Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 11	Deletion review archives: February	February 13 >

[edit] 12 February 2007

Global Energy Network Institute – article recreated, we'll review a WP:CSD#G4 deletion if one happens and is brought here for review – GRBerry 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I need source to attempt to rewrite this article so that it will pass review. GENI has worked for over a decade with (among others) the IEEE (a respected engineering association), and has had numerous articles about it in various popular newspapers and magazines. Also, one of the "delete" editors is no longer with Wikipedia, so I would enjoy learning how to write in encyclopedic style to allow GENI to gain entry to this online encyclopedia, where it deserves to be. Please send source to pmd@geni.org Also, I was not notified that this article was deleted. Is there any way to be notified of impending deletion? Geni-pmd 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. While I'm not sure I like the AFD close (I would have relisted it), the article was spam, and possibly a G11 candidate if it had not been AFDed. --Core desat 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, keep rewritten version. Both delete votes in original discussion were based on a lack of notability being demonstrated, and the "Selected Media References" section of the rewritten article clearly shows that GENI has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself", as per Wikipedia:Notability. --Stormie 03:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I didn't realize I closed this (and wasn't informed either). Looking at it now it's still the same kind of company brochure it was before, and the supposed media references don't look convincing either, given that the institute tends to consider endorsements for Buckminster Fuller's initiatives as endorsements of their own, which is a pretty standard attempt to create notability by Halo effect. I'm also not sure why this is listed here since the article is already recreated (G4?). ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

George Martin Stephen – Mistaken deletion overturned by deleting admin – Amarkov moo! 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I believe this article was deleted in error. This article was about the head of St Paul's School (London) a notable educationalist and author. There was no discussion prior to the deletion. The deletion reason given was that it was an attack page. This was not the primary reason for the article. Any vandalism on this article should be reverted according to usual Wikipedia policies. This article should be reinstated as soon as possible. Vivenot 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and restore last good version. The vandalism should have been reverted instead of deleting the article outright. --Core desat 23:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; one of a long list of requests I handled that day, I neglected to check its page history. Restoration forthwith. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Harry_Colquhoun – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 21:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I was entering sources to show creditbility but due to the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryulong vendetta against me due to me correctly his many factual mistakes he decides to use his admin powers to ban me so that I can not make any changes then to my own talk page. I believe he took great delight in saying that it was only a biography, only a picture and only Wikipedia. I believe someone with this attitude should not be allowed to be an admin on Wikipedia. I had entered 3 independent sources and was adding more and then was prevented in doing anything else.

Thanks for listing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krome007 (talk • contribs).

Recuse (for now). I blocked the above user because he persistently harassed me because of my original deletion of the images under WP:CSD#I3 and then his incivility towards me. This individual would have been blocked for the duration of the AFD regardless, because of his original block by me on him due to incivility and then a subsequent unblock and reblock by Shreshth91 that I removed completely pending that this user, Krome007, remain civil for four days. When I saw that he had been incivil at the AFD towards my actions in dealing with the article. I nominated the article for deletion because it was a biography that did not support the notability of the individual, and it was deleted for that reason; not for some sort of "vendetta" that Krome continually refers to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and here are some abusive emails I've received from the individual. There was another one where he called me a prick and suggested that I contacted another user to comment at the AFD, all of which is fabricated.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
question I cannot tell what version was deleted--the cached version on Google is a one sentence attack page and properly deletable as such, but the page history might show otherwise. But if thats all there was it would be better to start over. DGG 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion ~~barring the deleted article being really good~~. If you want your article undeleted, the way to go about it is not to explain why the deletion was due to a personal vendetta by an incompetent admin. -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, since there was an AfD, you'll have to explain why the consensus was invalid. -Amarkov moo! 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion `'mikka 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jon morris(comedian) – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Could somone clarify why this was taken down so fast, only a few users asks for deletion and i thouight iut should be merge with joe morris the footblall player. if not maybe we have two people but i'd be willing to fix it Cluelessangel 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was on a subject separate from Joe Morris. It was deleted as failing to make any assertion of notability, under our speedy deletion criteria. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion `'mikka 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

WinLIKE – deletion endorsed among established editors. It might be possibile for an established editor with no conflict of interest to write a new article in user space applying the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test, then bring that for review – GRBerry 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Notability 84.185.211.19 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This article about WinLIKE was recently deleted: Deletion of WinLIKE. But this was against the rules of Wikipedia because it is relevant in the meaning of Notability. There was absolutely no research otherwise the Admins would have found the following press which are listed on the Companies website:

Network World US 2006
Network World US 2005
Internet Magazine UK 2004
ASP.NET professional Germany 2004
December 2003, iX, Germany, "Window Manager für Webanwendungen", page 26
May 9/2004, ct', Germany, "Fensterln im Browser", page 69
August 33/2004, Computerwoche, Germany, "Fenster für Web-Oberflächen", page 14
InternetWorld Germany 2004 page 78

Last four were newly discovered at 1/14/2007 (not online but scans on request...)
WinLIKE is a not easy to understand technology and people use Wikipedia to learn what it is. It is neutral and valuable article: WinLIKE at Answers.com
Note: This comment was subsequently edited by anon user:84.185.248.241 who may be the same as the user above

