Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 7

Vanishing Point (alternate reality game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|

I was about to close the afd as delete but wmarsh conflected me in closing it as no consensus. The keep votes on the AFD was mainly from a WP:ILIKEIT point of view, saying its notable but with no reason and that it has sourcing. I was looking at the sourcing at the article and not one of them passes WP:RS. They mostly come from forums and the website of the game and the sourcing gave in afd was mostly blogs, one line mentions, and more unreliable websites like GeekZone. Overturn and Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(I just noticed this. I had left a comment on w.marsh's talk page so I'll CC it here, too.)

Howdy! I was wondering if you could explain in a little more detail why you decided to keep the article. In the AfD discussion, I think I replied to almost all the "keep" comments to ask why they supported the article. Few replied back. Only one user (the Hong Kong anon) was a fervent supporter of the article, and I even managed to convince him to vote "delete" in the end. Still the only sources cited in the article are the Neowin and Register forums. I'd say they're "non-trivial", but only marginally so. I've searched through a couple of news databases (including LexisNexis and Google), but wasn't able to find more substantial sources. Thanks for your consideration, Lunch 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ah I see it was an admin, not Lunch, who broke the sound barrier to DRV instead of discussing this with me first. The actual references that exist though did seem to be non-trivial (news.com, guardian, techtv, argn, etc.). See the "Media Discussions" section or a news search result. Contrary to popular belief, we don't delete articles just because the inline citations aren't very good yet. --W.marsh 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• At any rate, 8 people (roughly) wanted to keep and 4 to delete. Some of the keep votes were bad, but some of the delete ones were too. My philosophy when there's a conflict over whether sources are reliable is to err on the side of caution, as "When in doubt, don't delete" is an old concept around here. If people are trying to say stuff on blogger are sufficient sources, yeah, I'll delete. But the references here were news.com, the guardian and even the NY Times. It's not my policy to overturn consensus based on my own personal opinion that sources aren't "enough", when there's a reasonable dispute going on. --W.marsh 21:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okey doke, I'm willing to wait and see. But I do want to say that the Guardian "source" is from a blog at the Guardian (and not a regular news article). And as I noted in the AfD discussion, the mention in the NY Times was a brief one (a few sentences) at the bottom of the article; the article was about Vista's release, not Vanishing Point. The CNet/News.com article is OK; along with the Neowin and the Register forums these make for marginal sources, IMHO. But I did make an honest attempt myself to find more mainstream, widely read sources but had no luck. Lunch 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse for now, look again in a month and see if it's improved any, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I can't even make heads or tails of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. If you keep taking bites out of the apple, soon there won't be any left. (For those of you not familiar with the American legal idiom, I'm saying that appealing a keep result to DRV is just an attempt to have another group overturn a decision one disagrees with, and is at best disrespectful of the process.) -- Jay Maynard 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw and will check if the article improved any in a month or 2, if not I'll afd, as for Jay Mayard i saw almost every ref violate WP:RS which is a key wikipedia policy and policy over consensus is my view way of closing AFDs, as for me i need to go until later tonight so I have no time to close this Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AFD2)

Was deleted for no good reason Open Source BBG.

Deletion talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Empire (second nomination) Sorry for being pissy, but don't you people have anything better to do than randomly delete fully formed articles? Please remember I have no idea how the undelete process works and can't be bothered to spend 50 mins finding out - it took 10 mins just to get to this point and that's before writing this stuff. Way to waste time. Being a non-full-time WPian I don't have the foggiest what much of that talk page says, but I can provide some links, which is what I think it wants:

To prove the age of Solar Empire: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://solarempire.com - November 27 1999 being the earliest from archive.org - Don't get more authorative than that! Also, had whoever was voting for deletion bothered to look they could have found the Solar Empire page on sourceforge (it was linked in the article) http://sourceforge.net/projects/solar-empire/ , signed up "2000-12-13 11:28" (twas closed source before then). What else do we need to prove? If you try: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22solar+empire%22&num=30&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 you get this game for the top 4 results with the new, commercial game Sins of a Solar Empire coming 5th. Notable yet? How about we delete the SoaSE entry too! Gah.

What else do I need to provide links for? It's all there if you bother looking (rather than just professing to).

Again, sorry for being disagreeable, but I hate bureautwats. If you want something constructive to do - try starting here :-p - 81.106.142.175 - 21:06 UTC - 07 feb 07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.142.175 (talk • contribs)

Boy, that sure seems like a way to get things accomplished, by making attacks on the people who you want to convince to your side. </sarcasm>Corvus cornix 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea well, I was peeved - at least I said sorry. And I could just as sarcastically point out that deleting fully formed, valid articles isn't exactly a brilliant way of creating an encyclopedia. It's not like WP has a finite number of pages it can fill or something. 81.106.142.175 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The problem, as I read the last AFD, is that there were no third-party sources to provide the necessary indicators of notability as required under the various guidelines (I believe this falls under WP:WEB, as indicated in the AfD). If you have reliable third-party references to indicate this is notable, present them. Otherwise, I have to say that the AfD was closed properly, and endorse deletion. This probably makes me a "bureautwat," but hey, I've been called worse. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That was more a comment about the people nominating for deletion - your position as the deleter wasn't particularly covered. 81.106.142.175 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Still no third-party reliable sources presented. Also, the user seems to think I deleted it (I was the nominator). Insults aren't helping your case either. --Wafulz 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear on whether it was the nominator or the deletor who I was supposed to inform so I did both. Not my fault it's an over-convoluted process. 81.106.142.175 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as deleting admin, per Tony Fox. Note also that age does not equal notability, substantial reliable third-party coverage does (see WP:N). Sandstein 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

