Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 25

Myg0t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t (August 2004, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination) (March 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April) (DRV April 2006, undelete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (May 2006, delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May) (DRV1 May 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second) (DRV2 May 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July) (DRV July 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August) (DRV August 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September) (DRV September 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 (DRV1 March 2007, speedy closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 25 (DRV2 March 2007, speedy closed)

Myg0t is notable, having been covered by Teen People magazine, Mandy Moore admitting to being a famous member of this "clan". Also, the group has been covered in other sources, notably the British Now! celebrity magazine. The Teen People issue was way back in November 2003, while the Now! mention was in July 2006. These are reliable enough sources, that mean this is discussion-worthy, and besides, myg0t should not have been deleted. This information wasn't mentioned at the time when the original articles were written. Samllaws300 11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletionSpeedy keep deleted, the claims made by the nominator are nonsense after looking into them. Also, the nominator here appears to be a single purpose account, as s/he has no other edits. --Coredesat 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've linked all the previous AFDs and DRVs on this - the last DRV was endorsed three weeks ago. If proof of the nominator's claims doesn't show up, this should be speedily closed. --Coredesat 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Non-speedy endorse deletion, to give time to substantiate the claims given. But mere claims aren't enough to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted. No sources mentioned, hence no sources. Why is there no double jeopardy rule in Wikipedia?--WaltCip 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, if the SPA who re-opened this had bothered to produce even one reliable source, then I might have a different opinion, but with no sources whatsoever, this should be speedy closed procedurally. Corvus cornix 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• The source, Teen People magazine, stated Mandy Moore has said she's a member of this "clan". Anyhow, it's not on the Internet, but that's not relevant, is it?? But it is reliable, that's all I will say. It's a non-trivial mention, by the definition of "notability" on here. Anyhow, it's substantiated and verifiable. This is NEW EVIDENCE that was NOT MENTIONED in any previous reviews. If someone brings it up again, well, I've got the evidence. And how can you say "no sources mentioned"??Sheesh, I just quoted two, yes, TWO sources above! Now! magazine, also states that Danielle Lloyd and page 3 girl Claire Andrisani are also members of this "clan", and that's verifiable too, like the Teen People source I gave above.This is turning into a history lesson, but, these sources are reliable primary sources. And, before you ask, yes, I'm a history student, I know the reliability of primary/secondary sources so you dont need to explain about that (i dont think).It's all explained above, OK?? This isnt an impassioned appeal, just the facts. And from primary sources. --Samllaws300 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You claim that there are sources which say this. But you have not provided any evidence that the sources say what you claim they say. Corvus cornix 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• The sources explicitly say that Mandy Moore is a "celebrity member of gaming clan myg0t", and it goes into detail about it.This was in the issue out in November 2003 - i remember it, mandy moore on the cover and whatnot. as for the Danielle lloyd reference, that's in itself reliable. evidence being that "Internet game myg0t is one of Danielle Lloyd's interests!".this should be a reason to restore the article just so people can vote for it to be kept/deleted/dissolved whatever again. --Samllaws300 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless you give us these specific sources with links to them, this is almost certainly WP:HOAX.--WaltCip 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This page doesn't show her as having been in Teen People, or on its cover, in 2003. And there is nothing about her for 2003 at http://www.people.com/people/mandy_moore/news. Corvus cornix 22:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Linda Christas International School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This school is notable, and the policy on schools says it has to be the subject of multiple sources, which it has been. It's been mentioned in the Southport Visiter, back in June 2002, the Daily Star in April 2003, and then November 2004, so notability is there. It seems no-one's taken any notice of these sources - and the debate should be allowed to run again, due to this new evidence! Whiteleaf30 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you provide those sources so we can come up with an opinion on what to do? --Coredesat 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Other points of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_Christas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Schools and Colleges plenty of mentions in different sections on this page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Linda_Christas_again Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Sockpuppetry_on_Linda_Christas_International_School_AfD and numerous other places. --pgk 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per all of the links provided above by Pgk. Corvus cornix 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted given the links pgk provided. --Coredesat 