Endorse deletion, let's see a properly sourced article in userspace please. No procedural issues with AfD and the last two deleted versions were the work of an apparent single purpose account, which raises questions of possible conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is something not okay with the Notability? What's then your argument for a deletion? Ceiton 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and undelete, it is a typical article of an Encyclopedia which is of interest of the general public. It describes a technology and the context of it. Before deletion it was edited by a lot of different people around the globe! Translations in other languages were created by different people as well. There is no evidence for a conflict for interest. Ceiton 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ceiton is the creator of the article. The software is published by Ceiton Technologies. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, we initially created the page and that was never a secret. Is this not allowed or does this automatically mean that the article is not valuable? I guess Wikipedia has clear guides when an article is of interest -- and this article fulfills all requirements. The further editing and translating into foreign languages was done by different people over a long period of time. So it seems that the article is usefull for the readers as well as the editors. Ceiton 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    - You have a conflict of interest. Butt out. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      - You might think so. But thats not an argument to delete an article! Maybe it is an indicator for something--then you have to articulate your problems with the article. 84.185.247.198 12:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        It is, however, an argument for Ceiton to butt out of the debate. In many cases passionate defence from single-purpose accounts with a conflict of interest has the precise opposite of their desired result. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Probably you are right but that would mean that this discussion is an emotional one and not guided by rational arguments--what I would have expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.185.247.198 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Undelete, I'm a WinLIKE user and edited this article a few times. The AfD is weak because the less participants. Also there was a clear Keep and wrong argued Deletions (not notable). 83.221.86.35 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The keep was regarding the policy I cited being wrong, however, other users voted delete based on another (more appropiate) notability guideline. Computerjoe 's talk 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Undelete! The deletion of the description of technology, competing with the embed into IE viruses-main-source ActiveX seem to me an action of a corrapted fellow(s)! By the way, can those voted for deletion present windowed interfece based on Microsoft solution in no-big-money projects? And it took me just a few hours to embed WinLIKE into mine, with the budjet close to zero! For me the deletion of the WinLIKE article is a real help for Mr. Bill Gates to destroy one more competitor (howewer small it is!)!!!! Stasdm 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stasdm
Endorse Deletion Seems like a case of winLIKEIT! (I'm sorry - I couldn't resist). Actually seems a valid deletion from whats left on the AFD and we need some third party sources to judge notability. Spartaz 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The requested third party sources are noted above. 84.185.247.198 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
endorse Based on the company forums it appears that there are only a few users; based on the copy at the WP mirror at answers.com the article was advertising spam, and for what its worth, they have set up a wiki for product information which a/has almost no content and b/links to the deleted WP article. Not yet notable, reasonable close.DGG 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me when I see something wrong, but the size of a Software community doesn't seem to be a relevant criteria for Wikipedia. There are clear guides (see above and eg. Wikipedia:Notability (software)) which state clear: Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s). I guess this is clearly the case. And by the way more than 1,900 registered WinLIKE users, nearly 10,000 downloads a month and more than 2,500 forum posts is not really small.
  And where do you see spam at Answers.com? It is a objective and helpful article with valuable links to other topics which describe the software clearly in a context. It has the qualitity of a real Encyclopedia article and is made by a lot of different users in the past years. Do you want to say these are all spammers? Please stick to facts--Wikipedia is not a subjective playground! Ceiton 07:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Answers.com's article is copied from ours. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Unprotect and delete old revisions to allow new version that cites sources and satisfies notability guidelines to be written. The articles about this software in Network World and Internet Magazine were not present in the article when it was nominated for deletion. Neither were they made known to the commenters in the AfD. Thus the AfD consensus was based on incomplete information and should be overturned. The fact that someone apparently affiliated to the software's maker wrote the reposted version is significant but should not be factored against the actual (non-)notability of the software - WP:COI does not mandate deletion of articles in all cases. Note that I have undeleted the article history behind the "deletion review" notice. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted, proper AFD, looks like a lot of promotion. >Radiant< 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment The fourth article above is written by Tobias Soppa, who is also the author of WinLIKE, and thus should be discounted when considering notability. The third simply shows inclusion on a magazine cover CD which is purely a marketing exercise, and also irrelevant. The first and second 'articles', both by Mark Gibbs, are actually from a newsletter with no editorial oversight - essentially a blog. While less dubious than the other two attempts to pull the wool over our eyes, it does not constitute a reliable source in my opinion. CiaranG 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- 1. The fourth article is written by request of an independent publishing house. There is no reason or guideline why this should be discounted considering notability. 2. The third is not a CD cover. It is in A4 on a regular page in the middle of the magazine. You can see that when looking at the page numbers. Additionally the product was delivered on a CD with it's own cover. 3. The first and the second articles were also printed in the regular magazine. This is just the Internet version. Simply ask the author himself. Is this an execution or an fair discussion?! 84.185.247.198 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  - 1. Of course there is, it is not independent of the subject, 2. It's what I said it is, a cover-CD marketing exercise, 3. Which issues of the print version did they appear in? It is difficult to have a fair discussion with someone who has a clear conflict of interest, but I am trying. Please try and keep the relevant policies in mind. CiaranG 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    - ad 1: if the article wouldn't be independant it would not have been published. We did not paid for it. Just read it and you will see the article is absolutely neutral, no marketing! 2. It has also nothing to do with marketing. We were asked by a British editor whether he can write about WinLIKE and whether it is allowed to distribute WinLIKE. We said yes (see our WinLIKE press guideline) and did not paid for it. Absolutely no marketing! 3. I didn't recieved a hardcopy from the US. Again there is no reason to deny the significance of these article. Try to be objective - I am. Ceiton 12:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per my comments above. CiaranG 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, no procedural issue at AFD. The new sources are not sufficient to pass WP:SOFTWARE at this time (I'm willing to treat the Mike Gibbs articles as passing WP:RS -- there's nothing to support the idea that it has no editorial oversight -- but they're both the same source). --Dhartung | Talk 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have to concede there's no direct evidence for my statement about editorial oversight, but just for the record my opinion was supported by the fact that they have 50 such newsletters. That's pushing the 'non-trivial' a bit far for my personal liking when we're talking about notability requirements. CiaranG 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  - No, your oppinion is not supported by this fact. The job of a magazin author is to produce articles--more then one every day, every week, every month. Fifty is nothing! And of course in a magazine you can't expect a dissertation. So there is absolutly no reason for denying any significance of these articles. 84.185.247.198 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    - It would be more productive to turn up more such citations.--Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Thank you, I added the following three additional articles to list above. This are the largest German IT magazines: December 2003, iX, Germany, "Window Manager für Webanwendungen", page 26; May 9/2004, ct', Germany, "Fensterln im Browser", page 69; August 33/2004, Computerwoche, Germany, "Fenster für Web-Oberflächen", page 14. 84.185.248.241 11:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, but allow to be re-created. The Gibbs articles are non-trivial, they're almost "multiple" mentions, and they are, afaict, independent of the software's creators. Network World has over 50k inbound links per google. One article by another author in another widely-read industry publication would be enough for me to agree that this software is notable. Αργυριου (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Three more, all from foreign authors, are now added above. Ceiton 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Recreate I defended winlike in its first deletion review, failing to keep it. As the programme was actually notable. I was actually right but I was heavily critised for this. It is notable and fully able for wikipedia. Retiono Virginian 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Undelete!. The deletion of that article and following discussion made me feel disappointed and made me create a wikipedia account in order to tell you my opinion. As a newbie I am unfortunately in a bad position as I am considered to seem to write just another passionate defence using a single-purpose accounts and achieving the exact opposite of my intention.
So lets have a look at the facts:
- there is no reason to delete the article because of bad quality
-meanwhile we have 7 international magazine articles concerning WinLIKE which proof notability
- furthermore Google lists 125.000 entries for WinLIKE which proofs a certain public interest
- the deleted article was online for more than one and a half year and was translated into other languages and edited by different users
So obviously the requirements of notability are fulfilled. The only negative point I can see is that it was not correct that the article was created by CEITON itself. But so what .. how can we expect that each author is the perfect and correct wikipedia author from the beginning on. Don’t get me wrong - I respect the wikipedia policy and I respect the work of the administrators to keep up the quality of wikipedia. And therefore I expect that authors are supported to follow the policies and to get as much help as needed in order to write their articles conform to the policies and wikipedia guidelines. What makes me really disappointed is that inspite of the efforts of the author of the WinLIKE article to proof its notability – he is not supported at all! Unfortunately I have the impression some users made up their decision very fast and were not quite aware of their responsibility.
So I ask you all to think it over and to think of the idea of wikipedia which is not about easily deleting controversial articles but to help to ensure their quality I hope.
A last question as I am a new participant of wikipedia now .. in case the article would be deleted finally and I would rewrite it – would that make a difference? And if so … what sense would that make?
Think about it! FfileX 12:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The 8. article! I added another article to the list above: a Cover feature with 3 pages: InternetWorld Germany 2004... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.248.241 (talk • contribs)
Undelete!!!! It seems to me that those who decided to delete the WinLIKE article are too sensitive to criticism - so sensitive that that do not try to see anything behind the natural angry reaction from the opponent.
Well, this time I would not put their honesty for trial - just ask a few questions:
- Are there any other software solution, so easy and simple for creating windows inside open document?
- Are there any other software solution, so easy and simple for creating portal-like site w/o use of server-side?
- Are there any other software solution, combining both mentioned above merits, that are search-engines friendly?
If they can provide me with a reference for a cheap and efficient solution, then I will agree with their decision, otherwise the article MUST be restored with the apologies to Ceiton and all WinLIKE community.
Russian were first in space not because their computers were better (really they were much worse), but because their programs were much simplyer!
Stasdm 18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure of the deletion discussion. I see no process problems in that discussion. I see no new evidence presented here which credibly and independently demonstrates that the decision was in error. Rossami (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are new facts: the deletion was because of Notebility reasons and everybody can see now that there are enough independant press articles around the globe wich proofes the required Notebility. So in fact the deletion was a mistake. Nobody can deny this. And as far as I can see, there is no other reason formulated here which allows to delete an article. So with respect to the Wikipedia rules the article must be restored. 83.221.86.35 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure `'mikka 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