True it doesn't, but there were people questioning the age (at least that's how I read it) so posted links confirming that. 81.106.142.175 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion no third party sources to prove notability and given that it fails WP:WEB. Referring to editors as "bureauwats" does not help. I believe the AFD was properly closed.--Dakota 23:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Reactivation In my humble opinion as a player and a test server owner, this article should be re activated. You guys sit here wanting to delete it and are complaining about it for the way he's stated our case. Fact is, SE has had sooooo many splits arguments and internal squabbles and many of the old Devs are now quite bitter. Doing something like this is seen as an attack. We have reacted exactly as anyone would. This Deletion is ridiculous. Solar Empire is all over the web. New servers popping up, alternate versions being created all the time. I supposed there aren't many 3rd party sources available. Thats just because you are either part of the community or you aren't. No one still has websites up from 8 years ago that did reviews of old simple online multiplayer games, and no one is reviewing us now, that would be like someone going back and reviewing X-Wing Collectors CDROM today. There have been many splits because its a fantastic way for php learners to start, and if they do well, they have started a great server that many people play on, but its all still considered Solar Empire. If its not the case im sure we wouldnt have a problem getting our servers listed on seperate sites and fill wikipedia up with a page for each server that can quote a 3rd party source. At which time you will all probably just want to amalgomate it so it's easier for you.--The Stig - SE 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the quick disappearance of third party sources kind of underscore non-notability? --Wafulz 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • As an encyclopedia that is not paper, we normally operate on the belief that if it was notable at the time, it still is as a historical topic, provided that an acceptable encyclopedia article was written in the first place. What that means for this case, I offer no opinion on at the present time. GRBerry 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Just like the "missing" apollo 11 videos underscores the "non-notability" of that event? ( http://www.space.com/news/060813_apollo11_tapes.html ) Falacious logic. 81.106.142.175 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • False analogy. Anyway, my point was that if there had been any major sources at the time (ie, not from just any random personal or user-submitted website), they would not have immediately disappeared. --Wafulz 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, try digging up those websites on archive.org though if those weren't reliable sources (personal sites and such) then you might still not have a case. Please remember that sources aren't just for proving notability, they still have to back up most of the article contents and as such must not be primary (ie it needs commentary) and must be reliable. ColourBurst 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Notability" hey? Ah yes, you mean like an article for every single Star Wars planet and moon, but not one for a game that's had thousands of downloads over 7 years (and both of those facts are confirmable)? At least now I know all those negative anecdotal stories about WPian's weren't just made up.

Anyway here are some review thingys - let's see if they help: http://www.free-games.com.au/Detailed/1519.html http://www.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=26 http://linux.softpedia.com/get/GAMES-ENTERTAINMENT/TBS/Solar-Empire-22164.shtml http://www.programsdb.com/script/984/25014/Quantum_Star_SE.html http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=93

It must be nice up there in the Ivory "If it's not been written about it doesn't exist" Towers. 81.106.142.175 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making any more personal attacks, and please also read through the reliable sources guideline. We're not questioning existence here, we're questioning verifiability through non-trivial independent sources. Also, "If article x then article y" is not an applicable argument here- we are discussing this game, not those moons and planets. As far as I can tell, the sources are trivial (one paragraph of user/game-submitted text) or about something different. --Wafulz 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so coverage in secondary sources is the basic building block for creating an encyclopedia article. Notability is an attempt to measure whether enough building blocks exist to create an article that simultaneously adheres to our core content policy against original research (WP:NOR and the reason that we can't only use primary sources), requiring verifiability (WP:V), and requiring a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) while writing an encyclopedia article (WP:NOT). Any possible attempt to capture the intersection of four such policies is inherently imperfect, so is not asserting notability can lead to speedy deletion, but someone thinking there is inadequate notability leads to a deletion discussion, which the AFDs were.

