Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 24

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

This page was speedily deleted as promotional material. The user that created it has requested a copy of the text of it, so they can either work on a less promotional version or merge with other content. I see no harm in this and request a copy be placed on their user page if possible. Artw 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• restored to User:Michaelpoint/Michael Point. Thryduulf 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rickey Henderson.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No reason to have this image deleted Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore I do not know which administrator deleted this image or why it was deleted. There was no copyright issue; please undelete this image. Timneu22 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know exactly which image it was? There's no deletion log for what's listed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Exists here: Image:Rickey henderson.jpg. --Ezeu 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted due to lack of multiple sources. Now 2 sources exist: The De Morgen article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/demorgen.jpg and The Daily Nebraskan article http://www.losethegame.com/gamepics/nebraskan.jpg Kernow 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The second source is a college newspaper. The first almost looks fake. --Coredesat 15:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The Daily Nebraskan refrence (link to article, not photo of article) is a college newspaper and thus low on the reliability scale. The reference in De Morgen was mentioned in the last version to be deleted and apparently not considered sufficient then. Thryduulf 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Besides being speedy deleted at least four times, this article has been discussed on a number of prior occasions: AfD Dec 05 - keep, AfD Feb 06 - delete, AfD March 06 - delete, DRV - keep deleted, AFD April 06 - no consensus, DRV - restored as no consensus, AFD July 06 - no consensus, AfD Dec 06 - delete and DRV Jan 07 - Deletion endorsed overwhelmingly. --Ezeu 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and stop bringing this up here: anytime you do, we all lose the game. --Cyde Weys 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The sources given don't provide enough reliability nor sufficient proof of notability of the topic. CharonX/talk 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Gotta love eight million AfDs. But this last one was procedurally correct. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Replace the Daily Nebraskan with something a little more reliable and you'll probably be golden. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - we've been here before. College newspapers are hardly reliable sources for anything except film listings. Moreschi ^Talk 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was previously kept in WP:TFD debates. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. Anyhow, utterly useless - serves to encourage vandalism by turning vandalism and vandalism prevention into a cops and robbers game. Maybe, just maybe, a mechanism for asking people to assist at times of high vandalism might be useful - but we don't need the paramilitary role-play shit. Defcon 1-5 with 5 requesting a 'database lock' - absurd? Valid deletion per IAR, T1 or recreation - take your pick.--Doc^g 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw /shrug/.--Doc^g 16:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I deleted this under the first speedy deletion criterion for templates, divisive and inflammatory templates. This template clearly portrays a militaristic view of editing, and it has also been said that it encourages vandalism. Consider also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. The only argument that has ever been raised in favour of this template is its utility; but noone seems to have considered creating a template that is informative but not inflammatory. I'm all in favour of a template for distributing information about current vandalism issues, but it shouldn't be one that does so in a divisive and inflammatory way. --bainer (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and perhaps send to TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_12#Template:Wdefcon (kept), Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_24#Template:Wdefcon (SNOWed as keep), Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_28 (withdrawn by nominator), Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_5#Template:wdefcon (withdrawn by nominator) - while consensus can change, one admin's determination that this is somehow "divisive and inflammatory" does not persuade me. Take it back to TFD with a valid nomination so that it can get a fair hearing. In unrelated news, thank all the gods developers that Special:Whatlinkshere now separates out by namespace! -- nae'blis 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. Widely used by many users heavily involved in the critical task of reverting vandalism. If you think some other template would do the job better then go and create it. Haukur 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You haven't explained how the template, which is named and styled after certain practices of the military of the United States, is not militaristic and not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is militaristic. But if that's what it takes to get more people involved in anti-vandalism work then so be it. And I say that as a dues-paying member of a pacifist organization. Haukur 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• List at TfD. The page was kept at TfD 4 times; although consensus can change, the TfD discussions showed that there were several people in favour of keeping it, and the speedy-delete seems to ignore their arguments now. I won't bring up content arguments at DRv, but I still agree with what I said in the third TfD (and was unaware of the fourth until just now). --ais523 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, I'm all in favour of a template to inform people about current vandalism issues, but not one that is militaristic and treats vandalism as combat. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore or send to TFD. I find (found) this template useful for vandalism fighting, and sometimes added that AIV was full, in order for admins to check it. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You haven't explained how the template, which is named and styled after certain practices of the military of the United States, is not militaristic and not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't care much for the actual number, but knowing if I should start vandalfighting rather than doing what I normally do, and where to focus my efforts, is useful. I'll expand on the arguments in a TfD, if it happens. --ais523 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, there was one (at least) that wasn't related to the DEFCON meter, but to a weather forcasting system. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted — I agree with the deletion reason, treating vandalism like DEFCON levels is a classic case of failing to heed the leasons of WP:DENY. If we stop glorifying vandalism so much there will be less of it. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In my experience only a miniscule percentage of the vandalism we get is from glory-seeking vandals. It's mostly bored school kids who won't be at all affected by inside baseball stuff. Haukur 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And how exactly does DEFCON help defend against bored school kids? DEFCON implies some sort of coordinated attack; if it's just a bunch of bored kids vandalizing independently, how is DEFCON useful whatsoever? --Cyde Weys 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a good question, Cyde. I guess some time periods have more active bored school kids and/or fewer active vandal reverters and that telling people when this is the case can be useful. Haukur 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Personally, I always saw DEFCON as a coordinated defense, not attack. Hence the "please pay attention to this area or that" bits. I find it particularly useful because, if we're at 2 or 3, I'm more likely to stay on the computer at night and help out than if we're at 4 or 5 and I could do something else (like dishes; I much prefer vandal fighting to dishes, but then again, there's very little I don't...). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• List at TfD seems to be the best alternative if you want to delete it, I don't agree that neither IAR (why should we ignore the procedure in this case), T1 nor recreation are relevant here. I am not commenting on the usefulness of the template (even if I have my opinion) but on the procedure used to delete it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• REstore and list at Tfd Per AndonicO Felixboy 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Restore No need for another Tfd Felixboy 16:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I already restored the template, completely unaware that there was a DR on it. As I stated on my talk page, speedily deleting a template that has survived multiple attempts at deletion through the proper channels is bullshit. CSD isn't a blank check for admins to get rid of whatever they happen to dislike; {{Wdefcon}} should have sent it through TfD again, not swept under the rug with T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is seldom a need to rush to undelete anything. Did you ask Bainer to reconsider first?--Doc^g 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't; actually, I've already gotten a talking-to about what I should have done (and agree that I jumped the gun a bit). About the only thing I can say is "my bad". :\
I will say, however, that if this DR comes to the conclusion that it should stay deleted (which doesn't look likely, but anyway), I'll respect that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ok EVula, there was nothing wrong with you undeleting it. It's what WP:BRD is all about. I took a bold action, you reverted, and that's kick-started discussion. --bainer (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and list at TfD - any template that has been kept at a TfD is ineligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Restore after nonsensical unilateral action. I recommend we discuss modifications to the Defcon system on talk page to help address concerns about WP:DENY. A message system like this is extremely useful for the majority of editors who do not monitor IRC channels. I don't see any need for another TfD. Danski14^(talk) 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and send to TfD if you still don't like it. I'm not sure there really are valid DENY concerns here, but at any rate this surviving multiple TfDs does mean that speedying it is not going to work. Possibly the fact that it's useful to have a pointer as to when to do a bit of RC patrol should be considered? At any rate, this doesn't explicitly glorify the vandals, just tells you when to turn on VandalProof or whatever. Moreschi ^Talk 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and list at TfD as an inappropriate speedy. --ElKevbo 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore hate the template, "level" is totally subjective and effectively meaningless, I'd hope we'd all grow up from playing cops and robbers at some point and this would just die a natural death, but I guess we aren't there yet. --pgk 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and list at TfD Speedy deletion was inappropriate in light of past TfDs. The argument against this template is, I think, reasonable, but a TfD would allow wider input and perhaps spur the development of a less divisive & more effective informational template. — Scientizzle 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, no need to bring back to tfd (should have been done by admin in the first place, and can still be done by him any time he would like) - t1 was a category created to deal with userbox wars, like template:user pedophile, or perhaps POV pushers like template:notjewish (see here. But goodness, it certainly didn't mean anybody could delete a template he happened to dislike just because like it. WP:ROGUE. I'm tempted to say more, but WP:AGF disallows me. Part Deux 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The criterion covers any templates which are divisive and inflammatory. I consider the militaristic attitudes promoted by this template to be divisive and inflammatory (consider this and the many debates around the "counter-vandalism unit"). I'm happy to listen to any reasons you can offer why the militaristic attitudes promoted by this template are not inflammatory. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Restore/keep restored, TFD if you insist - can't see how this is divisive or inflammatory, personally. Rather useful when the vandalism picks up for mobilising and directing vandalfighters, and getting admins to WP:AIV and CAT:CSD when the backlogs start to pile up like a dead cow on the M25. If there is a problem with the name, request a move. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. OK here we go. I understand that WP:ILIKEIT that some people are using here isn't a valid restore rationale. However, let's consider this from another angle. It was speedied under CSD T1 i.e. being divisive and inflammatory. Well it's hard to see how it can be considered divisive (note the fact that people are divided on whether it should be there doesn't make the template itself divisive). It does suffer the weakness of being subjective, but that isn't relevant here. So is it inflammatory? Advocates of this opinion above argue that it is because of its name and the fact it "glorifies" vandalism. I do agree that a debate about changing its name and format would be a good idea but I certainly haven't ever seen any evidence myself that anyone has vandalised because of it (I know that would be hard to prove). After all, it's not like the "this page has been vandalized X times" userbox that clearly shows the results of an act of vandalism - this template is just indicating a general trend. Another point I would like to dispute is arguments that state "there are better ways to monitor the current level of vandalism". Well maybe there are, but that doesn't mean that this template is useless. Personally speaking, I have never added it to a page myself. I have on a number of occasions, however, noticed this on other people's user pages and