Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 30

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

Unjustified, inadequate time for discussion, and Admin CoI NBeale 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC). I must declare an interest because I am the subject of the article! But I think the decision is wrong both in substance and procedure. In substance there are plenty of refs for notability including 2 books, publication in Harvard Business Review and Sunday Times etc.. and was independently rated in the top 25% of all rated WP Bio articles. But the process is also deeply problematic:

1. The AfD was listed on 27 April by an experienced Editor who has reverted many of my edits but as the subject of the article I was not notified.
2. The debate was closed after 3 days so there was inadequate time to comment.
3. The Admin who closed the debate was actively disagreeing with my edits on the Atheism article which he was working hard (and successfully) to promote to FA status and therefore was not impartial. Sorry that was a misunderstanding, it was a separate admin

I respectfully request re-instatement and at least adequate time for AfD discussion. NBeale 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And at the risk of stating the obvious, my "vote" is Relist and allow new AfD to run a full 5 days. NBeale 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone can nominate any article for deletion. My reasons were valid and had nothing to do with you, but with the article. It was closed in an orderly and timely fashion by an uninvolved editor. It was inappropriate for you to use a sock/meatpuppet to vote Keep in the AFD as you did. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 23:12Z

• I'll admit that this comment owes more to personal indignation than anything else, but your last statement above is completely inaccurate; NBeale and I have not communicated regarding the deletion of this article, or indeed regarding this article at all. I'm happy to admit to having a particular set of interests (these and my motivations may easily be observed from this article's discussion page) and I'm reasonably willing to provide personal details if that would help to allay your concerns, but I vehemently deny the charge of being any form of puppet. Chiinners 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Chiinners created the article and voted keep on the AfD it seems reasonable to count him as Relist NBeale 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it wasn't closed in a proper and timely fashion. In fact, it was closed early, most likely due to an improper snowball. But if Ryulong comes up and has a good reason for snowballing the debate, then I'll vote to endorse it. However, I am disturbed by Brian's assumptions -- you must assume good faith on behalf of editors. Just because someone has a SPA does not mean their vote doesn't count. Furthermore, you can't just go labeling someone a sockpuppet if it isn't proven. Have you done a request for check-user on Chiinners? Because if not, it is extremely inappropriate for you to assume and label him as such. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• The checkuser request was denied because it's not important enough. This is an obvious case of meatpuppetry, or deranged sockpuppetry. I've never seen a new account start an article on another editor, then never edit again, while that 2nd editor makes a dozen expansions to his new article; then during the AFD the original creator account edits again, to vote Keep in the AFD. See Wikipedia:Single purpose account. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 02:58Z

• No, it's not an obvious case of "meatpuppetry, or deranged sockpuppetry." If it were, the RFCU would have been fulfilled. I urge you again to assume good faith, and just assume that Chiinners is not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. SPAs are not evil. Yes, they exist, and yes, sometimes they're sockpuppets, but just because one voted on an AfD page does not mean that the vote is discounted. It's also important to remember that while I'm making my point using a policy, you're making one using an essay. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is obvious, and RFCU only gets involved when necessary, not for just any requests. They didn't get involved in this case because the article was deleted and the AFD was closed. I'm not making my point using an essay, I just linked to an essay for further reading. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 17:51Z