The type of content in the www.omgn.com review is the type of content that is useful. However, that review is not signed by any person, and a review of the site indicates that they accept submissions while not saying that they do any sort of fact checking. That makes this particular site at best a marginally reliable source. Can you find reliable and independently published sources that discuss the game? GRBerry 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that - how's about this then: http://www.omgn.com/interviews.php?Item_ID=9&Offset=10 - an interview with a dev at that site? - Another one: http://www.omgn.com/interviews.php?Item_ID=8&Offset=10 . I'm sure if I absolutely had to I could probably find more, but I can't be bothered because we're still going to fail "notability" anyway. 81.106.142.175 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, pointing someone to a 3,000 word article when all they are trying to do is get a article re-established doesn't make much sense. One of those articles is a review (OMGN one). We then get into the territory of argueing over its "triviality". The way I see this, the only reason it's getting deleted is because SE has never been sufficiently "marketed" and as such no-one of any note bothered to write about it. Inspite of having over 20,000 downloads from SF, 7.5 years of existance (a VERY long time in the web world), several tens of thousands of users over it's history, and in-numerable forks, it's not worthy of an article because some big-shot at the NYTimes didn't bother writing about it. Can you maybe appreciate why I am thinking the notability requirements for Web pages are just a wee-bit flawed? Maybe we should have tried to get ourselves a Slashvert. Bah, I don't see why I'm wasting my time. 81.106.142.175 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Twiggy promo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Twiggy was an international supermodel and pop culture icon in the late 60's, the face of Swinging London as the article suggests. How is it then, that a fair use image of her in the late 60s was deleted with the reasoning of it being replaceable fair use. The image was properly sourced (from her official website) and included fair use rationale, free images were looked for on flickr and LoC but could not be found. It isn't a replacable image, we can't magic up a historic free use image of Twiggy. She might still be alive, but its absolutely useful and encyclopedic to have a fair use image of her from that time period. The deletion log claims that it was not being "context of her 60s appearance", which is not true, her 60s appearance is mentioned and the photo was used to illustrate it. If you see the talk page, you'll see the tagging admin argue the really trivial point that infoboxes are seperate entities, and had there been no infobox, it would have been alright. This is ridiculous, the deletion was in error. I was not the only one to have commented against its deletion, another user had also expressed an objection to the tagging. - hahnchen 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore. I'm not sure there was a fair use violation here. It's impossible to get a free-use image from the 1960s, which makes it not replaceable fair use, and a recent picture probably would not work either. --Coredesat 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore per Coredesat...unless someone can come up with a time machine. -- Jay Maynard 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Cautious overturn. It is probably not truly replaceable because although Twiggy is still alive, the context of the article pretty much demands an image from the 1960s (mind, this is not a terribly good image). Or the Blues Brothers. Oh, no, wait... Guy (Help!) 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per guy more or less. Tweak article text if we're really losing sleep over our fear that Twiggy is going to sue us for an image "not being used in a context of her 60s appearance" --W.marsh 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Perfectly acceptable use of a fair use image. --- RockMFR 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clear and obvious policy violation. Fear of being sued has nothing to do with anything. Neither does what Twiggy looked like in the 1960s. —Angr 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Leave deleted - we do not use a fair use image for everything we "mention" in an article. For the purpose of illustrating the person it is replaceable. ed g2s • talk 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The image was sourced to this website. There is no authorship information, there is no copyright holder information, and there is nothing at all that suggests that the image came from a press kit or has the "implicit license to republish" of a promotional photograph, and the site seems to indicate that the photographs have commercial value, as there is a link to a place one can purchase them. Its replaceability is beside the point, as the image would be deleted for having no real fair use rationale and being improperly sourced if it was restored. Jkelly 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The inside outside the infobox distinction seems to be sound and fury signifying nothing, not a reason for deleting something that would otherwise be ok. However, I notice that our article says that she has been active in modeling and TV shows in the past two years, not just that she is alive, so there is reason to believe a current image would also work well with the article content, making this replacable fair use. GRBerry 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is perfectly reasonable to have an image to go along with "She gained her nickname from her big-eyed, stick thin pubescent figure. She was known for the high fashion mod look that she created." I doubt that a picture of her at the ripe age of 57 would be a good replacement for a photo of her in the 1960's. --- RockMFR 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. The article on Christine Keeler has that picture because it was an iconic image of its day. Twiggy was very much the face of the 60s, the personification of the miniskirt look. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore, hard to see how this would be "replaceable", and certainly the use here qualifies as fair use. At some point, we need to replace "replaceable" with "realistically likely to be replaced", but this one is genuinely irreplaceable, unless, as mentioned earlier, someone's figured out a time machine. Seraphimblade 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Commment Replaceability is one of ten criteria. This will just be deleted again for failing WP:FUC 10. Jkelly 00:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Unless, of course, that information is provided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as per Jkelly. There may well be a reasonable fair use argument to be made for a well-sourced promotional photo of Twiggy during her peak years, but taking the image from a website without authorship or copyright information undermines the whole exercise. Yes, Twiggy was a Swinging 60s iconic model - so we should be able to find reasonable fair use images with proper sourcing Bwithh 07:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - obviously not replaceable. Also the fact remains nothing is replaceable till it is well.. replaced. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • if used in the context of discussing her 60s appearance, which it wasn't. ed g2s • talk 20:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it was, unless we're going to retread the petty "placement of the photo in/out of infobox" argument on the Image talk page. There's a reason a 60s image was used, and that was to illustrate her 60s appearance. It obviously doesn't show how she looks like now. - hahnchen 23:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, restore, and fill in the bloody source; the picture was taken from her official website. The link JKelly talks about is for purchasing paper copies, and high-res ones are free for download (not free as in beer GFDL, but obviously free enough for irreplaceable fair use). Duja► 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - There were no policy violations that I could think of (based on the information that I have)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Duja. Mathmo ^Talk 05:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn a picture of her as a wrinkled prune isn't the same as a period picture when she was hot. Nardman1 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I find it highly unlikely that this image could be reasonably replaced by a free image; if you belive it can be done, then find one and relist the image for deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-Monarchism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It is a separate idea from other anarchist thought. When I was referred there from the J.R.R. Tolkien page it was a useful and informative explanation of the idea. Please undelete. Josha 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• The consensus at AfD was clear - hence my closure. Do you have a reason that was not examined during that debate?--Doc^g 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; a clear consensus was reached that this article was original research vaguely extrapolated from some of Dali's and Tolkien's personal political views; "anarcho-monarchism" is not a political movement by any stretch of the imagination. Krimpet 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Here are some new sources for consideration to determine whether significant new information has come to light since the deletion (see DRV Purpose #2): (i) Bey, Hakim. T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. (2004) Black Crown & Black Rose: Anarcho-Monarchism & Anarcho-Mysticism.; (ii) Wilson, Peter Lamborn. (1993) Sacred Drift: Essays on the Margins of Islam. Page 65.; (iii) Brunswich, Mark; McAuliffe, Bill. (February 2, 2003) Star Tribune. Inside Talk: News, information and observations from the legislative and political arenas; Web site finds fun and farce in the politics of Minneapolis. News section, page 5B. ("Most of the staff of Raucouscaucus.com are Anarcho-Monarchists, a political movement that seeks to restore the reign of King Ludd"; (iv) Cockburn, Alexander. (December 6, 1999) Nation. "Exchange." Volume 269; Issue 19; Page 2. ("Go on, I dare you! Call me an anarcho-monarchist-constitutionalist."); (v) Harding, Helen E. (2005) Story a Day. Page 549.; (vi) Wayne John Sturgeon analyses (while not a Wikipedia source itself, it does mention some new Wikipedia qualified sources that might help create a valid Wikipedia article on the topic.); (vii) Amazon anarcho-monarchists and Amazon Anarcho-monarchism. -- Jreferee 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no prejudice against creating a new article, although I find a the sources a bit flimsy. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia's not the right place to publish this research. Jkelly 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The entry could be revised to omit any original research without deleting entirely. It seems like there is at least some evidence this term was used and a short entry describing what it is and who may have ascribed to this view would seem to be appropriate. The fact that it was not popular or a widely held belief does not mean it did not exist. Josha 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  Were it revised to remove original research, we'd be left with five sentences, three of which are part of a quotation. Picaroon 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, afd established consensus to delete, no reasoning given to show that this judgement was wrong. (On an unrelated note, I think its an interestingly hypocritical idea, but that is neither here nor there.) Picaroon 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Long Island Economy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was not meant to be spammy. We are a well regarded company based in Long Island, New York. We will fix and modify everything nessesary to have our page undeleted. When people search us on wiki and see that we've been deleted it makes us look very bad. Please undelete this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.187.83 (talk)

• Not actually unsigned, but misentered, so I used a handy shortcut. GRBerry 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- Long Island Exchange has also been deleted. Beware of using wikipedia to advertise yourself! Sdedeo (tips) 17:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment for the author: while Wikipedia is not for advertising, if you really feel your company is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry, you can try to rewrite the page from a strictly neutral point of view as long as you can provide independently verifiable sources that prove your company's notability. Krimpet 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While Long Island Economy is a well regarded company, Wikipedia requires that others say it is a well regarded company and that they say it in publications that meet Wikipedia requirements such as being independent of Long Island Economy. See WP:N. The only way to fix the Wikipedia Long Island Economy article would be to footnote the content with valid Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I could not find any reliable sources to use in footnoting the Long Island Economy article, so I do not think it can be fixed to meet Wikipedia criteria. As for "when people search us on wiki and see that we've been deleted it makes us look very bad" perhaps some administrator could provide some kind assistance and address this. -- Jreferee 20:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment I have just checked the Category: Newspapers published in New York, which has articles for many smaller papers from individual towns. I would like to compare the articles with this one, and request undeletion of this one to some suitable place. (its no longer in the Google cache)DGG 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment The article was not meant to be an advertisement, we would just like a chance to re-write our article from a neutral point of view. We will comply with all the standards, and if you google lieconomy or Long Island Economy you will find us everywhere.lieconomy 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, if you're really interested in having a neutral article, start a draft in userspace and have established editors review and help with it before asking to put it back into project space. Seraphimblade 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The amazing cheek of someone who openly admits to being a representative of the company and expects us to reinstate the article. Their rival Long Island Exchange has also been deleted. -- RHaworth 11:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not everyone knows about, or understands, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. -- Jay Maynard 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a conflict of interest, and if the author does not understand it, then we should try and inform him about it without biting the newbies. Where are the reliable sources that assert notability?? --sunstar net^talk 23:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Such companies need to meet the notability requirements and have reliable sources in order to support the information shown on the article. Also, the article must maintain a neutral point of view. Looking at the information provided to me, these requirements have not been met.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