noticed that someone has indicated that vandalism is high, and decided to whip out my vandalfighting tools. So this template may be poorly named and designed but it is not useless and, considering it has passed a TFD before, it is not clear cut speedy material. Will (aka Wimt) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • An aside to this discussion really, but saw it suggest vandalism as high and decided to look out is also meaningless, reasonably when you saw it you had no way of telling if things were any better/worse than normal. Maybe we should just fix it on "high" to encourage more people to look out for vandalism. (Or maybe it has an element of being self fulfilling and those seeing it on high think they have a better chance of getting away with vandalism) --pgk 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well as I said, it suffers from being rather subjective - and if someone could make it otherwise I'd definitely support them (perhaps Martinbot could set the status!). However, there are ways by which it can suggest whether vandalism is more or less than normal. It indicates which user changed the status and so, if a regular recent changes patrolling user has changed the status to 2, I might reasonably expect that they are doing this because there has been an upturn in vandalism as indicated by the recent changes. As for the fact that, if it is high it might encourage people to vandalise in the hope of getting away with it, I guess it could happen, but I'm skeptical that it does to any great degree. I think that if a vandal is devious enough to plan their vandalism around busy times, then the presence or absence of this template will probably be of little effect. Will (aka Wimt) 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I consider the template to be inflammatory primarily because it is militaristic in its naming and styling (which is now admitted by some of the supporters of the template in this discussion), and it promotes the idea that dealing with vandalism is a combat sport, attitudes that have been regularly rebuffed by the community. The argument that it glorifies vandalism is secondary, because the inflammatory nature of this is damaging to the community. --bainer (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Its name being mildly militaristic and, in turn, inflammatory, makes absolutely zero sense to me. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't consider myself a supporter of the template as such, and I have already stated that I would be in favour of a redesign. That said though, I agree with EVula that the fact that it is militaristic doesn't necessarily make it inflammatory. Does it really promote dealing with vandalism as a contact sport? I find it unlikely that a styling would be doing that, and I certainly don't think this template is harming the community. I for one haven't noticed people with the template on their user page being any more heavy handed in their treatment of vandals than those without it. But by all means take this template back to TfD for a full discussion - I just don't see it as a CSD T1 candidate. Will (aka Wimt) 10:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• List at TfD If the only problem is that the name is militaristic, we can change that. If we had the same template, but called it "Vandalism meter" or something neutral-ish like that, the template itself would not be militaristic. (Defcon is also a little US-centric) Given all the TfD's, it's definitely not speedy deletable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted or list at TfD- inherently unencyclopedia, keep it out of template space just like the userboxes. -M^ask? 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - Real96 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. Do you have any reasoning? --Cyde Weys 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyde and others, I apologize for my lack of reasoning. However, I wanted to keep this template because it serves a real purpose. 1.) It tells me if I should revert vandalism, OR 2.) Improve pages. If you want this to be deleted, then list at TFD. Real96 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• List at TfD. The reasoning used to delete it as divisive and inflammatory is very sketchy - if this is a naming dispute we can fix that. Everyone ought to know by now that deleting things that have been Xfded multiple times before is a bad idea. Grandmasterka 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Restored deleted out of process, four prior xfd's show that speedy delete is certainly the wrong course of action here. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• On behalf of everybody here who had a mind-numbingly boring childhood, I pose a question. Who here has never breathed on a thermometer to watch the needle rotate or the mercury rise? Who honestly said to himself "lol, that was kinda neat!" and walked away? Who instead chose to heat the thermometer with a butane lighter or a kerosene torch? Who instead dropped the thermometer into a pot of boiling chicken grease or onto the turntable of a microwave oven to watch it slowly spin 'round and 'round? Bored kids are funny that way. And fucking dangerous. Keep deleted. —freak(talk) 10:38, Apr. 25, 2007 (UTC)
  • Are bored kids dangerous? Sure, not gonna say they aren't. Are they specifically vandalizing Wikipedia because of this template? No. I've seen very little coordination between vandals; it's usually a thousand or so random people from random places being random dicks, not some massive coordinated effort by the Vandalism Cabal. I don't want to say AGF since we're talking about true vandals here, but... I think you're being severely paranoid here.
    Besides, if there was a massive coordinated effort to vandalize Wikipedia, wouldn't that mean we really would need something to organize our own editors and admins to address that threat, ie, this template? Your concept is fallacious, but if true, it generates a new reason for the template's existence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's circular arguing. You are suggesting that if this template was inciting mass vandalism we'd need to keep it to deal with the vandalism. Huh?--Doc^g 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Heh, I was pointing out that this particular argument appears to rest on the concept that vandalism is a heavily organized, which it is not. My argument makes no less sense than that to which I was responding. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• For the record, this brilliant exemplar of an attractive nuisance has no legitimate place on Wikipedia. It must die. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're free to think that, but T1 doesn't cover attractive nuisance; as a DR, we're here to discuss whether it was deleted properly. Feel free to attempt a fifth TfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Restored, the template is merely a median to communicate. I find freakofnurture's WP:POINT disruptive. -- Cat ^chi? 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I found it to be in poor judgement. Diffs: [1] [2]. Pretty sad (though the image is amusing). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, get over yourselves. —freak(talk) 20:56, Apr. 25, 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Softpedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