• Rockstar - pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by a "request for check-user"? Also, is there a standardised way of asserting my independent identity on Wikipedia? I ask mainly because my alleged puppetry seems to be a major point of dispute here ... Chiinners 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• See Request for Checkuser. This is a procedure where logs can be checked to determine if teo different editors are usign the same or simialr IP addresses. Its use is limited to a very few trusted people, fo porivicy reasons, and to limited purposes. DES ^(talk) 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist the original AfD and let it run for another two days. No reason to close this early. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, for how else can anyone judge?DGG 01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, and let it run for five days this time. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• This is not the place to debate whether the person is notabel or not, although from a quick look at the deleted version, it does not look like a clear-cut no, nor an overwhelming yes. Relist and let run for the full time to get as wide a consensus as possible. DES ^(talk) 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete - The AfD was correctly filed and the consensus on lack of notability would seem valid. Only "keep" in the discussion was from a (very) low-edit count user who created the article also pops up here though not clear what bridges these two together for the sock/meat accusation. The relist request and the "canvassing" of the deletion admin is actually from the subject of the article himself also which feels like a very bad case of WP:COI. Ttiotsw 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are three aspects of your comment that trouble me. First off, COI is not a reason to delete an article; if you feel an article might not have a neutral point of view, you can submit it to an article review on its talk page or a RfC. But you don't delete an article if it is a possible conflict of interset. Secondly, the idea that an editor with a "low-edit count" does not have an equal say in an AfD is absolutely unfounded (it should also be noted that a RFCU was declined). Finally, the AfD was obviously snowballed by Ryulong, as it was only open three days (instead of five). Four delete votes and one keep hardly seems evidence enough to snowball an AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 02:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• AfD are not decided as a voting system and editors need not be considered equally (Quotemining WP:AFD..."The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." and "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted...". Read what I said - the COI was about the "relist request" and partisan "canvassing". Read WP:COI (a guideline, yes, but "you should avoid or exercise great caution when: 1. editing articles related to you, your organization, .... and 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization ...". Your claim of snowballed by Ryulong has nothing to do with me. Ttiotsw 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I realize that AfDs aren't decided on votes, they're decided on consensus. Snowballing occurs when there is obvious consensus, which there wasn't in this case. It has everything to do with what you said. Furthermore, I've read COI many times, and just because it urges you not to write on your own article does not mean that you can't. Finally, there is no evidence of canvassing. Care to provide some? Rockstar (^T/_C) 14:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please undelete me to Brian0918 (mistaken identity as the deleting admin) then Please undelete me to Ryulong (the real deleting admin; no other requests therefore partisan. Ttiotsw 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Still not seeing a problem. COI, yes, but as we all know COI isn't a reason for deleting an article. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse delete / Do not relist. Consensus was already clear from the original discussion; undeleting to relist for 2 more days is a waste of time when non-notability and consensus to delete is already obvious through quick examination. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:55Z
• Procedural overturn because I don't see a basis for the early closure. However, let's not waste too much time by sending it back to AfD for what currently would still be a delete result. Instead, userfy for now to allow for additional sourcing and evidence of notability, at which time the article can be re-posted in mainspace and if necessary re-listed at AfD. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The question of notability was extensively discussed in the talk page of the article, and there was (I think) consensus that there were 7 or more claims to notability, any 2-3 of which would have been enough. All of this can be reviewed in a proper AfD debate - the discussion is invisible at present because the article was prematurely deleted. I don't think it's WP:CIVIL to rush this^[1] or prejudice the outcome with a userfy, nor to WP:BITE User:Chiinners who has explained his motivations in creating this his first article on its talk page and clarified his slight relationship with me (the subject). Also this puppet/soliciting business is absurd - the first I knew of this AfD was after it had been prematurely closed and had I been aware of it I would certainly have contributed vigorously to it! NBeale 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This discussion is separate from that "consensus" discussion. Everyone here and at AFD is capable of judging notability on their own. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 13:44Z
• Relist AfD. Needs the minimum five days of review until final decision by closing admin. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Do not relist, what's the point of giving it two extra days if the outcome is abundantly clear? "Undelete so we can delete it properly this time" is nothing but red tape. >Radiant< 10:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment we should be fair to people, even if we think that a fair process would lead to the same outcome as one that is clearly unfair and doesn't follow the policy. If we have a proper 5-day-min AfD debate and people are guided by the evidence and the references I'm quite confident what the outcome will be. At the moment, as DGG says, we need to Relist, for how else can anyone judge? And I really don't think it is COI for the subject of the article (me) to raise legitimate concerns about the fairness of a decision.NBeale 14:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You've never seen an AfD rescued in its fifth day? I sure have. Rockstar (^T/_C) 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I have, but that's entirely beside the point. Because of this DRV, the page already has had more than five days' worth of discussion, so putting it back to "complete" the "five days" is pointless. Don't follow rules for the sake of following rules. WP:NOT a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist, as there seems some doubt about the fairness of the procedure, even if there is little doubt about the (lack of) worth of the article. Nothing to lose by relisting. Gnusmas 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete Notability was always extemely marginal but I wish the AfD had been allowed to run its full course as NBeale is a tenacious editor. Sophia 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse delete. The article was riddled with conflict-of-interest issues, with the subject of the article writing most of the content, and the copious pleading by NBeale on this page tends to confirm me in my suspicions about the article. Wikipedia is not a place for posting your blog, your CV or your largely unverified autobiography. Snalwibma 18:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Change of mind: having thought about it, this is the only fair way of dealing with this. But I am concerned about the possibility that the AfD debate will be skewed by numerous contributions from a range of sockpuppets/meatpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and NBeale's friends and relations. Previous AfDs that NBeale has been involved in appear to have suffered from vote-stacking in this way, and I would expect the same to happen in this case. Just something to bear in mind in assessing the outcome! Snalwibma 08:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