India as an emerging superpower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

European Union as an emerging superpower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Emerging superpowers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

China as an emerging superpower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Also see earlier discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India Group nomination, no consensus in March 2006, but consensus that articles couldn't remain in their current form

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower Speedy keep in June 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China as an emerging superpower Keep in November 2006

(As well as others in the crossfire.) I'm a long term wiki user and was very surprised to see that the admin closed this with a delete. By my count, the comments were 20-18 in favor of keeping. I am happy to accept the admin's discounting of a bundle of comments on either side which were a little "me-too"ish, and to go with their count of 15-13 in favor of deleting. But long experience watching AfD's has taught me that (a) AfD is about consensus, not numerical majority -- i.e., AfD is not a "vote" as described by the admin, (b) we should err on the side of "keep" when judging consensus, especially when good faith is in abundance (as it is here), and (c) a rough rule of thumb is that something more like 2-1 is really required before you really start to call it a consensus. (nominated by User:Sdedeo)

• Overturn, strongly. Everyking 08:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice against creating policy-compliant articles about the subjects. Simply put, the articles were term papers. Term paper topics ask students to collect corroborating evidence for both sides of the argument and weigh them against each other. Wikipedia explicitly asks its editors not to do that. The nomination was wrong to invoke crystal ball though, and articles on the topic can perfectly be written by consulting experts who published on the topic. The closure was proper because our core policies override consensus, and no attempt was made to bring the articles in line with policy. A fresh start seems to be the necessary step here. ~ trialsanderrors 09:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But people who voted keep obviously did not agree that the article violated any policy. I think that notion is completely unfounded. So the outcome of the debate doesn't really depend on the community's judgment at all—it depends on the viewpoint of a single admin about whether the article violates policy? If people here vote to undelete the article, will it then be OK for Jaranda to delete it again if he still thinks it violates policy? I think admins should be putting the community's decisions into practice, not ignoring them and coming up with decisions of their own. Everyking 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't actually see a keep opiner state that it's not OR. All kinds of other arguments (useful, well sourced, important topic), but the main claim that it fails one of our core policies is not refuted. Also, the core policies are not speedy criteria. But they're consensus overriding, yes, that means it's up to the closing admin to make the call whether the issue was properly addressed. ~ trialsanderrors 10:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It did not remotely appear like OR to me, so it did not occur to me to refute that in my vote. Let's continue with the idea I mentioned earlier. Say this is undeleted through process and Jaranda deletes it again: would that be legitimate? Is there ever a limit? I suggest that empowering admins over the community is a very bad idea; it should be the other way around, with admins implementing community decisions. Everyking 10:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It's in the nomiantion. It's also not too hard to detect OR by synthesis. If the article says "the following sources facts speak in favor of the 'future superpower position', and the following sourced facts speak against it", it's OR. And the article did exactly that. ~ trialsanderrors 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You are trying to argue for flaws in the article to justify its deletion, whereas I think that any flaws in the article are irrelevant for the purposes of this debate, because the community decided to keep the article. Your side obviously did not argue for the flaws well enough during the debate. The flaws you speak of, if they exist, would have to be dealt with by editors or another AfD nom would be required to get a delete vote from the community on that basis. I do not accept that Jaranda can veto the community's decision and do whatever he likes. The issue has very deep implications. Everyking 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm applying the standards we have for AfD closures to this one, which are: 1. No evidence of bias or bad faith in the closure, 2. Closure based on weight of arguments and not mere vote counting, and 3. Core policies trump consensus. I also didn't opine for deletion, so it's certainly not "my side" that won. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Core policies trump concensus? Sounds a bit like Wikilawyering to me. 88.104.226.72 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the closing admin discounted a NUMBER of both keep and delete votes, typically votes that neither touched on the fact it was in the wrong namespace and OR. The arguement regarding consusus put forth by Everyking, in a nutshell, is saying "if a bunch of people vote keep without any reasoning their votes should determine consensus, but if you say delete with reasons and someone says it seems useful the delete votes don't determine consensus." Since almost NONE of the keep arguments touched on the fact that no matter how sourced some of the articles were that their construction, points, and sweeping outlays were complete OR (not to mention highly POV), I fail to see how this even merits discussion. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn - The articles were some of the best written ones on Wiki and probably the only ones yielding such comprehensive information about the nations in question and their status as a potential superpower. Please restore the articles, such wealth of information at one place, accessible by just a simple google search must not be lost. If someone is curious about about the nations in question and their status as a potential future superpower then they are going to be very lost right now. Thank You. _{Freedom skies| talk}  10:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you read the same article as I did? China wasn't well-written at all, throwing out random facts at the reader and expecting them to connect them to the concept of a superpower. This was not an article. This was a list of random numbers and information pertaining to China that editors decreed to be somehow relevant to the future status of China. Regardless, "best written" doesn't mean shit. I could upload the entire works of Shakespeare to Wikipedia; doesn't mean that it's acceptable. This was a middle school essay, and a bad one at that. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This? This? Erm, THEM.... you haven't even read the other articles have you? That's where this is all going wrong. And if they're so bad, then why have they stood for so long? 88.104.226.72 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, Kindly point me to one source on the internet which covers the future potential of China, EU and India as a superpower in such formidable fashion. I am not a fan of Han Chinese nationalism and I have probably encountered more of it than you have on Wikipedia but in case of any such instance those portions within the article needed correction not indiscriminate deletion of the entire article. No other source covers the topic in such a manner. The random facts showed China's rise to power and if you felt they were inappropriate then you had the right to edit them, but for the love of god don't remove the whole thing altogather. The Appeasement article has innumerable violations as well, do we indiscriminately delete the whole thing then?

Regardless, "best written" doesn't mean shit.

Yeah right,

Violation of WP norms then? Like this editor restorting to a tasteless WP:Civility violation? Since he considers alleged violation of WP leading to an absolute deletion fair would he then go on to support his own self getting banned forever due to the above WP:Civility violation?

Did'nt think so.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're confused. I am replying to your assertion that those articles were well-written, which they weren't. This is not the main issue with those articles, that being WP:NOR. You're also overreacting to a word. It is a word. On the Internet. So kindly stop with the strawman and argue about the real point without resorting to subjective opinion. Argue that those pages weren't violations of WP:NOR instead of throwing in opinions such as "best written" to dazzle other editors that don't understand policy and pointlessly throwing a fit over naughty!word.' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--

In case you had a problem you should have worked to correct it or just tagged the articles. The content in Appeasement violates WP as well, delete the whole thing then?