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore There was not enough of a consensus to delete, especially as articles about high schools exist in their thousands. Haddiscoe 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a high school. Corvus cornix 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• invisible The Google cache link above is giving a document not found result, and nothing else shows up in Google. But there is at least information on the school at [1], and it is indeed not a high school, but primarily a tutoring organization. So it probably should get the tolerance we give to many High School pages, but judged as a commercial organization. DGG 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Were it not for the fact that, despite several requests at all of the various links provided above, there has not been one single reliable source provided. In fact, there are only three Google hits for "Linda Christas International School", one the organization itself, one a discussion forum, and one a page which won't come up but appears to be a Wikipedia fork. Corvus cornix 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: proper process followed, no WP:RS have been given here or elsewhere to show that any of the previous deletions (whether by AfD or CSD A3/A7/G11/etc.) were inappropriate and based on misinformation or then-unavailable information. (To reiterate the point of the previous deletions: I am convinced that it's a business, not a school, self-accredited by the International Association of Schools and Colleges"—which is actually something the company invented, per the first line here.) I highly doubt that anything can be provided (i.e., in the way of multiple WP:RS potentially indicating WP:CORP) to overturn deletion and warrant a relist or retention at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was deleted because people thought he was not notable. But he seems to be notable, having been in Company magazine in February 2006, and also in Real People magazine, in August 2006 (both British magazines). I would hope these meet your criteria for reliable sources, but as it stands, he's had non-trivial coverage, so the article should be undeleted. At the time of the original debate, this evidence wasnt mentioned! Delacruz162 08:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Delacruz162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Which issues? Provide those and we can probably consider relisting it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that Real People magazine or 'Company' would generally be considered a reliable source for our purposes. --pgk 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Which yardstick are you using? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.". One of these is paid for personal stories, one appears to be a gossip magazine. --pgk 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with badjlydrawnjeff, we can't judge whether or not the references are reliable if we don't have links to see whether he's featured or just mentioned. Corvus cornix 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• In Real People, he was mentioned in a full article, not a passing mention, in the July 2006 issue - it was not sensationalist, or BLP-violating - just written giving the facts about him, and his notability pertaining to computing.It can be considered a reliable source, and it's not tabloid-sensational. Just because it's not on the Internet does not mean it's not a reliable source. The article should be undeleted with the full editing history/records whatnot, so people can judge for themselves. Just relist it at the "article for deletion" thing, since I revealed these new sources. --Delacruz162 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• As a response to Corvus cornix's question, it was not a "mention" as such, but a full-length article that was more of a"this-is-the-facts-about" rather than "oh-my-god-it's-a-tabloid-trash!" article. it certainly was NPOV enough for your standards anyhow. this was back in July 2006, y'know. This article should be restored, and people allowed to discuss it at the "article for deletion" thingy. --Delacruz162 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide a link. Corvus cornix 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is not on the Internet. Just because it's not on the net doesn't make it any less reliable, eh?? but it's verifiable.Mr.Barber is notable enough in computing, this should be discussed at that wikiproject about computing. --Delacruz162 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Where has anyone said that it has to be on the net to be reliable? I have made general comments about the apparent nature of the publications, the same comments would apply if they were online publications of the same nature. The question which has been posed is which issues of those magazines did these articles appear in, so others can check them out. --pgk 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• pgk, dude.... chill, man. --Samllaws300 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Just relist the article at "article for deletion", put this new evidence, generalised as it is, i cant really add any more details, ive put in what i know, and then the general opinion will decide. heh, you gotta try that. Mr. Barber is as notable as John Bambenek, WHO BLOODY SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN DELETED. JOHN BAMBENEK IS NOTABLE, SORRY, JZG. SO BRING THIS BACK TO ARTICLE FOR DELETION. Sheesh, the amount of things I do for u on here... --Delacruz162 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I doubt very much the guy is notable, but the discussions was closed without letting anyone see the article. DGG 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand -- the AfD was open for five days and was closed properly. Why would you want to list it again? That seems foolish. If he's going to be notable, let the information come now. Otherwise, we should endorse the deletion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, properly conducted AfD, no evidence provided to the contrary. Agree with User:Rockstar915 in that sufficient, verifiable information about reliable sources when made available may provide sufficient grounds for recreation. Aside: the last version of the article was full of generalizations that barely contained a weak (if any) assertion of notability, and I'm actually surprised that it wasn't A7ed. More is needed for a legitimate article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD is valid, article sucked royally. Removing all unsourced or poorly sourced material might leave the name, if we can find a source for it. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but do not salt; if someone writes a new article under the same title, it should be considered on its own merits. *** Crotalus *** 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• For your convenience, the flood of SPA accounts that decided to "participate" in the discussion are indented below. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn per new evidence. Relist it. Also, there was not enough people participating in the last one. This should be restored. --Thomasdelamotte1210 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Thomasdelamotte1210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Undelete, relist Article did not have enough people to properly form consensus. Only 3 people participated, so you can hardly call this "consensus" - really, is this consensus?? no way! Relist on basis of the new evidence above. The guy is not a speedy A7, in any way. --Bekdaja-2 08:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Bekdaja-2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Relist Original article was poorly-written stub, but it should still be nominated again. Lack of consensus, AfD didn't even get proper discussion, just "delete per nom". The new evidence is well convincing. --Fala3033 08:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Fala3033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn, undelete, relist - and all because of the new evidence not mentioned in the original debate. Please undelete this and put the {{drv}} template on it, with the full history, and let the debate run. --Heberele0 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Heberele0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn per new evidence. --Tabersyn30 08:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Tabersyn30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn New evidence mentioned WAS NOT AROUND at the time of the original AFD, LET THE DEBATE RUN. --Lobbyweek2007 1r3 09:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Lobbyweek2007 1r3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn on basis of NEW EVIDENCE. He is notable, meets your notability criteria. --Torne90322* 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Torne90322* (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn deletion was WAY WAY out-of-process. Not enough participation, so not a proper consensus. This should be re-run. Mailer diablo should be censured for this action. --Barry Nevill wickj3 12:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — User:Barry Nevill wickj3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn Subject meets Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) (that BIO shortcut) - article should not have been deleted. Sources provided are reliable, and most importantly, they assert his notability. --YouTube Lakersfan3200 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — YouTube Lakersfan3200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn He is notable. He was also mentioned in Now! magazine, and HEAT magazine alongside Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace, as recently as January 2007, so he's obviously got non-trivial coverage. This should be undeleted, relisted, yadda yadda, you know what I mean.... --Spectral Wlals030 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Spectral Wlals030 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn This will rile some people, but he's as notable as John Bambenek (obviously) is. The Heat magazine source was a full interview with the dude, and Heat is a non-trivial source, which proves he's notable. Gotcha. Now undelete it! --Palkbr30 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Palkbr30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn, relist at AFD Subject is not speedily deletable. This should be relisted. --Arthritis Expert AT CAMBRIDGE UNi 12:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC) — Arthritis Expert AT CAMBRIDGE UNi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Block the socks, salt the article. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was open for five days and all !votes were delete. Unless there is either a link or proper reference given to this "new evidence", then there is no verifiable evidence that this person is notable and so no reason to overturn. Will (aka Wimt) 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If you are going to label accounts as socks please still include YOUR OWN SIGNATURE in what you are adding on as YOUR OPIONION of the account being a socket. The admin making the decision here has the right to see who it was adding these comments.--Dacium 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you are referring to the spa tags, adding these is not labelling the users as socks - it is simply stating that these users have made "few or no other edits outside this topic". The tag handily gives a link to their contributions, so you can verify this as a fact not an opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  Also, if the closing admin does want to see which users have added the tags, they can easily check the history. Will (aka Wimt) 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Big Four (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