extract from Policy "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". FWIW the material was verified in Debretts etc.. but that's a q for the AfD debate. The point here is that closing it after 3 days was clearly an "error in process" NBeale 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Debretts is not a reliable source. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-01 22:17Z

Why on earth not? It's certainly published and "The selection of entrants is made by the editorial staff of Debrett's and entries are reviewed annually to ensure accuracy and relevance." NBeale 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Debretts certainly lists people Wikipedia will consider notable, but not all of the people Debretts lists can automatically be considered notable. They must be handled on a per-case basis. It's the same way as with the Find-A-Grave project on WP:MEA. They gave us their complete list of 40,000+ famous people, and now we're going through that list and separating out people who are most likely to be the least notable. Their list is also created and reviewed by their staff, but we don't assume that everyone in their list is compatible with our site. We handle the subjects on a per-case basis. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-02 13:24Z

• Relist to be fair. I'm not sure, but I think this is a situation where we should respect process. This issue has greatly upset NBeale, and he believes a proper judgement of the sources would establish notability. Whatever the result of an AfD, it is important that he doesn't see this as some conspiracy against him. --Merzul 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist- As one who had no previous involvement with this debate (indeed, who came across this review at the 'tail end'), it seems there are several matters which need to be clarified. Apparently, Wikipedia needs to establish firm criteria for who would be considered 'notable,' and whether it would be appropriate for an author of an article to present himself in this category. Perhaps there need to be procedures where those wishing to be considered notable should require review by a disinterested party. I also gather that, in this particular case, it is not the credentials, book publications, or autobiographical information which are in question, except that they do not generally relate to achievements as a social philosopher but rather in business. However, an editor with whom there is a debate about atheism, where the other party is hotly opposing him, perhaps cannot be considered disinterested either. I believe there is no reason not to relist the article, and that there is sufficient material for the subject to qualify as notable, my only reservation being whether it might appear that the designation as social philosopher seems self-applied. (Other qualifications are amply documented, IMO.) Gloriana35 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Gloriana35

Wow - second ever wiki edit and you seem to know an awful lot about the background to this article and its subject. Sophia 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, Sophia, it's important to assume good faith. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget that you may be new to a problem without knowing all the background - this is exactly what happened on the last AfD we were involved in with NBeale. I see you as someone who wishes due process to run its proper course which is something I can whole heartedly agree on. Hijacking the process by vote stacking with friends is not what this is supposed to be about. We don't need to assuming good faith to the point of naiveness. Sophia 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not naive if it's not proven. If you think that we're dealing with a sockpuppet, request for a check-user. Until then, don't chastise someone for having few edits. If Nicholas Beale is notable (and I don't know if he is or not), then it is entirely possible for someone from the outside world to come in and know about his history. Naive? Possibly. But at least it's not shortsighted. Any closing admin should be able to see through sockpuppetry and evaluate the arguments on their merit. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser will show nothing as I am sure this is a meatpuppet. I was not chastising them for having few edits - I was making a pointed observation that yet again a new editor turns up who is fully briefed on the situation. Coincidence - maybe. Abuse of process - probably. If he is vote staking now how can we be sure any relisted article would truely represent his notability? Sophia 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why bad faith is assumed on my part. I had previously read the article itself, and also the comments on this very thread about the conflict over the 'atheism' article. It is quite true that I have not been editing on Wikipedia - though I intend to do so soon - but that does not mean I am not a reader. Notice that this is not 'stacking' votes. The information given about Mr Beale's background in business, and publication of his books, seemed to allow at least consideration of being 'notable,' though I believe there is no clear procedure in this area (and there is a need for such parameters.) I did not see that the qualifications listed were related to being a 'social philosopher,' (none of the books, articles, or references showed such a qualification) nor do I believe it appropriate in most cases for a self-composed article to list someone as notable without further review. My point here is that there need to be clearer, well delineated procedures. I would think that, in any case where anyone wrote an article about himself, there would need to be (as I said above) review by a disinterested party. Gloriana35 22:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Gloriana35