talk page of undeleted article Armypower 12:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article was undeleted by the deleting admin and is currently at AfD. I've restored the talk page pending the outcome of that discussion. Thryduulf 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Notable Internet Celebrity - on par with Geriatric1927, Paul Robinett, Ben Going, Cory Williams (all referenced by Wikipedia as 'notable').

See also references to television appearances on MTV

and The FIZZ

Credentials: YouTube Awards 2006 - nominated for Most Creative Video and holds the record for the Most Responded Video OF ALL TIME as recorded by YouTube - this is the largest recorded response to an online viral video on the internet.

MadV in the press: Townhall.com AC media company PEPSI top 10 HOT list ABC News Lungsboat 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list. Not sure if these things were mentioned in the article proper, but should get a full hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. The press citations and MTV appearance were not mentioned in the version of the article that was deleted, but the YouTube Awards and "most responded to video" were mentioned. Thus in my opinion the original speedy was borderline. The new claims of notability certainly merit it a hearing at AfD. Thryduulf 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I can of course re-edit the original article to include press citations and television appearances Lungsboat 24 April 2007

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

I was checking old edits of mine and noticed that the Archibald Motley page was deleted. After checking the deletion log it seemed it was tagged for copyright violation by Zscout370. I of course followed the link to the "source" website, and lo and behold--there is the entire Wiki article. I wrote that article over a year ago, and this website has taken it without crediting Wikipedia. I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I am the author of that article and this website, http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/motley.htm, has shamelessly nicked, word for word, my (well, Wikipedia's) article. I was very disturbed to see my writing up there and I did not, repeat, did not, steal from that website. I wrote it for Wiki, and it should belong to Wiki. The webpage was last modified Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:25:51 PM, LONG after I had written the article (April or so of 2006). Because the editor says he could not verify with absolute certainty which came first, he stands by the deletion. I think this is ridiculous. I wrote that article, it belongs to Wikipedia, and that website should be forced to at least credit the source or cease and desist rather than shamelessly stealing, word for word, the entry that should belong to Wikipedia. Torie 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's incredible! I think you should just ask an admin to undelete it to verify that it was yours using timestamps. That is pretty funny though, and you should feel proud that you wrote so well that another website (not answers.com) would steal your work! Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I guess I am kinda flattered. :) Torie 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: Something I realized could be a dead giveaway that this was a Wikipedia article: Check out the intro paragraph. The fact that I used sentences like "Archibald Motley was an American Painter" should be a giveaway that I was using the phrase "American Painter" to link to the article on American Painters. Also note that I begin the paragraph with "Archibald John Motley, Junior (September 2, 1891, New Orleans, Louisiana – January 16, 1981, Chicago, Illinois)" (the standard Wikipedia format. NONE of the other biographies on the website do so--they all begin with "Born in 19XX, blah blah.." or something much more casual. There is absolutely no resemblance between this article and the other biographies. I hope this helps as proof. Torie 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article came to my attention via the OTRS mailing system (ticket number is in the deletion log). The copyright statement from the website goes from 2002-2007; our article was first created in 2005. Even then, the text from the first additions, not by Torie, are a complete match to the website that had the same text. I used the wayback machine and other websites to determine if our page came first or not. The Wayback Machine wasn't able to determine the age or edits to the website in question. Honestly, I have no problems with the article being recreated, but as my determination as admin and OTRS staff, I feel better the article is not restored with the copyright questionable text. We have a lot of websites that people take content from and put it on Wikipedia word for word and most of the time, it is deleted. Sometimes, it is caught early, but in this case, I think it was caught late. I been discussing this with Torie for the past day and what I am saying now is what I told the user earlier; I want to be safe than to be sorry. (Also, Rockstar915, answers.com is one of the top mirrors of Wikipedia, so we admins know all content from here gets copied to there). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As a user with access to the OTRS system, I can confirm that a complaint was recieved at ticket 2007032610002985, and that Zscout370 responded to it. Beyond that, I cannot comment about which version is a copyright violation of which. However, to be safe, endorse deletion until further information about which article is copyright-compliant and which isn't becomes available. Daniel Bryant 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If the previous version of the Motley article also appeared on that website, that should only be further proof that they not only have nicked this article but have done so repeatedly. I find that conclusion entirely more likely and plausible than the theory that, as you claim, two entirely separate users have stolen the article from the SAME random arts organization website over a year apart. Additionally, I thought the Wikipedia policy was to assume good faith on the part of its editors and it seems that the assumption being made is that my version of the facts is inherently untrustworthy and should be disregarded, a disappointing contradiction of policy.Torie 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We assume good faith up until the time that doing so puts us into legally comprimised position, like this one. Daniel Bryant 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the style and content of the article being radically different from the other articles on the arts website, it is highly unlikely that different Wikipedians would have stolen from that site -- the Motley biography on areaofdesign.com doesn't even appear within the first five pages of Google results for Motley's name. All the less likely that two separate Wikipedians would crib the same website twice in a row, over a year apart. I'm kind of troubled that we are not being more aggressive about protecting the contributions of Wikipedia editors. I can appreciate the desire to be safe rather than sorry, but I'd prefer Wikipedia be safe-not-sorry about enforcing its own rights to prevent private websites from robbing the commons. I would overturn deletion and restore the Wiki article.JSoules 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — JSoules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Further research shows a striking resemblance between that same website (areaofdesign.com)'s biography of Sol LeWitt at http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons.htm and the one from the Guggenheim at http://www.guggenheim.org/artscurriculum/lessons/sf_lewitt.php. Presumably the Guggenheim wasn't the plagiarist in that case...JSoules 07:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Overturn deletion, that takes the cake for me. I'll get in contact with them. Daniel Bryant 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did one more search; [3] is a direct copy from the New York Times. At Wikipedia, copyrights are a serious issue, so even though it turns out we made the article first and the other website stole, we delete possible copyvios for further investigation. Page has been restored and now it is up to the other admins to persue a GFDL Violation Letter or let the other organizations persue their own actions against the site. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