It seems the main reason this category was deleted was because it was considered neologism, even "redundant neologism" when in fact the expression 'Big Four' has been used to describe these grunge bands from Seattle numerous times. You can go to a search engine and look it up. It took me about five minutes to find the term used on Answers.com <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:tOZ4201p2kYJ:www.answers.com/topic/big-four+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us> and Sputnik Music <http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:59lcGC8CC_IJ:www.sputnikmusic.com/band/Pearl%2BJam+%27big+four%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us>. Even on Wikipedia, if the administrators who claimed neologism had bothered to do their job and look into the matter, 'Big Four' is used on the Soundgarden page and the Pearl Jam page, both complete with listings of the other two bands included. Perhaps Big Four Seattle Bands would have been a more aptly named category? If so that is fine with me. It just bothers me that some administrators who take pride in their 'contributions' (which ironically end up hurting wikipedia) don't even look into the matter at hand before voicing their opinions. Not only that, but by looking at the categories for discussion page for march 29, it seems that some take pride in being sarcastic assholes as well. Keyver17 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per unanimous CFD. --Coredesat 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, unanimous CfD, sources above do not really address the issue and the tone of the request pretty much begs for speedy rejection and close. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Multiple people, including people familiar with the music, thought that this was a bad category for multiple reasons, not just because it appeared to be a neologism. I also recommend that Keyver17 review WP:CIVIL. Dr. Submillimeter 08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - unanimous CfD on a neologistic category with no chance of expansion. Not a useful category. Moreschi ^Talk 12:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - Unanimous CfD, plus as far as I know 'Big Four' was much more widely used to refer to the 'Big Four' thrash metal bands of the 80s - Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth and Anthrax. DarkSaber2k 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per unanimous CfD as mentioned many times. It would need a different name anyway, because of the above. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and anyway, the "Big Four" is Collis Huntington, Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker and Mark Hopkins [2] [3]. Or maybe it's Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, EMI and Warner Music Group [4] [5]. Either one of those has to be far more notable than something scraped off a rockfan's blog. My GOD I want to kill the pop culture cruft fans on this site sometimes (even though I am one). Xtifr _tälk 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 'round here it's a bridge and before that a railroad. So yeah... --W.marsh 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I was just following the advice the nominator gave: "You can go to a search engine and look it up". Unfortunately for nom, this advice did not convince me to support his position. I could have said "endorse deletion per nom", but I think that might have confused people. :) Xtifr _tälk 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hehe. Aside from being Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, and Georges Clemenceau, in the UK, the Big Four could be the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, or the unions Amicus, the GMB, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and UNISON. Endorse deletion per Xtifr. Heather 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was being used for about the 3,213st most important use of the term "Big 4". Haddiscoe 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, properly run and closed CfD, no evidence provided in deletion review rationale indicating that it was not or that this category provided any reasonable aid in navigation of the encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; this category name is far too vague to convey any useful information and could refer to any number of things. No evidence of procedural impropriety was presented. *** Crotalus *** 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion after a properly-run and closed CfD. Keyver17's request for deletion review doesn't offer any persuasive new information: per the discussion above 'Big Four' has been used to describe lots of different things in the field of music, and probably countless groupings elsewhere. It's not relevant to my !vote here, but it was also inappropriate for Keyver17 to canvass me by email. I think that it's a good idea to notify all participants in a CfD when the matter is brought to deletion review, but those notifications should be done openly and to all participants in the CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

1. This was changed after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Judeo-Christian_illuminated_manuscripts from Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. The nomination, by User:Andrew c had been to rename, originally to Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts (miscellaneous), which he changed in mid-debate to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts, after several editors (all in fact) said they disliked the (miscellaneous).
2. The nomination arose from a re-organization of the Illuminated manuscript categories, extensively discussed for some months on the main article talk page at Talk:Illuminated manuscript, which included moving to a flatter tree, where the big categories including Category:Gospel Books, Category:Psalters and Category:illuminated biblical manuscripts, the last of which contains Jewish manuscripts as well as Christian, would no longer be sub-categories of this category, but come directly under Category:Illuminated manuscripts. As a result of this, the category would no longer have sub-categories, including that containing the Jewish Biblical MS, hence the move from "Judeo-Christian" to "Christian".