• You're confused

+ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedom skies (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

• So kindly stop with the strawman

+

• Argue that those pages weren't violations of WP:NOR instead of throwing in opinions such as "best written" to dazzle other editors that don't understand policy and pointlessly throwing a fit over naughty!word.

The article got deleted due to editors such as those?

On a completely unrelated note, "best written" demonstrably means very well referenced. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please attach a point to your comments other than finding supposed offense in every corner. Correcting an article's faults only works if the article's purposes is not inherently original research. Not everything can be solved by fixing it up. "Best written" doesn't indicate being well-referenced. Some novels are wonderfully written. That doesn't mean they're referenced at all. Nor were the references used properly. "Source says A, and source says B, therefore C" is still original research. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I do wish you'd stop telling us to provide evidence it's not OR... how are we supposed to do that? It's not! That's all the evidence there is! As you're on the attack, the onus is on you and others to find evidence to back up your assertion that the article is inherently OR... of which you have spectacularly and glaringly managed NOT to do yet. 88.104.159.230 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse inherently POV original research - unsalvageable.--Doc^g 11:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Closing administrator made the correct decision. Proto::► 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no obvious procedural issues. Fails WP:OR and always did. The deletion nomination was comprehensive and correct. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They fail would be the correct usage for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because the deletion was out of process. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and redirect (protected) to People's Republic of China. As far as I can see, the policy-based deletion reason was the failure of WP:NPOV. However, there appears to be quite a bit of decent content in this article, fairly well-referenced, and the claims that this was some sort of crystal balling didn't seem to hold up during the Afd discussion. There is consensus, even among many of the delete !votes, that this content can be refactored and merged elsewhere. --- RockMFR 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They, not this would be the correct usage for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because the deletion was out of process. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per trialsanderrors, I see no problems with this decision. It was They were POV OR - we are not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They, not it would be the correct usage for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because the deletion was out of process. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, it was a simple oversight. I've fixed it. --Coredesat 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The article does not violated any policy. There are vast amount of literature directly discussing these topics.--Vsion 14:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They, not the article would be the correct usage for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because the deletion was out of process. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, no chance of salvage for this content. Closing admin was correct in assessing the quality of the pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The articles failed WP:OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against creating an article which is not term paperish. Calling something not POV and OR does not mean that it is not. -Amark moo! 15:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: as I understand DRV, if you have nothing to say about the process, you should not be commenting here (i.e., this is not a place to restate your AfD "vote".) Sdedeo 17:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC) ← Comment added by Sdedeo, but because the top of the page was malformed it accidentally got my signature originally. GRBerry 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. --Peta 02:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Recreation, in another form, might be an option. However, I don't see any errors in process. Dekimasuが... 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As closing admin noted, a number of the "keeps" were one-time or close-to-one-time accounts and should be discounted. In any case, no convincing arguments were made that the articles were encyclopedic. (The arguments were largely "but these were well-written!" which miss the point entirely.) (Of course, I may be biased.) --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, there is a large amount of information (well-referenced) on this subject, and it covers a recognized field of study. Encyclopedic and informative. Davemcarlson 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They cover, not it covers would be the correct usage for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because the deletion was out of process. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Idea that you should consider: I have created new headings that will prevent OR for the pages as User:Nobleeagle/China as an emerging superpower/New and [[User:Nobleeagle/India as an emerging superpower/New to replace User:Nobleeagle/China as an emerging superpower and [[User:Nobleeagle/India as an emerging superpower. What if I substitute those headings only into the articles which provides foundation for a complete rewrite which all you participants can oversee. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation as non-essay article articles without original research or original research synthesis. Process and closing seems to be in order. Bwithh 07:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Article, not articles would be the correct usage for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because the deletion was out of process. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the grammar correction... This user was made a error because he was tired actually Bwithh 01:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Articles were concise, informative, cited, and researched.--D-Boy 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: per No original research policy. --Ragib 09:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn - Clearly the rough majority was in favour, overall there was no concensus, some votes were discounted for poor reasoning but others were not. They are a controversial article and always have been, to delete them is a slap in the face for everyone who has not worked on them. Deletion was out of process as FOUR ARTICLES WERE VOTED ON IN ONE AFD. Also, even though it was a "keep" by a narrow margin, it must be noted China's two previous "keeps" one of which was "speedy". Furthermore the EU article has never been put up for deletion, only as part of these "block" AfD's. Could I put up every Wikipedia article for AfD underneath a "Weather in London" deletion? And if everyone voted "delete" because they felt the weather article should be deleted, the entire wikipedia goes? It's totally out of process, even though it's not in the official guidelines; it's a given. The entire deletion guidelines refer to "the article" not "article(s)". One at a time! Obviously! But most importantly, the overriding undeletion question - Would Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored? - Clearly that is the case. All the information will be lost otherwise. This is such a controversial deletion overlooking so many facts in favour of "a workable solution", that if this deletion is not overturned here, I can see it going to the Arbitration Committee, to be honest. Lets face it, when it comes down to it and you cut the crap: Votes were in favour of keeping. Articles have survived deletion before. Multiple AfD's under one vote. One of the articles has never actually been nominated for deletion in its own right. It's one leg to stand on is a bit shaky, to say the least. 88.104.226.72 14:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of pointing out people's grammatical mistakes as they must be clearly talking about multiple articles when they refer to one. Clearly. Yeah. Hmm. Oh yes, and "Endorse Deletion" is incorrect, it should be "deletions". But we'll let that one slip as it's a bit shaky ;) 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• • For your "FOUR ARTICLES WERE VOTED ON IN ONE AFD" complaint, you are presently aware that such a thing is not uncommon? There are even directions to do so on the main AfD page. Such AfDs are a timesaver, as we don't have to go through this endless debate four times. For your "votes!" point, I remind you that "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." There were no actual arguments that disputed the application of WP:NOR to those articles, and WP:NOR is absolute, no matter how much people like an article. That you and others continue to avoid WP:NOR complaints didn't help in the AfD, and will not help you now. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? )}