MyCFO, myCFO Inc., also operating as Harris myCFO, is a substantial multinational corporation started in 1999, involved in many activities including complex financial services, accounting, banking, tax advice, and tax preparation. myCFO is easily verifiable and relates to a range of topics. The Wikipedia article, the only one describing myCFO, is directly attributed to a reliable newsprint and online credible objective reference source, The Wall Street Journal specfically a March 6, 2007 Internationally Published Newspaper Front Page Cover Fold Story (thus public domain headline, news text, and cover image are also public display copyright fair use with attribution). The reference article is externally linked to a source reference attribution [[4]] This attributed WSJ article is itself linked to the wsjonline.com were attributed references used for the investigative report can be found, and the wsj even provides further online links directly to original source documents referenced and cited in the WSJ source article. The WSJ myCFO article references many corporations and individuals who each meet Wikipedia notability criteria. This same WSJ article also references multiple US Government agencies and public record actions specifically referenced by the WSJ article and notable. Notable facts are reported in a neutral point of view that merits this article about myCFO to be included in Wikipedia.

Request Delete Speedy keep this myCFO article. Thanks. Vwt 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Vwt (^T/_C): Vwt is the editor originating this article’s references to the 2007 Wall Street Journal and the online linked reference sources.

Request Delete Consolidate: myCFO also recommend to consolidate and merge all directly myCFO related references into one article: "myCFO" Vwt 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Vwt (^T/_C).