3. A number of editors (none I think ever active in the category) wanted to remove any qualifier from the category name, and restore the old scheme. None showed awareness that this would once again place Jewish MS in the category, and that the name should logically remain as Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, if this was to be the case. This was only pointed out late in the debate.
4. The total number of editors commenting was 7, of whom 4 supported the nomination. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that that he had been alerted to the Jewish aspect, and said he had read the talk pages, the closer, User:jc37 chose to close supporting the minority view. He said that all editors commenting had been in favour of renaming the article to something including the words Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts! This lowest common denominator has left an untenable situation, with Jewish manuscripts in a Christian-only category. In my view he should have supported the majority, which also included the only 2 editors commenting who are active in the subject area, or at the very least closed as no concensus, leaving the name as it was.
5. I understand the dislike of self-referencial category names, and especially the "((miscellaneous)" in the original nom. Now that I have had longer to think about it, I propose renaming the category to: Category:General Christian illuminated manuscripts. Alternatively, if the more layered hierarchy is to be returned to, the category should return to the old name of Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts.
6. To resolve the situation, I would like, in order of preference:

• Closure overturned, rename to Category:General Christian illuminated manuscripts (ok its a new suggestion), or relist that proposal.
• Closure overturned, rename to Category:Other Christian illuminated manuscripts (the final nom of the debate), or relist that proposal.
• Closure overturned, No consensus/keep as Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts.

It might be helpful if any editors endorsing the close could state if they think it is ok for Jewish MS to remain in a sub-category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, or, if not what they think should be done to resolve the situation. Johnbod 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for closing this early; it wasn't clear what you were intending to nominate. -Amarkov moo! 02:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Now, endorse rename. As the closing admin said, nobody actually advocated Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts, and there was no consensus to include the "other" phasing. Disagreeing with the people who didn't want it is not enough to overturn. -Amarkov moo! 02:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment:This was written before most of my reasons had been added! Johnbod 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured I have read them. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not at all obvious why someone would try to include Jewish manuscripts in this category. -Amarkov moo! 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They are already there, in Category:Illuminated biblical manuscripts. Please read the above. Johnbod 02:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But that category isn't even mentioned in your nomination. Why is it relevant, and why does that mean that Jewish manuscripts will be included in this category? -Amarkov moo! 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified, I hope. All the editors in the last debate who supported Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts understood, I hope, that this only made sense as a head category. The great majority of Christian Illuminated MS are in other categories, as explained above. This is not about renaming, but re-organizing, but they presumably were unaware that the re-organization they wanted would once again bring the Jewish MS under this category. If you prefer, another way to look at it is that this closure has left a category called Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts, which currently contains only 29 of the 126 Christian Illuminated manuscript articles, the others (and some Jewish ones) being in the more precise categories. Johnbod 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Perhaps I'm missing it, but I'm not seeing the procedural issue with the closure. What I see in this nomination above is merely a request to renominate a category for a different rename. Why don't you just do that, and nominate the new Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts for renaming? I believe (hopefully) that I made it clear in the closure that adding a "modifying word" (such as "miscellaneous" or "other") had No consensus. That means that you can renominate concerning that, if you wish, in the hopes of generating consensus from further discussion. (Just be aware for the future that repeatedly renominating in a short period of time "could" be considered disruptive.) I also might disagree with how you characterise the discussion, but I'll leave you entitled to your opinion and perspective. - jc37 06:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As you say "renominating in a short period of time "could" be considered disruptive" - I personally strongly disapprove of many such renomimations, or near renominations, so believe here is the place to raise the matter. In the first place you closed supporting a clear minority, without stating a reason. By the time you closed, the implications for the Jewish MS had been mentioned, so that you should have been aware that the rename you chose would be simply inaccurate, either because A) if the sub-categories were left where they were, the great majority of "Christian Illuminated manuscripts" would not in fact be in this category, or