I have not assumed bad faith but I will admit that I assumed you were encouraged to visit this debate. So I'll ask the pointed question - do you know Nicholas Beale either personally or professionally? This is important to establish a potential conflict of interest. Sophia 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of relationships Gloriana35 became an e-correspondent following the House of Lords Colloquium on the Ethical and Spiritual Implications of the internet^[2]. We exchange 1-2 emails/month, occasionally read eachother's blogs, and have met over the 10 years on 8-10 occasions: sadly we live in different continents. Gloriana is a very considerable thinker esp. in Mediaeval philosophy and religion whose contributions to WikiPedia would add a great deal of value - please remember WP:BITE and that people study WikiPedia without necessarily editing it. Equally Sophia has frequently disagreed with me strongly on WikiPedia, as have Ttiotsw and Brian0918 - so have Merzul and Snalwibma and I applaud and thank them for their objective stances in this discussion. NBeale 11:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Yung Joc has confirmed in several interviews that this album will be released, and the first single "Coffee Shop" has been released and is gaining some buzz. Undelete, or at least Unprotect so someone with better information can restore it. Tom Danson 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, not a valid speedy for A7. If this should be deleted, it should be discussed at AfD, not done via an improper A7 speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy - no assertion of notability - no sources - no encyclopaedic content. Good deletion. However, I'm willing to consider allowing a re-write if any of assertions in this request can be verified.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • An album is a "person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content?" Keep in mind, too, that Yung Joc is a Grammy-nominated artist, which shouldn't be relevant to this, but probably will be for the folks who need to justify this mistake. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can't imagine how on earth you could justify this with A7. Just echoing above, an album is not a valid reason for A7. That said, even using a broad interpretation of A7, how could notability not have been asserted? It's an album by a multi-platinum hip hop artist? Being unreferenced or failing WP:MUSIC is never a criteria for speedy deletion. Period. Screw verifiability for the moment; take it to an AfD if you don't like it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This MTV article notes that "Hustlenomics" is the title of Yung Joc's upcoming album. JavaTenor 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another article from VIBE mentioning the title. JavaTenor 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I found an MTV source. Like all "upcoming-stuff" articles, this should be closely watched for unsourced info, but it's certainly not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Albums, books, and the like are not appropriate for speedy. Saying something is released or published or about to be is an assertion of notability. It may not be N, according to our rules, and a good many of such subjects aren't, but that has to be determined. I would normally take such items to prod first, and remember to notify the eds. involved so they could add the information that might be needed. DGG 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. If deletion is to be discussed, AfD would be the appropriate place. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, not even remotely a valid A7. And, while I'm certainly not a process wonk, I am getting very tired of the ongoing misapplication of A7. Furthermore, there seem to some quite decent arguments raised for undeletion in this particular case. List it at AfD if you want, but lets try not to turn deletion into a pure matter of admin whim, TYVM. Xtifr _tälk 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Could somebody please close the discussion? The overwhelming majority is in favor of the article being restored and relisted at AfD, so could we please make that happen? Tom Danson 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's probably not happening because of Doc Glasgow's vote. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well then, if Doc isn't willing to listen to the consensus, he is unfit to be an admin, therefore, I would open up his desysopping case. (Not meant to disrupt) Tom Danson 20:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's because DRVs generally stay open for 5 days. It'll be closed tomorrow and the article will be replaced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. James Andrews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Most notable sports surgeon working today - a number of people are looking for information about him. Would recommend adding some information from this page: http://www.asmoc.com/getpage.php?name=andrews SteveA3 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete but blank and start from scratch. The reasoning from the closing administrator seems to be that there were content issues on this article - and that he was willing to put it in the userspace in order to provide reference to create a new article. However, Jimbo Wales, if there are content issues, has a history of just blanking the page, or cutting it to a stub: [1]. In order to keep the history, it seems best to undelete,, but start over, as in that article. 64.178.96.168 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally think history is overrated. If you want to recreate the page from scratch, just click the link above and start a new page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• But don't include "Dr." in the article title. Corvus cornix 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Amen! Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn altogether. As I remember the article and the discussion, there were fully sufficient sources for notability. I do not see the point of sacrificing work that has already been done. Content issues are for the article talk page.DGG 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per my comments on the AfD. Retitle per MoS and add additional information and sources. (Stir liberally, feeds six.) Newyorkbrad 03:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Newyorkbrad. This is one of (if not #1) the most notable sports doctors in the country. As someone else mentioned on the AFD, this is the doctor whose name you do not want connected with your favorite player because it means they need serious work. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and improve; he's probably the single most prominent figure in sports medicine today. Would be better located at James Andrews (doctor) or some similar title, though, per MOS. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I don't see the procedural issue here. If you want to improve the article and return it into article space, this can be done without a DRV. Just ask the closing admin to userfy. ~ trialsanderrors 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. As the closing admin said: while there has been effort to clean this article up WP:BLP, WP:NPF and WP:NPOV are paramount, no article is better than a poor article. This deletion doesnt preclude any future article, I'm willing to restore and move into userspace the content of this article for any editor doing so. Seems fair. There was only one valid Keep in that debate anyway, as far as I can see. Note, too, that the requester here looks suspiciously like a sock of the article's author (and author of just about every edit on that article). Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Shadow Raiders planets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Firstly, no consensus was yet achieved. If anything, this page should have been relisted. Secondly, of the three keep votes for this page, most did not properly quote policy. We have:

1. Keep - nominator gives no deletion rationale, and remember: WP:NOT#PAPER. Topic appears notable enough, merging wouldn't help. Matthew 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

   Officially quotes a policy, but WP:NOT#PAPER seems like a policy quoted to justify keeping absolutely anything. What's more, the nominator did give a rationale: WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOT an indescriminate list of things, which was not addressed.

2. Keep Topic notable enough. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

   WP:JNN. Saying it's notable means nothing, not backed up.

Again, even if these were valid arguments, there was not enough time to achieve consensus. And this list is indeed very "crufty" - it's for a television series that lasted one year! I would go ahead and mass nominate all the planets for AFD, but I don't know how to do a mass nomination, and I'm anonymous. 64.178.96.168 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - Consensus was reached, deleters didn't give any reason with so substance... so consensus seems reached to me. Matthew 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Matthew, you'll have to pardon me, but it looks like we're talking past each other here. I have said that you didn't provide any reason, and you said the deleters didn't provide any reason. But the point is consensus was most certainly not reached. 64.178.96.168 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't find consensus, the closing admin almost always defaults to keep. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The closing of the AfD was proper. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse There was nothing wrong with the closure. Renominate with a better rationale if you want to get this deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. But if I was the closing admin, I would have let the AfD go a little longer. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

He is still active in Canadian politics and plans to run in the next federal election, He is also a defendant in one of the many libel suits by Wayne Crookes that includes Wikipedia as a defendant