this is not helpful because this is a discussion and you have to explain your position... 83.221.86.35 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Undelete!!!!

This is my last attempt to reason Administrators. Let's see the points:

1. "looks like a lot of promotion"(Radiant), "possible conflict of interest" (JzG|Guy) There was not a word of the greatness, etc. - just "medical" facts. The article about Microsoft Windows much more promotional - shall it be deleted also? Where in the policy there is a statement that the software autor cannot be the Wikipedia autor abot his product?

2. "not a ballot" My account was created several years back. If your database does not keep all tracks - consult your programmers

3. notability If links (with thanks) from the sites using WinLIKE do not counter, then, again, the article about Microsoft Windows should be deleted - except for Microsoft-enspired press, I newer seen a good word about it!

4. You did not present any answer for my questions set afore. Any comments?

Stasdm 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Undelete!!! I actually can't believe what's going on here right now - there is no reason for deleting the WinLIKE article. In fact WinLIKE meets the requirement of Notebility - you have seen several articles in the international press about it. And WinLIKE is interesting and helpful for everyone who wants to create websites. The only right decision is to undelete the article! 217.184.81.112 17:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion the only minor criticism one could make about the closing admin's decision is that a relisting might have been a preferable option. But if the AfD is to be closed then there is a clear consensus for deletion as the sole supporter of keep failed to substantiate his opinion. I have no objections to recreation in user space so that we can see whether there is a way to write a properly referenced neutral article based on multiple reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A clear consensus on wrong facts, Sir! This thread is about discussing new facts. And as you can see the decisson was wrong as there are enough independant sources. So this decission must be overturned. Is this simple logic so difficult? Secondly what exactly is not 'properly' on this article? Improve it and do not delete it! 83.221.86.35 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Undelete!!! WinLIKE easily meets the requirement of Notebility, unless the only accepted criteria is whether it's on Google or not, and by the looks of things, that seems to be the case here.

Again and again I read "hardly any google hits".. as if that was the only way to measure Notability. Ever heard of books?? Magazines? Tv? Movies? Other search engines? And if the problem is that they wrote about their own product, then decide that companies can't write about their own stuff and be done with it, and apply this on all entries. It would be a good rule, if it existed.. which it doesn't.. so get over it and undelete. I don't get what the problem is, and you make a dirtpoor job of explaining it. Mikael Bergkvist 17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of tall men – no consensus to overturn the AFD's no consensus close, so it stands – GRBerry 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of tall men (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of tall women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
:(AfD1|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4|AfD5|DRV]]|AfD6)

I suggest you move the page to List of famous men over 2 metres tall -this way the definition of what is tall is not subjective and doesn't imply the meaning of tallness and people can see human height extremesErnst Stavro Blofeld 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

the "keep" rationales all ignored fundamental and glaring policy violations. The value of tall as stated in the lead is subjective, and always was. It has been changed to a number of different subjective values, but they are all subjective. That is original research. It doesn't matter how many people get together to agree that we can have it despite it being original research, policy says if it's original research we can't have it.

Just look at the lead now - in order to make this not a list of basketball players plus some other tall guys, there is a different arbitrary cutoff for bb players. This sucks! I mean, really sucks! Sorry, I seem to have broken the template, hopefully I've now added all the info. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and delete - very few of the keep arguments addressed the lack of reliable sources on the topic. Sure, the article is sourced, but all the sources are primary - this is textbook original research. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor an indiscriminate collection of information. --Core desat 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete, inherently subjective, numbers do not outweigh policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. The list is in a much better state than previously. Yes, what "tall" means is subjective. It means different things to different people. This does not preclude having a list on the subject; compare list of countries. The sources here demonstrate that being tall is a characteristic of interest by which people are grouped; for the purposes of this list, we choose a height that keeps the list to a reasonable size. There is no problem with this, it is standard editing; we take the facts and synthesize them to create a useful and informative article. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- List of countries does not constitute original research or subjective entry criteria, so I don't know why you want to compare with that. There is no "right" or "wrong" criteria to decide "tall" by, and so it's the subject of endless edit warring as some people tries to keep the article short and other people try to lower the bar to include their favorite celebrity. And neither side is right, because the criteria are original research anyway. There's no verifiable way to bound the lists, and we do not allow original synthesis. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  - The entry criteria for the countries and tall men lists were developed in exactly the same way: we know that there is no universially accepted definition of either "tall" or "country." Therefore there is a dispute about what definition to use. Various bodies have posited a variety of definitions for each term. On each list, the consensus process assimilates and synthesizes those definitions to create an unambiguous criterion for inclusion. The vast majority of lists on Wikipedia have no "right" or "wrong" criteria, rather they have the criteria that we have generated through consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. I don't agree with exactly how "tall" is defined in the current version, but there is clearly no consensus to delete these articles. I don't see how any fundamental policies are being violated. --- RockMFR 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so can you cite the reliable secondary source which supports the definition of "tall" used in this article? If there is no widely-agreed objective definition of tall, then the list fails WP:NOR. That's policy. And I don't see that interpretation being credibly rebutted anywhere in the debates. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Maybe you didn't read the AFD? WP:NOR and WP:NOT are violated here, insalvagably. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The main purpose of Afd is to decide whether the existence of an article is violating policy. There is no consensus that it is violating policy. You can say that it is, but your opinion is simply an opinion. --- RockMFR 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse keeping. As RockMFR said above! Worded perfectly. Mathmo ^Talk 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete. The "keep" voters ignored multiple calls to WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Regardless of number, arguments have to be based in policy. Only one side of the discussion was doing so. — coelacan talk — 21:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Daydreaming wish.... that there someday be a WikiList-o-rama where all lists of every kind can be carted off to. Deeply flawed list (no historical trend and very little ethnic consideration (apart from Filipino basketball players (??). I think there might be a case for a list of tall people who have achieved verifiably significan celebrity for their being tall and nothing else (although I dislike the idea of Wikipedia being a Guinness Book of Records archive). Original research synthesis elements and poorly thought out content can just be purged from article at any time. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and Delete Unconvinced by eventualist/give it a chance arguments. Articles have existed for since '05 and have gone through a number of afds as well as plenty of editing. There's been plenty of chance Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
endorse and keep the afd close was rational, based on the discussion, where numerous people pointed out that a cange of name to teller or tallest or something more specific,and a clear statement of scope , was all that was necessary. The article is in line with other WP lists. Very few lists on WP except for winners of X or Officeholders of Y have actual fixed criteria. If opposition is based on disliking WP lists based on criteria of this sort, that policy does not have community consensus. DGG 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete. A List of people by height would be fine, but that's not what this is. This is a list of only the "tall" people, and like people have repeatedly said, who decides what height is "tall"? A list of tallest people makes no sense, either, because then you've just renamed it; you still have to have a lower cutoff point, which will still be entirely arbitrary. -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- OMG!!!! please not a List of people by height...! Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  - An easy solution would be to restrict it to only people who have been refered to by the media as tall. Mathmo ^Talk 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Not a solution. "Notable tallness" would be established by any passing mention by any short journalist. Such statements as "Barack Obama stands above the crowd" or "Bill O'Reilly towers over his guest", recorded in media, will be "notable tallness". Are those guys tall? Yes, but where does this end? Damn near everyone over 5'10" has been called tall by someone, somewhere, and 5'10" is going to result in a list ten times as large as the current one. This will actually be a very big problem for politicians, because it is part of the spin system to drop mentions about height, since it's a fact that tall politicians tend to be elected more readily. Mentions of notable height are quite spammy for many occupations. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Not true. Here's what "notable tallness" might mean:
        This is a list of men who are notable for their height. It is limited to men who:
        