B) if the sub-categories were rearranged (as the three editors in favour of that explicitly said they wanted) then the category would also contain Jewish manuscripts. The rename you chose simply does not work. You could and should have closed the whole debate as no consensus, if for some reason (never explained) you did not want to support in favour of the majority. Johnbod 11:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First, just a reminder: CfD is not a "vote", it's a discussion. So words such as "majority" aren't helpful. But let's humor the supposition. Even if we were to "count votes" as you seem to wish to: 5 editors said rather clearly either that they didn't wish the modifying word, or specifically selected Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts. Compare this to the 3 (including you) who wanted a modifying word. So much for the "majority/minority" argument. And since there was obvious consensus that a rename was wanted, and since there was no consensus to add a modifying word, removing a modifying word - other/(miscellaneous)- leaves us with an overwhelming consensus that at least Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts should be the name. And this is only if we "count votes". I'm a strong proponent of the idea that majority does not necessarily equal consensus. I did a fair amount of reading of the other discussions before closing this. Hence my comment in the closure that much of the argument was concerned about what articles should go where. However, sorting the articles was irrelevant to the discussion, except in argument for the modifying word, which (as noted) had no concensus. So that leaves us with the question of whether the category should be renamed. As already noted, that had rather clear consensus. Even in looking at your preferences in this DRV nomination you prefer a rename as two options before suggesting keeping to the previous name. As someone said above, disagreeing isn't enough. You need a consensus of editors. Again, if you want to see some modifying word added to the category's name, please feel free to renominate. - jc37 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is distorting the discussion. Three editors supported Category:Christian illuminated manuscripts and all stated clearly they favoured re-organizing the sub-categories. Only one edited after it was pointed out that if the categories were re-organized as they wanted, the category would contain Jewish as well as Christian Manuscripts. Four editors supported the nomination. To say that a comment in favour of a particular rename is a comment in favour of any rename is ridiculous. Sorting the articles is not "irrelevant to the discussion", it was the only reason for the nomination, and was given as the reason for their comment by the three minority editors. Johnbod 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Distorting the discussion? No, I think you're seeing what you want to see. But be that as it may, if the DRV results in "relist", that's essentially "renominating", so I'm not sure what you're attempting to achieve here. - jc37 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Relist It seems clear from the above discussion that there was no consensus. DGG 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse CfD closure I agree with jc37; a further CfD nomination can be undertaken to clarify these issues without resort to DRV. I appreciate Johnbod's desire to avoid "disruptive" behavior; he should rest assured that a new CfD on the unaddressed issues would not be so considered. Xoloz 14:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

There was a page written about an influential gay rights activist in northeastern Ohio, and at first it was done poorly, but the final version of the article was done quite well and in good taste. I currently have the final copy in my files, so I can show it if need be. Please allow this to continue to stay on wikipedia. Thank you. --The909 01:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Moved here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active. Note: This seems to about the A7 speedy, not the 2005 AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 01:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, looks like a valid A7 to me; the article is a short biography without anything that would pass as an assertion of notability, except for maybe how he died (but that would be a huge stretch, and although they're not required, there are no sources). And actually, on second look, this might even be a thinly veiled attack page. --Coredesat 04:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Looks like a valid A7 to me. Deleted by four separate admins, every single version appears to be the work of a single purpose account and given that he first version was by user:JachWhite there must be a strong suspicion that the subsequent versions were also autobiographical. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid A7 as well as recreation of deleted material. If there is anything, cite reliable sources in your userspace and we'll have another look here, WP:RS, WP:N, etc. Moreschi ^Talk 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, since I probably shouldn't endorse my own speedy deletion: I've made a copy of the last version of the article I deleted at User:Kinu/Zach White. I plan on deleting that page after this deletion review closes (obvious reasons aside, since it doesn't contain the proper GFDL history), but anyway, my point is... read it. It was a clear CSD A7, and given the lack of any sources, I would say that a majority of it falls under CSD G10 as an attack page as well. Given WP:AGF, there really isn't much more I'm going to say about that... --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Don't see a problem with the procedure of AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)