• Speedy undelete, prod deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yup speedy undelete it because it was a prod deletion. Then let's see if it should be speedied or AfD'd. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Restored and sent to AFD. Naconkantari 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

article got biased debate Neil zusman 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I disagree with the nom here as to the why, but this is a pretty interesting case. When you have multiple people yelling "neologism" when the concept dates back over 150 years, you have to weight that properly. Combine that with the scholar/books links and there's no consensus for deletion here. Revisit it in a month if it's got no chance of cleanup, but don't delete it based on that discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, article was a completely POV OR essay that was redundant to book burning. Closer made the right call. Hopefully the cached version will appear soon for non-admins, otherwise I'll restore the history behind a tag later if no one else does. --Coredesat 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Plus: neologism or not, you can't kill something inanimate. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion This was thoroughly discussed at the AfD, which went on for much longer than usual. It was a POV essay and an unnecessary duplicate of Book burning. --Folantin 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion in my understanding to not be considered a neologism it needs to be generally understood has always have been a "real" word. Age is only indirectly related to that, and of the four dictionaries I just checked, only wiktionary mentions it as "rare". AFD was conducted properly. --pgk 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - perhaps a valid article can be written about the book, "Libricide," but the article as it stood was redundant and parroting - it was essentially regurgitating the arguments made in the book, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FCYTravis 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. Perhaps book burning might be renamed "here", but that's a separate issue. (As for --badlydrawnjeff, the difference in concept between book burning and libricide has only existed for a few years, if that long.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid AfD, hopelessly POV and soapboxy article, and if you cut the junk you'd be left with just a dubious dicdef. It's apparently already at Wiktionary, so unless someone can write a better article by far, we don't need it here. Moreschi ^Talk 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid AfD, no reason given to overturn: How was the debate "biased"? In what way? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was not really a neologism, it was an article about a concept discussed elsewhere, and unique content should have been merged in. Taking only subjects and giving them additional new names does not warrant a new article in WP, just Wiktionary. DGG 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AfD closure was valid. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against making it into a redirect. I partly agree with badlydrawnjeff in this doesn't seem to be quite as clear a case of neologism as some suggested at AfD, but that point was raised early on, and seems to have been given due consideration. I also agree with Pkg that age alone does not make something not a neologism, and most importantly, I agree with the several people who have suggested (both at the AfD and here) that we already have adequate coverage of the topic, and that a separate article at this name smacks strongly of POV-fork (or at least, pointless content fork). Bottom line, the consensus at AfD was clear, and nom's accusations of bias seem to lack any foundation, and smack of incivility and lack of good faith. All that said, I think a redirect seems like a very reasonable idea. Xtifr _tälk 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid closure, valid arguments of this being a POV-fork, so just make a redirect to Book burning, and if there is any difference between the terms it can be explained there, but having a separate article is not acceptable. --Merzul 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Overturn: This deletion was not "nearly unanimous agreement" (as mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs). He is obviously notable just by how much debate his controversy's have generated on his AfD page. Plus, he has ties to spiritual channellers Paul Shockley, David Worcester, and Ralph Duby (all outlined at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley for now, pending article rewrite). -Eep² 03:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Plus, I find it odd that, for a satirical organisation as the Church of the SubGenius, this person isn't notable with respect to that "church". Seems like the "church" can't take what it dishes out... Hypocracy? -Eep² 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Listen to Cosmic Horizons with James Haarp: Bob Dobbs where Dobbs explains his non-affiliation with J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. -Eep² 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Watch Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer: Bob Dobbs, 10/12/06 where Dobbs explains his history. The guy's notable, even if what he says is bogus. -Eep² 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Read Paranoia Magazine: Synchronistic Linguistics in 'The Matrix': Or How Bob Dobbs Became the Tetrad Manager by Robert Guffey. Obviously, if anything, Dobbs is notable for exposing Marshall McLuhan to a greater audience (subculture, underground, punk, whatever) via Flipside (fanzine) and his controversy with SubGenius. -Eep² 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: More articles: Paranoia Magazine: The Death of 'The Matrix': A Dialogue With Bob Dobbs

• The Argonaut: Archivist Dobbs talks McLuhan theory at Bergamot Station in Santa Monica, University of Toronto: The Legacy of McLuhan: Symposium Participants

"Bob Dobbs was born in Paris and after World War Two worked with international intelligence agencies for many decades. He surfaced in 1987 on CKLN-FM in Toronto and began whistle-blowing. Two interpretations of Dobbs are circulating in the popular media: one is through the Church of the SubGenius that Dobbs inspired in 1978 in Dallas; the other is on two CDs, Bob's Media Ecology and Bob's Media Ecology Squared, put out in 1992 by Time Again Productions, early students of Marshall McLuhan. The best presentation of Dobbs' work is in his book, Phatic Communion with Bob Dobbs. Today, he travels the world explaining his/our victory over the Android Meme, and the tracings of these activities are regularly published in Flipside magazine."