        are notable only for being extremely tall or short (e.g., Robert Pershing Wadlow); or
        
        are otherwise notable, but whose height (either tall or short) has been noted as directly relevant to (e.g., Yao Ming) or contributing (e.g., Peter the Great) to their notability.
        
        Notability here is defined as an extension of WP:Notability. In order for someone to get on the list, their height (not they themselves) has to be mentioned in "multiple reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (I think the non-trivial condition should be loosened here for the 2nd category of men--everyone recognizes that Yao Ming's height is directly relevant to his notability as a basketball star, but I think it would be too much to expect that there be published works out there that discuss only his height). Black Falcon 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse close. Whilst I, personally, feel these articles are bullshit, arbitrary, and of no benefit to Wikipedia in their current form, there wasn't a consensus in the AFD discussion to get rid of them, even discounting the odd "keep it because it is awesome!" style argument. The closing admin made the correct call, but a six month moratarium on AFDing them again, no. There are many concerns still being raised, many of which are valid, and if the owners of the article (and I use that term deliberately) fail to fix the article as they promised to do so repeatedly, it should go back to AFD forthwith. Proto::► 11:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete, original research, arbitrary list. >Radiant< 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Give it a chance, sheesh. The keep votes were generally offering to improve the list, and there seems to be consensus that it could be improved. Lay off the list for a month and stop ping ponging this back and forth. Work on the content, bring it up to standards. There's nothing fundamentally incapable of being tweaked to standards. Moving to List of tallest men and making it a list of superlatively tall people would remove the subjectivity that occurs at the bottom end. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Really? How do you objectively determine what "superlatively tall" means? — coelacan talk — 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Tallest man in the world is pretty objective. Tallest national leader, tallest basketball player, tallest is objective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    - The tallest man is completely objective, yes. But when you have a list, you're going to have a list of tallest men, and who decides the lower bound? -Amarkov moo! 04:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      - Editorial consensus, the same way we do for bridges, buildings, and every other list of the biggest things out there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        But the editorial consensus just keeps dreaming up new arbitrary criteria, without ever actually finding an objective external definition of tall. That's the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and Delete many of those arguing keep suggested that these lists be transformed into other, policy-compliant lists (such as people notable for their height or people of the greatest verifiable height), but those lists aren't these lists and these lists aren't really a usefull basis for creating those lists. As they stand these lists fail policy and there is no consensus as to how the can or should be cleaned-up. Thus, they should be deleted and any similar lists created to replace them evaluated on their own merits. Eluchil404 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete, fails WP:NPOV and WP:V, which is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. There is no authoritative definition of the word tall and constitutes original research. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment, This isn't AFD round twenty five. The arguments here should focus on whether the AFD was closed properly. Given the disagreements there and here, I feel the no-consensus close was procedurally correct. DRV is for when procedure breaks. If you want to argue on the article's merits, rather than procedure, open another AfD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please, I know this is not an AfD. I hope you understand how administrators gauge consensus by considering *valid* arguments. None of the keep arguments were *valid*. Hence, that was not a valid close. Hope you understand, what this means. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The nominator's argument that "the "keep" rationales all ignored fundamental and glaring policy violations", specifically naming WP:NOR, is an argument that the AFD was closed improperly. Arguments for keeping or deleting have to be based in policy. The nominator feels that only one side of the argument was using policy. We're firmly in DRV territory. — coelacan talk — 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure for no consensus. Please, give people a chance to work on this article. There has probably been 10 times more effort spent on trying to delete or keep this article than to improve it! Many of the keep arguments in this last AfD were aimed at improving the article (to address concerns raised) by turning to internationally-recognized medical institutes and/or changing its focus to List of the tallest men or List of men notable for their height. Come on, already! Yes, these would be different lists, but why make it so much harder on those who're going to be working on this article? There is plenty of useful information in List of tall men that could be used to refocus it. If you delete it now, everyone will have to start from scratch. -- Black Falcon 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comment The tall men list was first created Oct 11 2005 and first afd'd Oct 24 2005 (the women list was created April 16 2005 and first afd'd Sept 6 2006). Both have gone through substantial additions and editing and several more afds since. They have also broadened their title focus from "famous tall" to just "tall" (is this intended as an improvement?). How much more time do you think is needed? (and if we delete it all, it doesn't mean that "everyone will have to start from scratch" (you can just an admin for the data dump into your user space) but it will mean that new versions will have to go through deletion review approval first) Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Reply - the improvements suggested in this AfD were not suggested in any of the previous AfDs, so these proposals should be given some time. Also, dumping the data into one person's userspace stymies opportunities for multiple people to work on, improve, and/or refocus the article. -- Black Falcon 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I intended to be gone and boycotting, but I still get weak and check it on occasion. I have to say you should stop pinging this article back and forth from AFD to DRV. Insanely protracted stuff like this doesn't do you any good. At this point one side has to give. If it being deleted is really so important for integrity, or whatever, that deleters will fight on forever, than I say let it die. Likewise if keeping it is important to maintain featured lists of long or tall things than I say move this to "List of tallest men" and then limit it to a set number of examples. In either case make a dang decision and stick with it for more than a week. Sheesh, you people make me glad again that I quit editing.--T. Anthony 05:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse half-year moratorium. The nature and content of the article do not clearly violate WP:NOR or WP:NOT; if it were so obvious, then there would be consensus. The overturn arguments appear to imply that the decision was based more on numbers than actual reasoning - please assume good faith and the rational capacity of your fellow Wikipedians. The ultimate motivation for continuing this debate probably does include some sentiments of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this doesn't seem to be a significant problem in the actual arguments. Please do not merely cite policy, and they serve as shortcuts better for clear-cut debates, and are probably misinterpreted in an unresolved discussion such as this one. On WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO: List of tall men does not directly violate them because it doesn't fall under any of the classes of articles explicitly listed to be not fit for inclusion. Whether any collection of information is indiscriminate is subjective - I claim that this article is encyclopedic and a valuable inclusion on Wikipedia's discriminate collection of information, and the list itself is discriminate because it lists only notably tall people who fit an objective criteria. Those of you who think that the list should consider nationalities and basketball players separately, how is that less arbitrary? The list is not outright arbitrary (there is a specific inclusion criteria); it is only arbitrary (with the lower bound) to the extent that this helps reduce any further arbitrariness. The lower bound of the list is only a secondary concern, and only indirectly related to the article's subject. On WP:NOR: The lack of secondary sources does not mean there are none, for tall men are certainly a notable subject for academia. Perhaps it is also because there is nothing to interpret, meaning the primary sources about heights speak for themselves. This is not original research, but source-based research. The article does not make any claims about the people other than that they are tall. Can anyone honestly say that these people are not tall? Of course tall is a relative term, but we all know what is meant by (correctly) labelling these as tall(est) men. The sources of international institutions' consideration of 'tall' have been rejected because they differ, and yet these are notable differences that should be documented in the article. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone refute the implication deleting this list has on other lists. Overall I think this process is a mess and should be left alone to default to closure, as there are valid points scattered and unattended across the AfDs and DRV, and I'm not sure anyone wishes to rigourously go through every detail involving policy and whatnot. Pomte 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, several editors assert that it does not violate WP:NOR / WP:NOT, but none of them has yet managed to provide the external objective consensus definition of tall that is required to substantiate that. Can you provide it? If not, then I'm afraid that "it does not violate" is just your opinion, and must be taken against the opinions of a large number of experienced editors who say precisely the opposite. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Is there an objective external consensus definition of what's a long bridge or tall building? That doesn't preclude us from having lists of the biggest structures. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    - That would be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Not a good argument. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      - The "other crap" to which you refer are featured lists. -- Black Falcon 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Irrelevant. A list which lacks externally verifiable objective criteria amounts to "list of things we like" and is necessarily bad. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        How external do you want them to be? Even external to the limitations imposed by the English language? -- Black Falcon 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  - JzG, I notice you did not reply to a single suggestion for refocusing the article in the last AfD (and at least three were proposed). Although this DRV is not the place to discuss it (the appropriate place would be the talk page), I am wondering why that is. You condemn the article for not meeting WP standards and yet make no effort to collaborate with others to improve it or, at the least, to give them a chance to discuss/collaborate amongst themselves. Also, please do not misrepresent the disagreement as one between "a large number of experienced editors" and a small minority of inexperienced editors (I've simply taken the opposite of what you wrote). Despite the fact that experience should not matter (inexperienced editors can make good points and experienced editors lousy ones), there were a "large number" of experienced editors on both sides. -- Black Falcon 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    - We've been round and round the circles. The only way to make this encyclopaedic is to have a completely different article, on men (and women) considered by reliable secondary sources to be notable for their height, and these lists do not provide a useful starting point for that. Suggestions of numeorus different arbitrary criteria do not fix the problem that there is no independent objective definition of tall to underpin this list, and the definitions used are subject to systemic bias. There is nothing to be gained through polishing a turd. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      - JzG, please follow WP:CIVIL (which applies not only to comments about editors, but also their edits). Many people have contributed many edits to the list (I am not one of them) and they should not be so disrespected. As regards your arguments, these lists do provide a good starting point for two reasons. First, those people who will be most active on the project already know where the page is. Second, the articles contain numerous sources which will be useful in any new revised/refocused article. If this page is deleted now, editors will have to find these sources all over again. And no, userfying is not an optimal solution as it restricts the degree to which a project can be collaborative. Any refocusing of the article would require some agreement among (some) editors. This will take time. The few-hours timeframe from when the last AfD was closed to when this DRV was opened is not enough time to discuss proposed changes let alone to implement them. -- Black Falcon 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        
        Do feel free to point out where I have been uncivil about any edits. The article is crap and successive attempts to fix it have only made this more apparent, but that is the fault of the flawed underlying premise not any individual editors' efforts. I saw no new suggestions which were not rebutted in thr fourth (consensus delete) AfD, and the only fixes which do not violate canonical policy involve scrapping both content and title. Where are the relibale sources underpinning the definitions as currently used in the article? Without those, it fails WP:NOR, a firm policy, and must be deleted. There has never, at any point in the article's history, been a cited external consensus definition of what constitutes tall. Not once. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 15 February 2007 (
        
