content whatsoever per A3) as I'm sure you can see. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as valid A3 deletion, without prejudice. Redirected for now. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as a valid A3. A3 has nothing to do with notability. --Coredesat 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This seemed like a fine substub and I disagree it contained "no content whatsoever" (A3). Saying that it is a game for Game Boy Color and that it placed on a notable publication's list of worst games are both clearly content. — brighterorange (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that it was deleted for being empty, and those two things were the only things in the article, what's the problem with just recreating the article with sources? The redirect isn't protected. --Coredesat 13:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It wasn't empty, it wasn't a valid A3. It had context and content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But regardless. What's the point in going to this much trouble to restore two sentences that have already been given here, when the article can just be rewritten? This is pretty much process-wonking. --Coredesat 18:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know. You're the one opposing the undeletion, not me. A good way to stop going through the trouble is to stop making poor speedy deletions to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's valuable to review administrator conduct. Also, a recreated page might very well be re-speedied, and only admins can see the contents of the deleted page. — brighterorange (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This whole thing is bullshit. It wasn't a valid A3, everyone knows that, it may be between a substub and a stub, but it wasn't a CSD target because of its length. This DRV however, has been a waste of time, just speedy undelete it or recreate it, whatever, you don't really need a DRV to do this. - hahnchen 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: Another faulty speedy decision. Please restore article and allow editors to continue working on it. A3 speedy invalid at this time. Articles with text in them are not equivalent to empty. If you need to delete this article, take it to AfD, please. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not protected, it's not salted, there is nothing stopping you from working on a real article. The amount of argument here about a one sentence substub is a sign of process wonkery gone mad. Just go and make a real article. It should take all of ten seconds to write a better one than was deleted. It is unlikely that it will be worse, as long as you manage a complete sentence. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• On the other side, with the amount of time you've "wasted" preaching about how much of a waste this review is, you could have simply undeleted it. Who's causing the problem, exactly? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A1 (referenced by {{db-empty}} along with A3) is intended for exactly this kind of non-article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list let the community decide it. Nardman1 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice The article that was deleted sucked. Making a better one shouldn't be difficult. I guess if no one else signs on, I'll do it. Later. JuJube 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I acknowledge you've brought this here on principle, but in this case you could have written a superior article in the time it took you to start this DRV. If you disagree with the deletion of a stub, ask the deleting admin about it; such a conversation may have made you change your mind, or otherwise rethink your course of action. Stop wasting everybody's time hair-splitting over such a vague stub just because the reason for deletion wasn't technically accurate. Garrett^Talk 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and just recreate the sucker. If it's true that there were two sentences in the article, then it could easily have been recreated by now. But nope, we're gonna wait five days and then recreate it, because that's what policy says to do. I'm with Guy -- this is a waste of time. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and just recreate the sucker and write a better article. --Dragonfiend 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Is this a better stub? Extreme Sports with the Berenstain Bears (note correct spelling of Berenstain.) Marasmusine 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore history, speedy close. The article has been recreated. Restore the history to the redirect page and close this. --- RockMFR 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The speedy was in error and the article should have its history restored. GarryKosmos 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There's no point in continuing this debate. The article has been recreated and sourced. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable enough for an article per this. I would like the history restored, but the content improved, since I found reliablke sources. Rllemsheep 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn the deletion. This is getting more notable. That list came from September 2006, I'm sure it's been mentioned in news sources even more since then. Mynglestine 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I just came across this,and I would like it restored. I have a bit of a bias being an admin on this site, but the number of soucres show that the dletion has gone on far too long. OldDirtyBtard 15:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While I do say this be restored, I will not make my vote count so that I will not be blocked as a "sock". I'm an ED editor ona different account, but I can't state it here. If I had made this a valid vote, this would have been considered another Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abusive Aussie Husband/Battered Southern Wife stereotype. THE SESSION EXPERIENCE 15:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)