• Toronto Globe: Things get ugly in the world of underground art - about Bob Dean/Marshall claiming to be Dobbs and its controversy

All of these articles show Dobbs/whoever's notability. Do a Google search for more, if you like. -Eep² 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Los Angeles Times: A Reading Club That's Getting Nowhere Fast, June 27, 1996 mentions Dobbs as a McLuhan archivist and Finnegans Wake fanatic; nothing about the SubGenius (at least in the abstract anyway). I am not proposing his article be restored as an affiliation of SubGenius (but his impostering of that "Bob" should be mentioned in Dobbs' proper's article. -Eep² 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Open CKLN: Bob Dobbs and Myke Dyer from a CKLN Archive Show from December 12, 1990, September 17, 2006 - if anything, Dobbs is notable for being on CKLN for at least 4 years (more interviews/appearances). All of these meet WP:BIO notability guidelines (despite the misleading "policy" redirect).-Eep² 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 8Bit: The Rebirth of Bob Dobbs: Man, Myth, Hologram (date unknown), RockCritics: nowhere to run, nowhere to hide: an interview with bob dobbs, Scott Woods (date also unknown), Cloak and Dagger: Guest: Bob Dobbs, The Varsity: From Sound Bytes to Insights: New festival asks, "Why McLuhan and why now?", 10/25/2004, Marshall McLuhan/Finnegans Wake Reading Club: Events Archives: Def Con Bob and ROBERT DOBBS in dialogue with Gerry Fialka promotions, and WBAI Radio: It's Time to Vote: Robert Dean (legit?). If the article won't be restored as "Bob Dobbs", I'll simply create a new article at Robert Dean (whatever) that will show his fradulent affiliations as some claim--the point is, he is notable--even as a fraud (if true). -Eep² 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dobbs/Dean/Marshall (whatEVER!) appeared with Eben Rey on Radio Alchymy on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles on May 3, 2007 at 3-4AM about the android meme, how to communicate without attachment, and explains the concept of media self-destruction. Listen to it here. Dobbs has been on Radio Alchymy 24 times since 2000.[2] -Eep² 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion. The exact text of the deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Dobbs) was: "There is nearly unanimous agreement, excluding SPAs and newbies, that this gentleman fails WP:BIO, and the current article sorely lacks WP:V." This is exactly how it was. This Deletion Review is little more than a troll anyways, as User:Eep²'s talk page shows him to be having trouble adjusting to Wikipedia: he has already used his user page to "preserve" two articles (Eep and Paul Shockley that had previously been deleted.)