        I find it odd that you do not see the labeling of the combined efforts of at least 100 editors "crap" or a "turd" as at least somewhat uncivil (pardon my sarcasm). Also, allow me to note once more that you are ignoring my mention of proposals to radically refocus the article (either to "tallest"--which I know you disagree with as well--or to "notable for tallness/height"). -- Black Falcon 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Your request for an "external consensus definition" of 'tall' can be reduced to a request for an accurate lower bound for the list. As Black Falcon stated, this is a fundamental "flaw" in language that cannot be refuted by an interpretation of policy. In the most objective and austere sense, 'tall' is merely an extension of the set comprising the tallest man, to which we add the second tallest man, the third tallest man, and so on. The size of this new 'tall' set is only secondary to the meaning of 'tall' itself. There does not need to be consensus for an article to exist; there are articles on controversies, and this could be one of them. Reliable secondary sources would be more arbitrary than what we have now, because it would be their less objective interpretation of 'tall'. Pomte 04:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    - Just to clarify, I think you were referring to Guy, not me. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to correct supposed "flaws" in language (although I don't see how this is a flaw); rather, we should work within the constraints of (in this case the English) language to create an encyclopedia that people will read (and extremes of height are an interesting and notable topic--how the article about the topic conveys information is something for the talk page). -- Black Falcon 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse six-month moratorium. Seriously, give it a rest. Firstly and most importantly, the closing admin correctly diagnosed an utter lack of consensus over the numerous AfDs surrounding this list.
- Those who oppose the article on WP:NOR grounds are guilty of a laughably broad (mis)reading of one of the encyclopedia's fundamental policies. Nowhere in the policy does it suggest the contents of a given article must be bounded by an external and immutable criteria; it says that the facts contained in the article must be previously stated or researched by a reliable source. As long as these facts (in this case the heights of the list's occupants) are verifiable, it is up to the editors to decide which facts are most relevant to the article's subject and how best to present them. No one is proposing a radical re-definition of what tall means; that would be original research. "Tall," like most adjectives that might appear in Wikipedia list titles, has a widely understood but not empirically precise meaning. Using published statistics to argue where and when an individual might be considered tall might be a poor use of an Wikipedian's time, but it violates the original research rule no less than, say, trying to pinpoint the exact moment the Great Depression ended or debating the Western boundary of Asia. We are not forbidden from writing articles about that which cannot be neatly defined. What a boring place this would be were that the case.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse keeping. I am (was) an active editor mainly at the Bulgarian Wikipedia and I come here mostly to read, rather than write ot edit. As a reader I can tell you these two articles have been more interesting and of more use to me than most articles here. I totally can't understand why you people would want to delete them and it's not for a lack of knowledge of English, believe me. --Christomir 03:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure of the most recent AFD. I argued to delete the page. Facts and arguments were fairly laid out by both sides. Closing this discussion as "no consensus" was entirely reasonable. No new arguments are being presented here to justify overturning the closure. Give the list's proponents their chance to prove their point. If the page is still fundamentally unimproved in 3-6 months, renominate it then. Rossami (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure `'mikka 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse no consensus People have to start understanding that not everyone interprets policy in the exact same way. Not because they're crazy, not because they can't read, not because they're acting in bad-faith in order to keep an article that they like but simply because Wikipedia policy is not a text of law, was never written as such and, at times, has a certain degree of intended vagueness. It's only normal that people have slightly different understandings of these policies and actually, there would really be no need for AfD if this was not the case. I see a constant abuse of the idea that some AfD arguments are correct while others are the result of twits who have not read policy properly. True, some AfD arguments are indeed bogus and they should be discounted but they are not as commonplace as one might think. More often than not, closing admins will discount opinions of people that do not agree with this admin's specific interpretation of policy. There will only be a growing sense of frustration in the community when people are invited to give their opinion only to be told by an admin "you don't know what you're talking about, I'm sorry I even asked for your input." Pascal.Tesson 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ashley Coulter – deletion overturnedm listed on AFD – GRBerry 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD A7 candidate, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. This person finished in sixth place in the 2006 season of Canadian Idol, which is a song contest with a very large TV audience. People who finish as high as sixth place have performed several times, probably picked up several fans during the course of the program, and in any case, claim to notability is asserted, making this an invalid A7 speedy deletion. Even though not as famous as the Simpson, I will still ask to overturn speedy and bring to AFD if a full discussion is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you check with the deleting admin? ~ trialsanderrors 09:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion of yet another "reality" show loser. Come back when the second album goes platinum and there are reliable non-trivial sources which focus primarily on this subject. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Speedy deletion A Google News Archives serch show she was the primary subject of multiple publshed works [1] [2]. Speedy deletion was not appropriate in this case. Some might not care for reality show contestents (I don't), but that would be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT reason to delete. --Oakshade 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Undelete and AFD, per the request. Claim to notability was asserted. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Speedy deletion. "Claim to notability was asserted". Mathmo ^Talk 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong overturn. Obviously not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. Clearly not speedy material. Notability was asserted. --- RockMFR 14:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Definite overturn, send to AFD per Mathmo - there was a claim of notability, thus does not meet A7. – Chacor 00:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Canadian Idol page, problem solved. >Radiant< 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion `'mikka 19:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Amber Fleury – deletion overturned, listed at AFD – GRBerry 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD A7 candidate, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. Fleury was the eighth place finisher in Canadian Idol, and with the large number of viewers and attention which Idol gets, that is very much an assertion of notability. This is not the kind of case which A7 was ever intended for. All of the other top ten finishers for third season have articles, (the number #10 is currently on AFD but the nomination is contested). Overturn speedy and bring to AFD if a full discussion is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unless multiple on-trivial sources can be found with her as the primary subject. Simply being a loser on a vote show is not a claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- [3] has an article about Fleury reaching the final stage. here is an article about the band they formed. I would argue that this person meets WP:BIO, but even if she didn't, that is not sufficient for A7, performing on a a music program with millions of viewers is definitely an assertion of notability, in particular when reality show contestants have frequently been kept on AFD before. Speedy deletions in general are only for uncontested cases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it's a claim to "notability," JzG. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This sort of article is a deletionist wikilawyer's nightmare. It manages to assert notability (at least as we use it on Wikipedia) while patently not asserting anything resembling importance or significance (to which WP:CSD#A7 refers). Overturn, I suppose, and hope that, somewhere amongst the gobs of folks who've been misled into caring, somebody has the good sense to merge it like we (at least used to) do with other reality show losers. —Cryptic 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Speedy deletion. "Claim to notability was asserted". Cryptic, I agree with you that merging probably would be a good idea in their case. However of course this isn't the place to sort that out. Is more for the talk page of their articles. But there is no chance for that until they are undeleted. Mathmo ^Talk 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, obviously not an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn. The importance/significance of the subject is asserted. Not a speedy candidate. --- RockMFR 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Canadian Idol page, problem solved. >Radiant< 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gregory Kohs – deletion endorsed – GRBerry 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Coredesat closed this as delete. He first claimed that "[m]ost of the sources provided are only passing mentions, self-references, or articles not about the subject of the article itself," which was a patently false assumption, judging by examination and discussion of said sources, specifically two of them. On further discussion at my talk page, claimed a "weak consensus to delete" and a decision that could have been made editorially regarding whether the article should remain at Gregory Kohs or his business, MyWikiBiz. Of the delete arguments, one attempted to assert a G4, which it wasn't, one cited spam, which it wasn't, five referenced WP:SELF either by name or by concept, which also didn't apply here if you read WP:SELF. Many pointed to WP:DENY, which is about vandalism and not biographies, and some noted WP:AUTOBIO, which did not apply to the article in its AfD'd form nor requires or suggests deletion anyway. The subject meets WP:BIO/WP:CORP (depending on your point of view) because of the mutliple non-trivial mentions, so the assertions that the subject is non-"notable" fails to hold any water. This leaves only one truly compelling argument - that this is simply news reporting and not an article, but may have been based more on a belief that the AP and German sources were primary rather than secondary sources (a fine disagreement, by any stretch), and was hardly agreed upon anyway - certainly no consensus existed for that belief. Meanwhile, the keep suggestions included noting that the subject meets various "notability" standards and that, contrary to the closing admin's somewhat bizarre assertion that the sources don't meet our standards for reliability, that the sources more than certainly met what we need. The community doesn't appear to like this guy, that much is clear. That does not mean we need to get our own biases in the way of keeping up with our standards. Those were ignored today, and we need to overturn and undelete this article. badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I strongly agree with Duja's reasoning at the third Afd. I'd recommend merging and redirecting to Wikipedia (or a related page) if this is overturned. --- RockMFR 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Three deletions by three AfDs, all of which amount to the same thing: no significant coverage. Self-referential, and I really honestly don't think anybody but us cares. I'm sure Kohs would prefer it otherwise, but it is not. And guess what! One of the Keep !votes is a sockpuppet of Kohs. Who'd have thought it. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Deletion Whether we like the guy or not does not negate the fact he was the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. [4] [5](in German from Die Welt) [6]. These are not at all just "passing mentions." This should not have been deleted. --Oakshade 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he was not the primary subject of those, he was discussed in the context of Wikipedia editing and conflict of interest, sparked in at least one case by the Microsoft controversy. These are not biographical sources. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He was a primary subject of two of them, and the article was not self-referential. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, his WP:COI spamming of Wikipedia was the subject. And the article was self-referential, to the point of citing the Village Pump as a source. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his WP:COI spamming of Wikipedia was the sujbect. Not anyone or anything else.--Oakshade 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"His" is the adjective, "spamming" is the subject. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"His spamming" is the noun and subject. --Oakshade 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So you agree it's not about him, but about "his spamming"? Cool, we can all go home now. --Calton | Talk 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very silly attempt to change the meaning of the published works about this person. If the article were about spamming, then his name wouldn't be metioned, except maybe in passing. But this is an article about him and something he did, which in this case was spamming. If there wasn't a Gary Kohs, there would be no story or published works. --Oakshade 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Overturn deletion per Oakshade. Numerous references provided evidence which should ahve weighed heavily when closing the AFD. Also, many of the reasons given to delete on the 3rd AFD were irrelevant, WP:DENY for instance does not apply to bios in the main encyclopedia space. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn deletion per Oakshade. Mathmo ^Talk 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn deletion WP:DENY cannot, and does not, apply to article space - for those who used it as an argument in the original AFD's. --sunstar net^talk 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Limited weight for this; editor under suspicion. In the end, the result would be the same for full weight or no weight.GRBerry 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Outside of the self-referential wikipedia stuff, the article amounts to "Kohs is a market researcher". There is no content worth keeping in article space (and there is plenty already in project space). The close was properly thought out and right on target given the actual content of the article and AfD arguments presented. A good proper close by Coredesat. NoSeptember 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I mean, with all due respect, this is patently false. Articles in the mainstream press about Wikipedia aren't self-referential per how we deal with self-reference. I quoted the relevant portion in the AfD - "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." This did not occur in the deleted version of this article, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Let me ask you this. A newspaper writes an article about a local resident who is making money by selling stuff on Ebay. Now the person is not the first person to do this and is not the most successful person at their Ebay sales career, but they got noticed by the article writer and was mentioned in an article about Ebay selling. Is this person really notable because someone in the press wrote about them? I don't think so. Kohs seems to have earned about $500 from inserting 10 articles at a price of $50 each, and the press wrote about it. In the real world he seems no more notable than the random person making money off of Ebay. The concept of "spam for hire" may be notable, but the random person who is used as an example of it in a newspaper article is not. NoSeptember 14:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    - It depends. Is the story about eBay selling 3/4 about one person and 1/4 about a similar situation that brings attention to it, like the AP article is about Kohs? If it were only one article and the person was not a primary subject - unlike Kohs, who is a primary subject of multiple articles - you'd have a point. But you're comparing two different things. I strongly implore you to go to the 3rd AfD and read the two articles, the one linked to the Washington Post which is an AP reprint (a reprint that went across numerous papers) and hop over to Babelfish for the German source - these aren't minor mentions in a larger subject article, he's a primary subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse my deletion per my close rationale and per NoSeptember. None of the sources provided indicated any more than the fact that Kohs is a market researcher, and if anything, discuss things other than the subject of the article himself. The article was self-referential, to boot, and my close statement does not refer to WP:DENY in any way. I think it was a valid close, although it was a difficult decision and I'm sure this DRV would have been here regardless. --Core desat 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- What self-reference? Also, what part of the sources only provided such small information? Are we reading the same ones? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion Closer evaluated the arguments and found consensus to delete from individuals who presented cogent rationales. This is what, the 12th bite at the apple? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion; valid closure, perfectly in line with policies and guidelines. Tizio 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which policies and guidelines, exactly? I've mapped out exactly how this closure was not in line with them, so what prompts you to say otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
undelete and dont return to AfD. All afd closings and nominations admitted this to be borderline, and that makes the decision to retain the article as non consensus. Personally, I think everyone at WP has a COI here--this is an article showing us in the worst possible light as credulous. Whether T or f, its a suitable article to keep. WP should go as far as possible in being not censored in material critizing it.DGG 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations of the policy that Wikipedia is not censored are so inapt I can scarcely believe you threw it up there -- or perhaps you're using some peculiar definition of "censor" I was previously unaware of? --Calton | Talk 04:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Valid closure, perfectly in line with policies and guidelines no matter how many straws get grasped in this attempt to save an article not worth having to begin for a multiplicity of reasons. And how many times is badlydrawnjeff going to run this through the process before he figures this out? --Calton | Talk 04:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. AfD is not a vote, and DRV is not a vote as well. WP:BIO and WP:CORP raised in the AfD are not subject to a "point of view" to the amount asserted by Jeff; MyWikiBiz is lightyears away from WP:CORP. Further, I fail to see a cogent rationale in this DRV as well: Jeff employs argument from ignorance by (kind of) dismissing one by one of deletion arguments at the AfD, then comes to conclusion that, with (supposedly) none valid left, the outcome has to be at least "no consensus".
Lemme introduce a bit of reductio ad absurdum: suppose few newspapers will now make a story "A Wikipedia editor fights to save an article about Wikipedia spammer", with a passing mention and short biography of Jeff. According to his criteria, now we should have an article about Jeff. Oh, we don't have an article about Guy? Too bad he didn't caught 'nuf media attention. But I'm certain he would. Duja► 09:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been on BC Radio 4 a few times, interviewed twice by BBC Radio in fact, featured in the Times Educational Supplement and had letters published by the BMJ, by those standards I'm a shoo-in :-) Guy (Help!) 10:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, too bad they don't seem to keep archives of radio shows; Google search for your name and moniker mostly reveals reputable sources such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, Israel News Agency, Wikipedia Watch... Duja► 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue, of course, is that AfDs are, in theory, supposed to be closed by the strength of arguments. When people say things about a subject or its sources that are patently false, those are supposed to be weighted differently. That obviously did not occur. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I assert again that WP:SELF has everything to do with the issue, particularly WP:SELF#Writing about Wikipedia itself and WP:SELF#Articles are about their subjects; you might perhaps argue that it's not the letter, but I maintain that it's the spirit. The scale of the MyWikiBiz incident wasn't anywhere near John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, clearly listed as an exception in WP:SELF. And, expressed in one way or another, that was one of key arguments of the delete voters at the AfD (save for pile-on "NN-bio" and WP:DENY which I agree that shouldn't apply, but wasn't referenced in the closure argument anyway). Duja► 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Yeah, I addressed both those concerns, I believe. No one is saying that it's on the Seigenthaler scale, but it's certainly similar, and if a key argument is simply wrong, why pay attention to it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, reasonable closure. Just because someone is not a vandal per se but a promotionary agency doesn't mean we can't deny him recognition. >Radiant< 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. Appears to have been closed within the limits of the reasonable, seemingly discounting the flawed arguments. I believe that the broader issue of meta-navel-gazing needs to be addressed, but that day will surely come. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. `'mikka 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure if only to get closure on the issue. I argued in the AfD for keeping the article but I recognize that it's a borderline case and that the community's overall opinion was leaning towards deletion. I really see no point in undeleting, resubmitting to AfD and having the very same debate until one side grows tired and gives up. (And so I'm giving up! :-) ) Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Where's your spine, boy?! d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  - You know me, I'm just a big jellyfish! But I do think that you're going to break your back if you don't practice flexibility. :-) Pascal.Tesson 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