• Comment. I'm still confused about this one... however, given the WSJ article, I would say that this subject still doesn't fit WP:N. But then again, I'm still trying to decipher the DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Vwt (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account trying to insert mention of how MyCFO is being investigated for some financial problems. Most all edits have been properly reverted as POV-pushing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.245.68 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
• Overturn and list at AfD. The Wall Street Journal reference (which was included in the article) is an assertion of notability. I am not certain whether it is sufficient notability for an article, but that is a question for AfD. The AfD could also consider whether to merge it with the Harris Bank article (the parent company). Thryduulf 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Despite the incoherence of the nomination, overturn and list per Thryduulf. There does look to be an assertion of notability in the deleted article. This may not survive an AFD, given the COI and SPA problems here, but that's where this should be done. --Coredesat 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree. Overturn and list per above. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn + Send to AfD Minor assertion of notability; strong enough to make A7 inappropriate, but doubtful that it is strong enough to survive a proper AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• overturn not a valid A7, any assertion of notability is enough, but send to Afd since some eds. think it doubtfull, so it might as well go there directly.DGG 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• is notabity still in question? Regarding notability, this WSJ article and some referenced and involved relate to and follows from a related October 17 2005 Official US Goverment press release "The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today announced the filing of a superseding criminal indictment in the largest criminal tax case ever filed." according to the Official US Goverment DOJ Reference, Linked: [[5]] The March 2007 Investigative report by the WSJ is extensive, edited, and sights many source reference documents directly linked. re-request Overturn Delete Speedy keep these articles please Vwt (^T/_C).
  • Well, per WP:RS the subject of the article must be the subject of third party sources. I don't see either of the sources you provided listing MyCFO as the subject... Rockstar (^T/_C) 09:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The myCFO article is about myCFO & activities (pre Harris Bank). myCFO is the central subject in the referenced source WSJ article linked (there are many possible references, this March 2007 The Wall Street Journal choice is reliable, objective, credible, clear, simple, links, and independently verifies all their sources on this). This reference used opens WSJ: "...Called myCFO Inc., the firm set out to provide rich people a full menu of financial services, from wealth management to estate planning. It succeeded with only one: tax shelters that helped clients shield hundreds of millions of dollars from taxes. Less than two years after myCFO began selling them in 2000, the Internal Revenue Service said they were bogus." This second DOJ, IRS joint press release reference, only added here as another POV source to help ground this discussion (not used in the Wikipedia myCFO article) but independently and objectively affirms the notability of the scale of these "CARDS" tax products that the Wikipedia article subject, myCFO was involved with selling. This reference, offered here indicates the DOJ&IRS considered these things notable activities. The WP:RS WSJ source for the WP myCFO article's independently validates the 2000-2002 business activities of myCFO. The Wikipedia references to myCFO are still deleted, as the references to this particular Wall Street Journal Article are also deleted from WP and other internet news. Is it proper to use Restore for further discussions of the multiple deletions of myCFO articles and WSJ news references? --Vwt (^T/_C)
• Overturn and don't bother listing. It's a notable firm-cum-crash, covered by CNET, Business Week, and the New York Times, even without the Wall Street Journal bit. That meets every applicable notability standard. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list of AfD, which is the best place to discuss notability & Co. Tizio 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This page was deleted for lack of Notability. Since the deletion, several articles featuring BrainKeeper have been published (Miami Herald, CNet), and BrainKeeper was specifically mentioned by a Forrester analyst in Processor Magazine[6]. I believe this page now passes the qualifications for Notability. Cganskewiki 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true, just recreate it and cite your sources, and it will be kept in Wikipedia. I don't see a need for a DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you in principle, however I'm not too fond of the wording "featuring" and "mentioned", the coverage has to be non-trivial. Looking at the Forrester article linked, I would possibly be able to write an article about collaborative technologies, but I could write very little about BrainKeeper since it is merely a passing mention in a list of products. --pgk 06:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your concerns. But my point is that if (and I mean if) the article fulfills WP:N, then the original creator should just rewrite it, as obviously it didn't fulfill it before. The new rewrite would be looked at as a new entry. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The article as deleted was a sub-stub, just start again. If the subject is notable you will exceed both the quantity and quality of the deleted article without trying. If you need time to work on the article to get it to a standard where it will not be speedily deleted, create it as a subpage in your userspace and move it to article space when it is ready (ask if you don't know how to do this). Thryduulf 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I apologize if I have gone through the wrong process, but the BrainKeeper page was deleted and protected from recreation, so I am not able to start a new article. If the page could be unprotected, I would love to start a new article that could be added to by the wikipedia community. Also BrainKeeper was very much 'featured' in the Miami Herald and CNet articles, but I thought the mention by Forrester was the most compelling arguement, since it is the job of Forrester analysts to know and mention 'notable' technologies and products. Stated differently: why would Forrester be mentioning a company that was not notable? Cganskewiki 02:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We need reliable sources to base an article on, i.e. the content must be verifiable. A passing mention doesn't provide anything to use in the article, beyond that it was mentioned. --pgk 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Grr. Very close. The Miami Herald "article" is actually an ad. [7] It says right at the bottom, "please check with advertiser". So that wouldn't help at all. Forrester is just a mention of the name and URL in a list, that's not any good at all either. The CNet bit isn't an ad, and it isn't just a mention, but it is quite short, two paragraphs in a much larger article. [8] WisTechnology is also short.[9] OK. I may well regret this, but I'm going to unprotect it, and let you try again; fair warning though, it's not guaranteed to pass Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, those sources that are any good at all for establishing notability, are borderline.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, changed my mind, upon further research, I won't unprotect it. I read your talk page. Cganskewiki is clearly a company employee, in fact, apparently Chad Ganske, described as company spokesman in the articles linked to above. Mr. Ganske, it does seem like your product is growing in notability, but I don't think it's clearly enough there yet that I'm willing to make an exception to our Wikipedia:Spam guideline. Between the borderline notability, and the fact that we're supposed to discourage use of the Wikipedia for advertising, I would have regretted it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In short, if another experienced editor wants to take a shot at writing the thing, wrote me, or another admin, to unprotect the page. I at least will do it. But per the Wikipedia:Spam guideline, we really shouldn't encourage official company spokesmen to write articles about their products. (Note the "experienced" bit; in other words, asking the guy who sits in the next cubicle from Mr. Ganske to quickly sign up for an account isn't recommended either.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry to push on this, but I just want to make sure the page gets a fair shot. The Miami Herald article is very much an article in their 'Small Business Seminar'. The interface is provided by some company called Travidia, which is referencing the Herald as the advertiser. Here is the full article: [10], which shows BrainKeeper as a featured tool for small businesses- and very much not an advertisement. In combination with the other articles, I sincerely believe that the qualifications for Notability are met.
  • I also understand that it is not desireable for me to develop the page as someone close to the company, but it is my understanding that if I create a page very similar to the ones for other wiki products, this does not violate any wikipedia rules. I would be happy to alert an administrator to the page when I create it to ensure that it meets wikipedia standards.Cganskewiki 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007 NL Wild Card Standings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