^(Edits!) 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What? That's a ridiculous assumption to make. Like you said, WP:NOR is absolute so anyone who thought there was original research could not vote "keep" or "merge". I thought it was clear that I didn't think there was original research in the EU article (the one I was focussed on), because I voted Keep! I assumed the main bone of contention was NPOV, arising from the name and nature of international relations, and set about addressing that instead. No-one from the delete camp provided any evidence of systemic Original Research, so their arguments are entirely invalid if only based on WP:NOR. I would hereby like to clearly state my point that there was no systemic Original Research in the article, this is what I meant by Keep - obviously the odd inexperienced user might have slipped something in, but nothing major - and I'm sure everyone else who voted keep meant their vote as a denial of the accusation of OR aswell... its a given. It's interesting the articles have actually been accused of plaigarism in the past and now they're being deleted on the grounds of OR! I thought my "keep" vote was clear on the matter, but obviously not... 88.104.201.82 11:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • The nature of the article was well-explained to be OR in the AfD by those who voted delete. Those who voted keep mostly avoided debating this point. Ignoring the opponent's arguments isn't not how you win debates such as this. Explain how this is not original research instead of going off on irrelevant tangents. That's all I'm asking. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, sorry, I must have misread the explanations of how it was OR. Please point me to a selection of the deletion debate where anyone actually justifies their points? All that was said is "this article violates WP:OR" - without facts, nothing but an opinion. No-one ever provided any evidence. I've just attacked your arguments by saying clearly that the articles have been accused of plaigirism which is a direct broadside into your OR rubbish. How can it be original and plaigirised? And as for avoiding the subject, there was no "argument" on the opposing side. All we had on the OR point was, This article violates WP:OR. No it doesn't, keep. Yes it does, delete. No it doesn't, keep. Yes it does, delete. Keep. Delete. Keep. Delete I'd hardly call it a constructive argument, let alone a basis for deleting the page. 88.104.247.33 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the deletions - the process was conducted properly. The arguments are centred around WP:OR, WP:NPOV. I don't think there is any aspect of information in these articles that cannot be discussed in the sections/fork articles dealing with the country's economy, culture, politics, foreign policy, armed forces. "(X) as an emerging superpower" is a grossly subjective, POV term and certainly not a basis to start an article - it is a theory, a subjective assessment and an on-going debate. Rama's arrow 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're after a rename then, not a delete. (X) as an emerging superpower was not the basis for the articles as they were first created as subsections of the Superpower article ande then splintered off when the page became too big. 88.104.201.82 11:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, Those are some of the best articles on wikipedia. sticksnstones 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How does this address the WP:NOR complaint? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't need addressing because there's no evidence, hence no complaint. More of a suspicion to address, really. 88.104.201.82 11:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Paragraphs of delete opinions would disagree. Repeatedly denying that it exists doesn't make it disappear. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Make what disappear?! Seriously, are you on some Wiki that I'm not here? All I can see is a stream of "violates WP:OR"'s - no cold, hard evidence from the text. A delete vote without any evidence doth not make a credible argument, my friend. 88.104.176.15 02:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• God this is such a mess. I only wanted to make a very narrow claim: that the admin should have closed with "no consensus" as the usual tradition seems (in my past experience) to require more than a simple numerical majority for delete. But everyone is flipping out all over again. I'm sorry for the trouble. Sdedeo (tips) 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn then relist all - The closure, in my opinion, did not reflect AFD consensus. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as Ed said: the closure, in my opinion, did not reflect AFD consensus. Mathmo ^Talk 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again, WP:NOR is not something to dismiss, even with your invoking of "consensus". It would be much, much more relevant and helpful if you directly argued against this point instead of pretending that consensus overrides WP:NOR. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no major original research in the articles, you never found any. Hence the lack of concensus 88.104.201.82 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The article was well written (unlike say "Brazil as emerging superpower") but speculations are not encyclopedic topic. Pavel Vozenilek 12:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Articles, not article; were not was would be the correct usages for multiple articles. But this user also is focussing on one because they were all lumped together when they all deal with seperate issues. 88.104.226.72 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. To the nom: AFD is not about voting, nor about consensus, it's about the validity and legitimacy of arguments. It wouldn't be logical that a page which is inherently OR and POV and violated WP:NOT wouldn't get deleted simply because there are more people that want to preserve it. If this would be the case hardly any article that is interesting or has active contributors could get deleted... The deletion process didn't violate any rule. Don't get me wrong: I understand that there are a lot of people who have spent their time and energy on these articles and their effort should be appreciated - but this is not a reason to overturn a deletion. Sijo Ripa 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the reason for overturning the deletion would be it's not OR nor NPOV and no-one has provided any evidence to the contrary. No force of argument came through, there was no concensus and the vote was in favour of keeping. But yet it was deleted? Hmmm. 88.104.247.33 14:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not a fact that China is an emerging superpower (=POV and crystalballing) and providing a synthesis of some published material to advance a position is OR. As an anonymous user, you are probably quite new to Wikipedia (which isn't a bad thing!), but it takes time to read and comprehend the particular Wikipedia policy guidelines. I advise you to do so - because it would clear up the whole issue and lower Wikistress levels. Wikipedia is not about voting, it's about the validity and legitimacy of arguments (as I've stated above). Sijo Ripa 20:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, I'm not new, I just don't see the point of getting an account. I had one years ago but it was more trouble than it was worth; the discussion page being a magnet for trouble. Anyways, back the the debate: It is not a fact that China is an emerging superpower (=POV and crystalballing) China as an emerging superpower, not is. Very, very big mistake there and your argument falls apart on that basis, I think - As being a comparitive word and is being a definitive one. Basically China as an emerging superpower really could also be written as "Comparing China's attributes to that of an emerging superpower": in the same way that "strong as an ox" means "Comparing strength to an ox's attributes". So, no, it's not crystal balling or POV. Can't argue with the dictionary, I'm afraid! So please don't patronise me again, I've been on here longer than you, actually, I just checked. 88.104.189.53 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        • But an article comparing X to Y is original research. -Amarkov moo! 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, but it becomes encyclopedic if it's on the debate rather than the subject. Like Abortion debate. Informative. 88.104.176.15 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The argument on the AFD page was about OR and speculation. A great deal of the "do not delete" votes argued that the articles were: well-written, NPOV, well-cited, useful, etc. While perhaps true, these arguments did not address the OR problem, and I think they were rightfully discounted by the administrator. Once discounted I think it's clear that the weight of the arguments rested with those who demonstrated how articles about "emerging superpowers", by the very definition of superpower, could only be misleading, original research, and fundamentally based on speculation.—Perceval 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What "OR problem"? See above. Well-written, NPOV, well-cited, useful; why thanks for helping the "overturn" crew out - The overriding rule on deletion policy is "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the articles kept", not WP:OR - what you've just said sounds like a Overturn and remove any so-called "OR", not a Delete. 88.104.176.15 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. There was just a CNN article on India and China as an emerging power, so both China and India's articles do in fact have credible sources. 65.40.239.99 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Overturn. The were excellent written articles with very useful information, importance, and credibility. The deletion of these articles is pure craziness! Effer 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Overturn. Discounting of arguments, even if done on both sides, weakens the AfD process and the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole by saying that some editors' opinions are more valued than those of other editors. --Hemlock Martinis 22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Despite the potential for OR, better in than out, in this case. It's a legitimate topic for encyclopedic mention, and it's best to have something there so that it can be improved, rather than rewritten (a headache and potentially impossible). Wikipedia's mission is to become a summary of all human knowledge, and quite frankly, there's too much on the topic of emerging to ignore, and it would be impractical to include it all on the China (or India, or EU) page without running afoul of the size limit. Lockesdonkey 22:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn - many valuable informations in this serie of articles. --Yug (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AFD1|AfD2)