ICR/International Communications Research – Deletion endorsed – GRBerry 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm curious why such a notable company was just plain deleted without any review, and I suspect that the reason JzG gave for the deletion is false. ~~QuiteNiceGuy~~ 04:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Requester is a sockpuppet of banned user:MyWikiBiz, who works for ICR (WP:COI) and is banned anyway, as well as being close to the only editor of the article in question. Suggest speedy close. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this another instance of something from a speedy ending up in Deletion Review instead of AfD? I have no way of checking, so please undelete the history. JzG usually gives good reasons. DGG 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Check the deletion log. The article was deleted under WP:CSD#G5 as creation by banned User:MyWikiBiz. The nominator is a single purpose account, and most likely a sockpuppet. ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn Deletion If it was speedied, it should not have been. AfD woud've been proper. Just browsing the articles in a google news-archives search of this company shows it is considered a major marketing/poll/reserch authority to the major news outlets like USA Today and The Washington Post, as well as major businesses.[7]. --Oakshade 04:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Overturn speedy deletion, this is not a hoax company that has been mentioned in news sources numerous times. So it at least deserves a proper AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 06:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- See my comment above. This is not an A7 or G11 deletion. G5 is not an injunction against creating an article on the company, but it's a clear injunction against recreating content created by a banned user. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Is times like this I wouldn't mind being an admin and being able to fully know all the details behind it. So instead I'll just have to ask. Was it created before or after the user was banned? And secondly, is the content at least worthy of a stub status had it been created by anybody else. Because even if the person was banned at the time, while that means we can delete it. We are also able to bring it back if it is not complete nonsense and we decide we should. Mathmo ^Talk 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    - The article's first edit was 16:42, 6 June 2005 by 207.8.215.81. The second was 16:38, 13 June 2005 by Thekohser. The article, at the time it was deleted, consisted of an infobox, four sentences, a bunch of external links and categories, and nothing closer to a claim of importance or significance than "ICR is known for its various omnibus surveys." —Cryptic 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, as well as being banned, Kohs works for ICR (according to his emails to me). And the title is wrong per WP:MOS. We do not need this content on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (my) deletion without prejudice to creating a new, better article. Almost every edit to this was by Gregory Kohs, either as User:Thekohser or User:MyWikiBiz. Given the known issues with that individual and conflicts of interest, it would be far better to amnesiate it than base the new article on his content. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, not only General-5 but also Articles-7 applies - quite apart from being the creation of a banned user this didn't have any assertion of notability either. Mathmo, Oakshade and anyone else are free to create a new article that does assert and verify notability with the sources they've found. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse as an A7, since I don't see an assertion of importance. (I've never paid much attention to events surrounding mywikibiz, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't banned yet when this was created.) As usual, nothing's stopping anyone from writing an article with proper references, or at the very least one that gives us a reason to think such references exist. —Cryptic 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion No assertion of importance or notability. --sunstar net^talk 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, if not a valid G5, it's a valid A7. There's no assertion of notability. --Core desat 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, without prejudice, per Guy. Someone should make this in user subspace if they think it's important, then it can be reviewed before entering article space. — coelacan talk — 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion If a non-COI editor wants to create an article on this which attempts to show encyclopedic notability, they can do so in user space first as per Coleacan 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
undelete but re-creation is acceptable also. Problem is this organization is probably notable, as its polls are frequently quoted by news services, and it should be possible to get adequate sourcing for this. Yet the article as created didn't show this. Still should not have been a speedy delete, and this discussion is proof of it, but it was an understandable speedy none the less.DGG 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. If someone unaffiliated with a banned user/spammer/COI violator wants to take a fresh stab at it, go crazy, but the previous version should stay in the bit bucket. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. `'mikka 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