As for "Bob Dobbs" (nee Bob Dean) himself, he's a guy who's done nothing but talk about himself, himself, and himself for the past twenty years, while making up outlandish stories about himself in a forlorn attempt to convince people he's important. This is why the article was deleted: in addition to its lack of notability, no one was able to verify Dean's ridiculous claims. Instead, they kept whining about the Church of the SubGenius' evil suppression of such a great man...someone who is so great, he has to resort to making up stuff about himself. Eight months later, the same arguments are being used -- even though this doesn't change the fact that Bob Dean (or Dobbs) is not notable, and his claims are not verifiable. The two podcast links provided by Eep² don't change this; in fact, Eep² himself notes right above: "...even if what he says is bogus." --Modemac 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn original deletion. Verifiability does not equal Truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivan Stank (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Probable sock puppet. Edit history shows the only contribution of this account is to this deletion review. --Modemac 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn original deletion. One hundred years from now Bob Dobbs will be more relevant than the Church of the SubGenius. --Ivan Stank 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate "overturn" struck out. --Coredesat 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse original deletion. This review is making my head hurt, but the original article was nonsense. I support the creation of a neutral article. Ichormosquito 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. Are we simply voting to delete a redirect page? The article is here now: J. R. "Bob" Dobbs Ichormosquito 11:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, the article is pretty funny. I hope someone can make it neutral. Ichormosquito 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we're voting to retain the deletion of an ego page that a wanna-be "media ecologist" created about himself back in August. No one was able to verify the wild claims of the person in question (Bob Dean), and when asked to do so they whined that the Church of the SubGenius was coming down on him because of his use of the name "Bob Dobbs" (which he used in an attempt to make people think the Church is all about him). So the article was deleted for WP:V and WP:BIO.--Modemac 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid close of mostly-valid AfD (the exception being some decidedly odd comments). As the article said, While not widely recognized in the mainstream... Quite so. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It doesn't matter if what Dobbs said was true in order to be notable. Just the fact that he has caused all of this controversy is notable in itself! Even if it's all a lie, so what? There are plenty of notable fictionalists in Wikipedia... -Eep² 11:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean doesn't claim his lies are fiction, he's trying to pass them off as the truth. That's so what. --Modemac 12:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Uh, again, so what? Lots of conspiracy theorists do that. So long as the article remains neutral, what's the big deal? -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: While I think the whole thing is funny as hell, it's very likely not encyclopedic to talk about the Church of the Subgenius at all except in a survey article about hoax religions. Regardless, I'm afraid I must elect not to make any meaningful opinion known due to conflict of interest. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Um, with that mentality, you might as well delete all religion, science, and philosophy-related articles on Wikipedia. -Eep² 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stand back, you sandal-wearing, goatcheese-chewing dupe! Think you I am a non slacker? Eat me. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Um...yea. And this is the kind of people who don't want the Bob Dobbs article restored? I never understood the whole slack movement anyway, but I still think Bob Dobbs is notable. -Eep² 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who'd have thunk you had no apparent sense of humor? Isn't DRV sort of antithetical to the Church? I am abstaining because I've always considered myself a member (huh huh, he said 'member). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close seems proper after discounting SPAs. --Coredesat 15:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Coredesat said it right -- and consensus, therefore, looked pretty good. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn original deletion. One simply do a search online to see the sheer amount of textual and audio work that Mr. Dobbs has created. There is also a film entitled 'Def Con Bob' that follows one of his lectures in L.A. It is ridiculous that this is even an issue and shows nothing but intolerance on the part of the Church of the SubGenius - a group reputedly famous for its hijacking of media and pranks. Without a Bob Dobbs article the whole of Wikipedia is, frankly, compromised. This author has just finished a 12,000 word interview with Mr. Dobbs, and represents one of many who consider Dobbs to be quite interesting and deserving of a Wikipedia article. If not Dobbs, then who? -User:Guestserviceinfinite (Talk | contribs) 08:32, May 1, 2007 (added by Eep² 03:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) from Bob Dobbs)

Probable sock puppet (again). Edit history shows the only contribution of this account is to this deletion review. --Modemac 09:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• You'll have to prove that. As for the argument about the subject having to have an article here, see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Guestserviceinfinite may be a sockpuppet or SPA - its only contribution is posting that comment in the wrong place. --Coredesat 03:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now now, Coredesat, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING is not Wikipedia policy or even a guideline; it's a collection of opinions. -Eep² 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING not being policy or a guideline, but it's still something to avoid. On the other hand, WP:V is a policy, so you'll still need to prove it with reliable sources. --Coredesat 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the claim; Guestserviceinfinite did. But I'll be sure to post on various Dobbs blogs about getting his followers/fans/whatever to post their support here, if you like. And then I'm sure you'll go to SubGenius sites and do the same. Wee...then what? Obviously, just this kind of tension is enough notability to have an article on Dobbs. Ridiculous all the oppression here... -Eep² 06:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this little discussion is already known on the SubGenius newsgroup alt.slack: [3]. We're just sitting back, watching, and laughing at the antics going on here. --Modemac 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion, although there might room to mention him in the Dobbs article proper. DS 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)