Closed by Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) as delete. When approached, he claimed that his rationale was the result of the first AfD (which should have minimal bearing on this one) and that the delete responses were not irrational rational. Claimed no assertion of "notability" in the nomination, four claimed a self-reference (which was not the case here at all, per WP:SELF), one claimed a speedy as a G4-style recreation, which didn't apply, a few simply said "not notable," one called the article "junk," and two more referenced WP:DENY, which has absolutely nothing to do with this. Like Kohs or not, he meets the WP:BIO standards as demonstrated by many at the AfD, having been a primary subject of multiple nontrivial works, and I'm not sure how this can be anything else but a keep, so overturn. badlydrawnjeff talk 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Admin's response: Whilst the previous AfD was noted, my primary reason for closure was that there was a obviously a consensus to delete, and no overwhelming reason for me to ignore that consensus. But I'm untroubled if the consensus here is otherwise.--Doc^g 08:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What has changed since the AfD to make this article notable? Fellacious 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete - the new version of the article is substantially different and cites two articles from reliable news sources ([1] and [2]) that talk about this individual and his business. These articles (and, presumably, this individual's notability) are more recent than the AFD. --BigDT 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Sole claim to fame is self-referential, and nobody but us cares. The previous version actually had more claim to notability, and even that was found wanting. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If no one but us cares, why the media atttention? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid close, no new evidence. The closing admin's interpretation of the sources was correct; apart from the passing mentions, all the articles are about the same event - the blocking of the account which the subject used to edit MyWikiBiz. A one-off event that received news coverage does not a biography make, coverage of one-off events belongs in Wikinews. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How does that jive with WP:BIO, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to relisting. The sole claim of notability comes from events within Wikipedia itself; I think that WP:SELF in this strange case has more weight than references in reliable sources (although I'd like to see some more weighed argumentation at the AfD). Wikipedia is not a news service. Duja► 08:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But WP:SELF has nothing to do with articles that have to do with Wikipedia, really. It's more about using Wikipedia in a self-referential way, which this did not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. To answer Fellacious, nothing. Still non-notable, still self-referential, still the not-primary subject of multiple trivial works. --Calton | Talk 08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you define "notability" then? Where do you come up with your idea of self-reference? What does WP:BIO say? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - did not last five days. And coverage by MSNBC, Philadelphia Enquirer, and the Globe and Mail all cover him and both his business AND his personal biography as well as why he is notable in the field of marketing and online advertising, as well as to places such as Wikipedia. Could someone, anyone, please explain how the man isn't notable, or why the article wasn't simply cleaned up with some decent sources that took LESS THAN TWO MINUTES TO LOCATE? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it did last 5 days, I think you are looking at the first delete decisions see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (second nomination)--Doc^g 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Admin closed the discussion in the correct manner. If the links Elaragirl has provided are sufficient to assert Mr Koh's notability, then no issues with a recreation that suitably asserts notability. Proto::► 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Those were already in the article, and noted a number of times at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Jeff, the links Elaragirl gives above were not provided in the AFD discussion. Why do you say they are? Proto::► 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • All three are reprints/copies of the Washington Post/AP piece linked at the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, I understand. That story's about Microsoft, though, not Kohs (who just gets a brief mention). Proto::► 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Kohs doesn't get a "brief mention," he's the subject for over half of the piece. He's "a primary subject" of this specific piece. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Everyking 11:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Because?... Guy (Help!) 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Elara's links are actually one source (an AP piece), but the quality of debate in the AfD was lamentable. As Jeff says, WP:DENY is completely irrelevant here (it's an essay about vandalism ffs; so much for neutrality). Andrew Lenahan quoted WP:ASR, but Wikipedia has plenty of smug, self-congratulatory bollocks in article space; this is not an argument based on "worse crap exists" but rather a rejection of the idea that an article on Kohs is a self-reference. If ASR were actually applied, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination) would be proceeding otherwise. I'm sorry to be second guessing Doc Glasgow, but this needs to be revisited, minus all the navel-gazing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the only claim of notability of this individual is in relation to Wikipedia. If this episode is considered sufficiently interesting in the context of Wikipedia, it can be added to History of Wikipedia; otherwise, I see no point in keeping something that is not considered sufficiently important in its own context. Tizio 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Since there is some room for doubt here. I have reconsidered, undeleted and relisted this. Let's get the debate right this time. Comment at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (thirdnomination) --Doc^g 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