I see no consensus for keeping the template. Discussion ended with 7 users endorsing deletion and 4 users endorsing keeping the template, yet result of the discussion was "to keep." I propose to overturn and delete as nom. Michael Greiner 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep - Admin clearly spelled out rationale. No point in deleting something that will be recreated in 4 months time. At least 3 deletes stated that the article would be recreated and 3 others were vague. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Clearly an invalid close, as the consensus seems pretty clear to delete. If the closing admin isn't going to listen to the community's consensus, why have a TfD in the first place? Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete -- If we aren't gonna use it now, then what's the point? Even if it will be recreated later, it would be better to remove something that isn't gonna be used rather than ignoring the fact that it's there. Therefore, this should be deleted, as it isn't gonna be used and so it won't take up space. --Ksy92003 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- Why go against the consensus, anyway? If consensus was to delete the template, then why was the result to keep it? --Ksy92003 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The right way to close this would have been just to userfy the template to be recreated in four months. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think that we need to worry about the amount of space that this is consuming, since it is only 1540 bytes. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep per After Midnight. Just makes more sense... --W.marsh 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Endorse keep, we don't count numbers but determine rational conclusion from the discussion. Deletion/move is an unnecessary use of resources in this case. Keep the end goal in mind, folks. -- nae'blis 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - admin was correct in judgment, no process was misused. And just as importantly as there not being "any consensus to keep", there wasn't any consensus to delete, so no consensus would be the default ruling if anything Part Deux 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Closing admin's statement: I agree with the keep voters here. Deleting a template that some participants in its TfD discussion state will be re-created is pointless. Deleting this template would be deletion for the sake of deletion. It will be re-created, and deletion for deletion's sake sounds a lot like a bureaucracy, which is explicitly advised against in WP:NOT. Not only that, but there is precedent for keeping something which was created before its time, but most people agree would be re-created reasonably soon if it were deleted, such as here. I know that example is of an article, but the principle is the same: deleting something which doesn't meet policy but will at an easily forseeable point in the future, and will be re-created at that time, is counter-productive. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Go figure that the people who policy wonk other DRVs against deletion are calling for "common sense" now... strange how that works out. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse consensus Keep TfD's are not a vote. They are a debate. The arguments for keep were superior, and had consensus behind them. -M^ask? 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I never said it was a vote. And I see a consensus, and it's not for keep. It sure looks like delete to me. The closing admin even said there wasn't a consensus to keep, but kept anyway because he "agreed with the keep voters." Looks like a clear violation of policy. I will ask again: why have a discussion for deletion in the first place if consensus is going to be ignored? Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I see no evidence that the template will be recreated. There are no templates for wild card standings from either league from the last two seasons (2005 and 2006). Michael Greiner 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Clear consensus was in favour of Delete. It's not the role of an admin to override the consensus established by an XfD, otherwise we might as well just scrap XfD outright and have admin discretion. Policy and process are important; Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not meant to be an admin dictatorship either. Walton ^{Need some help?} 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Walton Monarchist89. If the consenus was delete, why did the admin override it? He explained it above, but the community voted for deletion. Hornberry 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Initially deleted as a copyright violation, new information regarding AFI's 100 lists here indicates that these lists are in the public domain. The ORTS ticket is included on the page too. Although the article was recreated and deleted multiple times, I hope that if it is relisted, the admin can find the original version. UnfriendlyFire 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I think the information provided sounds authentic, though it needs to be confirmed in a more reliable way than the email. It seems reasonable too: media companies produced these lists for he purpose of having them talked about,not for the purpose of having them hidden behind copyright. That's what some of us said during the discussion, and it seems we were right. But it was appropriate for others to insist on obtaining the evidence. DGG 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion!! Good, solid, fascinating article. People like and need to read this stuff! :) --172.131.174.231 03:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, obviously, per DGG (although I think the instant e-mail and the relevant OTRS ticket to provide sufficient verification that there are no copyvio problems). Kudos are also due those who pursued the matter. It should be observed, I suppose, that the article has already been recreated under a differently-formatted title, but anything relevant in the present article will surely be well merged into the older, now-deleted article. Joe 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I sent another email to AFI to confirm if the OTRS ticket is legit or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. So they are PD? So what? What part of copy-pasting someone else's list is encyclopaedic? WP:INTERESTING seems to be the maor justification for keeping. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - So it means that the original reason for deleting this page is no longer valid. If these lists don't belong, we can AfD them, but after we sort this one out. Also, I did not know that the article was recreated; however, I do support a relist and merge because if my memory serves, this article is a better version. UnfriendlyFire 04:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• End this discussion The whole point is moot with consideration that this new page has been created. We should probably debate the matter on that page. Yanksox 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (transwiki?). Since this is public domain, could we not send it to WikiSource?--Wafulz 05:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiSource, if they want it. An encyclopedia article it isn't. Heather 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, restore the best version (probably the one before the first deletion) and list on afd if someone wants to. The previous reason for deletion obviously doesn't apply, and debating new reasons that might apply isn't the point of this page. - Bobet 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, list on AFD, then possibly delete. Preious reason doesn't apply, like Bobet said. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 00:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Famous Bodyguard Demonthesis 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Demonthesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do not understand why this page has been deleted? Cole Hunter for you who are not in the Bodyguard or close protection environment is well known for protecting celebrities and his current client is very high profile in the sports world. Just do some proper research on Bodyguards and sports stars bodyguards. He is also due to appear in a major film to be released in January of 2008.

• Endorse my deletion, valid A7. Absolutely no such assertion in either deleted article, and if you want to present new information, you must reliable sources that verify it. History restored behind tag. --Coredesat 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He was the WWE bodyguard Majesticangel 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Majesticangel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For Christ sake...this Wikipedia is like the papers say a Joke. Cole Hunter is a very well known Bodyguard to the Sports stars. He was Eric Cantonas Bodyguards 4 years ago and now protects a very well known US sports star.