CatLinc – deletion endorsed as no consensus to overturn the AFD appears. Finding sources then recreating is encouraged. – GRBerry 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Notable Kojiro Takenashi 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) The technology was horribly difficult to dig up any google results on, and I think in this instance the general 'google rule' doesn't really apply here, as information on it seems to be mostly confined to print. It's a fairly unique and convenient A/V distribution technology in its own right, and the lack of informative, online resources only galvanizes the need for a good Wikipedia article on the subject. --Kojiro Takenashi 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence of notability. Merely the fact that something exists and is different from something that was before is not enough to inlude it on Wikipedia. So far nobody provided any sources to show that it is notable (i.e. known and widely used) except for "it is because I say so." Also, Wikipedia does not do any research (i.e. WP:OR), and only published what was published before (therefore, an encyclopedia and not a research journal). Renata 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Catlinc system is used in retail and electronic showroom environments as a solution to the pretty bad picture you usually get with typical distribution systems for demo merchandise, as well as for environments needing superlong cable runs, like auditoriums. It's fairly new and has yet to completely establish itself...I know that more 'new' stores get built with it than existing stores upgraded to it, however. They use it at the new Sears Grand store they built in my town. Asides, it was a stub. Why no Stubby Love? --Kojiro Takenashi 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. A lack of informative resources is a good reason not to have a Wikipedia article on it. And googlehits weren't really the argument, failing WP:CORP was. -Amark moo! 14:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak endorse per valid AfD. "Weak" because the number of participants was extremely low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Send to AFD and get a stronger consensus. Two editors, especially with opposing viewpoints, really don't form consensus.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Send back to AfD. Isn't that the right procedure when it's a matter of developing consensus. There was one pro and one con, and the discussion should have been continued there DGG 04:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. without prejudice against creating a new article which has sources and establishes the notability of the product. It might be easier to redirect and document the company, given the very small numbers of Ghits for this product. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion unless notability is demonstrated with reference to reliable sources either here or in a new article. Two editors for deletion is not too low participation when it comes to unsourced articles - it is actually one more editor than is needed. AfD is not a vote and does not have a quorum either. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Send back to AfD. The was one pro and one con, but even worse.... both have them barely discussed it at all. Don't mind there only being a couple of editors voting but without at least a reasonable amount of discussion it shouldn't have been closed as a delete when neither side had well laid out their arguments. Mathmo ^Talk 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. `'mikka 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 12 February 2007

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search