• Endorse Article did not assert any notability. A quick google search turns up a hockey player, a fictional character, and Kenneth Cole. As for the claims of being in a future movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And a search for "eric cantona" and "cole hunter" turns up zero results. I'm really doubting that any reliable sources can be found here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Actually, if Wikipedia is, as you say, a "Joke", it's because articles like this exist. No notability asserted, valid speedy/prod/what-have-you. JuJube 01:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, because article asserted notability. --172.131.174.231 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

there is info but hard to find Well to be fair my fellow friend I have spent the last 2 hours researching "Cole Hunter" which I have found out is an alias. he used to be a bodyguard for a rich asian called Li ka Shing I am trying to find his real name as he changed it when he moved to canada and then the UK. He is very elusive. I will report back. By the way hes half chinese and half english. AndrewJoJo 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— AndrewJoJo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse deletion. A7 use was valid. Holy frijoles, this looks like it's going to be a dirty DRV. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was fascinating that there were so many technical abbreviations used in this discussion. It was literally worse than going through a legal brief. It really is offensive that such a game - and that *is* a game - would be used when discussing an article related to a victim of the Virginia Tech shootings. Get off your high horses and allow the article. Honoring and remembering these victims and helping people to heal is much more important than playing some game with technicalities.

Sincerely,

Tim Rigney

Erm, this article has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shootings. This is an article on what appears to be a bodyguard. --Coredesat 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should let this article remain. There seems to be a lot of interest in this article from what I see. I spent all of last night (sad indeed) looking up this "Cole Hunter". From what I gather he was a Bodyguard for some rich asian dude. He then moved to Canada to look after the asian mans son before moving back to the UK. In the process he changed his name to the adoptive "Cole Hunter" possibly to keep a low profile. I was reading march 2004 copy of HEAT magazine and in their is one of the only pics you will see of him. Endorse the article. You may get an influx of people who know something about this elusive guy. But on all accounts he is a Bodyguard to some of the top people. And he is only 30. Nemisis50 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Nemisis50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Prove it. --Coredesat 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion I see no grounds to overturn the speedy deletion. I would be happy to reconsider if additional evidence were produced asserting the subject's notability. --ElKevbo 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion until such a time as reliable sources are provided, this smells like a hoax. Funny how many SPAs cropped up all of a sudden with assertions of notability without any proof. Corvus cornix 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Coredesat's rationale is extremely convincing. No importance or significance asserted = WP:CSD#A7. No sources = keep deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Excellent example of what speedy deletion is for. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a perfect example of a candidate for A7. No assertion of notability, references or anything. Will (aka Wimt) 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I said i would be back...Another member Demonthesis said Cole Hunter was going to be in a film and it is actually listed on IMDB under the following film "Cordially Invited" (2007) (post-production) and if you look through the cast members you will come across Cole Hunter so I think that while this guy is hard to trace maybe his Job forces him to. Worth considering AndrewJoJo 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Google's almost never heard of that movie, and the IMDB listing seems to have been added today (keep in mind that anyone can contribute to IMDB). Searching for the production company ("Equalaris Productions") gives a MySpace as the first result (of only 32). Word of mouth isn't a reliable published source. --Coredesat 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats bullshit....look up all the other actors....and check their film listing and they will all say that film title. I think that is proof enough if you compare it to some of the shit and obviously untrue article this site produces. I honestly think that this guy is for real. Just because you may have a bullshit job does not mean that everyone else does. In reply to cordesat AndrewJoJo 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Try reading the other articles. And if you see an "untrue article," please feel free to edit it to change it. Before then, stop with the personal attacks or you'll be blocked. Period. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

imdb is almost like Wikipedia, as far as allowing anybody to edit. And they have no requirement for proof. And even if the entry were true, the fact that he's about 40th in the cast list and this is the only movie he's ever made, is hardly a verification of notability. Corvus cornix 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pfft, I'm listed on IMDB; that doesn't mean that I should get an article. (though that would be pretty cool) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I find use of the afdanons template insulting when in fact there are DRV discussions that do get decided by majority vote by the closing admins. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's actually a good point. I guess you just have to cross your fingers and hope that the closing admin isn't a total moron. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Since I added it in the first place, and there are only a couple of problematic users, I've removed it. --Coredesat 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

After watching this guys page or whatever you may call this I can see that people like the Administrators on here were the type of people that got bullied during school. Pathetic losers with not much of a social life and definately either the "ugliest girlfriend or wife (but a nice personality) or no-one at all.) I do not care what the retaliation comment the Administrators or whoever gets to choose if the articles stay or not all I can really say is that I have no sympathy for people like the admin who are destined to be sad lonely people with constant harrassment from their younger years to their deaths. Now everyone watch the smart comments from the admin. This is my last comment on this subject and would all the people I emailed (by the way it was bulk email 34,000 - on Black market press - great site and excellent replies thanks guys) start the email/ "article" display for this site I asked for at midnight (GMT). That should get the admin going and Ive copied this page for you guys to read through and also emailed it. I THINK MR HUNTERS ARTICLE SHOULD STAY. Lets see if people can add to the article and we can all really find out something about Mr Hunter. Demonthesis 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone a) block this dude for personal attacks and b) do a check-user for sockpuppetry against the other people voting on this DRV? Nemisis50, MajesticAngel, AndrewJojo and Demonthesis have no edits outside of this DRV and write in a strangely same manner. Thanks, Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Demonthesis for the reasons mentioned in the block log and on their talk page (essentially what User:Rockstar915 said above). Perhaps someone with checkuser access could see if there is indeed sock puppetry going on as mentioned above. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Per all of the above, sans socks. >.> My, that was interesting. And not a little creepifying. Wysdom 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)