JewsDidWTC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was speedy deleted right after being created based on the conclusion of a previous deletion review about the GNAA article. The GNAA article was not reinstated because the consensus was that one notable action does not necessarily make a group notable. There seemed to be some confusion about the CNN spot, though- to be clear, all the still images that CNN used in that six-minute segment were cribbed from jewsdidwtc.com. Under standard notability rules, having a CNN segment almost entirely about a website makes that website notable- especially considering the journalistic implications of not verifying if a website being quoted is for real, or not caring. So while the consensus was that the GNAA itself is not notable for having produced jewsdidwtc.com, I still think that jewsdidwtc.com is itself now notable under Wikipedia policy. The CNN segment is available on youtube here. Compare with the fan art section of jewsdidwtc.com, and see for yourself. Fellacious 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleted without predjudice - there's almost certainly an article to be written here, but the deleted article isn't it. Phil Sandifer 01:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions to improve it? I wrote that article quickly because I thought it should be written, after my suggestion to reinstate the GNAA article was denied- as I recall, JewsDidWTC used to be a redirect to Gay Nigger Association of America. The person who tagged it for speedy deletion was probably right that I was too harsh on the issue, and I was definitely focusing too much on the CNN segment and not on the ostensible topic of the article. Suggestions and even rewrites are welcome- I'm not suggesting that my prose is sacred and I have been personally violated by its deletion. Fellacious 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Find some third party sources that talk about the overall error on CNN's part. Phil Sandifer 03:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. At this time, there aren't any. Maybe being focused on in a segment on CNN makes the website itself notable and verifiable? But the article as I wrote it was unverifiable, so I will withdraw my nomination for undeletion. Perhaps a shorter article describing the website and not editorializing about its coverage would be appropriate? Fellacious 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. CNN did not talk about the site at all. They used screenshots of the site to illustrate the story. Even if using images of a website constituted non-trivial coverage, CNN would not be a reliable source in this case. Their use of images from the website was entirely unprofessional and moronic. Though, I do give my personal congratulations to the GNAA for successfully trolling CNN. ----RockMFR 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They did, however, mention the website directly. I agree that it was mentioned a face of a group of people who actually believe that Jews are responsible for the September 11th attacks. However, it was one of a small handful of sites mentioned, and the source of most if not all of the pictures in their story- absent any interviews with people who believe that Jews are responsible (interviewing a vanilla conspiracy theorist doesn't cut it), CNN's segment appears to be entirely about jewsdidwtc.com. I suppose it's true that CNN is not a reliable source in this case- that's what makes this case so interesting. Perhaps we should wait until they issue a retraction? Fellacious 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as per RockMFR. (I couldn't see any of the "fan art" in the youtube clip anyway - I may have missed it as the clip seemed to skip when playing quite a bit) Bwithh 02:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Since "JewsDidWTC" was not actually mentioned or discussed during the clip, it can't be used as a source. Besides, there's pretty clear consensus that GNAA shenanigans don't really belong on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This article seems like a WP:POINT creation to me, given how the last GNAA DRV went. Either way, the CNN report was not directly about the website at all, and gave it only a passing mention, which is not enough. --Coredesat 03:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just a passing mention, lots of images were used in CNN's report, making it look like CNN's report was mainly about jewsdidwtc.com. The last GNAA DRV was me trying to get the last article Wikipedia had about jewsdidwtc.com reinstated, thus the creation (and deletion) of this one. The conclusion of that DRV was that the GNAA is still non-verifiable even considering that they made jewsdidwtc.com, not that jewsdidwtc.com is non-notable. Subjects have been considered notable for less than trolling major news sources- see every other no-name band article. However, I will concede the point of verifiability- as yet, jewsdidwtc.com not being serious is not verifiable. Fellacious 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, major news sources are perfectly capable of trolling their own graphics [3], it's not really encyclopedically remarkable. Bwithh 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion and recommend a permanent salt. This is just more OR, nonverifiable GNAA garbage. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion still not convinced this video even actually aired on CNN, per my comments in the brief GNAA DRV earlier. --W.marsh 04:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1|AfD2|Aug 05 Signpost article|AFD3|AFD4)

A notification, rather than a request, but I'm not sure where else to put it. I am undeleting Cyrus Farivar as per Jimbo's previous endorsement of exactly this act: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored." [4]. User:Jaranda expressed concern that this was not brought to DRV, so I figured I should leave notice here (and also on WP:AN before restoring it again. I will not continue to restore at this point, but I will bring the issue through proper dispute resolution channels should it continue to be an issue.

I am not asking for or opening a full review because, well, it's unnecessary and beside the point. DRV is a process through which we review deletions, but it is not the sole way in which they are reviewed. This is something that there is a definitive ruling on - journalists with the publication record of Cyrus Farivar are notable. Small segments of the community may create pages that proport to establish other criteria for notability, and AfDs can fail to attract the attention of anything but the mindset that currently dominates the page, but none of this changes the basic fact that a notability guideline of that extremity has been actively rejected from the very top, and the act of unilaterally restoring this article has explicitly been sanctioned.

This ought not only terminate the debate, but also serve as a rather sobering warning about the sad state of so-called policy on Wikipedia, whereby it clearly does not provide useful guidance on our actual best practice. Phil Sandifer 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• General reminder As the last community decision was the AFD, closed as delete, "Endorse" here at deletion review means the article should be returned to a deleted state. GRBerry 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question As the quote by Jimbo at the top of Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem points out, arguments based on what Jimbo said are pretty weak. Given that it is policy that consensus can change, and given that the standard for biographies of living people have gotten a lot tighter since he made that remark 18 months ago, why should we believe that Jimbo would still endorse that old quote? There is not a single reliable source meeting the standards for biographies of living people used in the article, other than the Slate article on the greenlighting thing. GRBerry 02:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If Farivar's blog is not being used as a source (and I'm fairly sure that it is), it should be - but the sources that Farivar's journalistic endeavors exist are transparently easy to find. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The notion of using Farivar's blog to establish his own notability sends chills down my spine. Savidan 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless a better case can be made that the AfD was somehow improperly closed or had other outstanding circumstances. Much like the "Able and Baker" fiasco, a longstanding editor like Phil should be aware by now that the way to rescue articles from AfD is to improve them (particularly by sourcing them properly) rather than pretending to have some magical power to override consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A better option is for the collective community to not blindly follow sourcing guidelines that obviously lead to wrong conclusions. That was the argument last time, when the attempt to delete it as vanity came through, and it's the argument this time - this is obviously an article we should have a topic on. If our current guidelines on notability and sourcing prohibit it, the guidelines are broken and should be ignored. If the guidelines were established because of the overwhelming voice of the community, the community is broken and should be ignored. All of this is entirely within Wikipedia practice - it is in fact the model of it. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Or a better option - the guidelines be amended to allow for obvious cases such as this. Sadly, we're moving in the opposite direction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If you really believe that ignoring the community is within Wikipedia practice, then you're clearly too far gone for me to debate intelligently with. Sorry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • He's not really wrong... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Did WP:NOT get edited to remove "Wikipedia is not a democracy" without my noticing it? Phil Sandifer 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Last time I checked, no, but WP:POINT is still there. Krimpet 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • What point do you think I'm illustrating? Phil Sandifer 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • That you're trying to promote your own less restrictive standards of notability in the face of reasonable community consensus. And as WP:POINT states, "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented." Krimpet 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps more relevantly, "Wikipedia is not a democracy" continues to say that "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion". So I wouldn't call not a democracy a strong reason for overturning consensus. If you want to make the argument that consensus has been misread either in the AFD (potentially plausible), or in giving guidelines guideline status (unlikely to be agreed to), make that argument. But I don't see "not a democracy" as endorsing an attempt to ignore consensus. GRBerry 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Midway through your comment, you switch from saying that consensus comes from discussion to seeming to say that consensus comes from a critical mass of voices, which is still a flavor of democracy. Consensus is what emerges when Wikipedians who are firmly invested in the project's aims and principles think about an issue. My contention is that the people who weighed in on this issue did a bad job of considering the project's aims. And I unfortunately don't think that the people who frequent DRV have ever shown themselves to be much better. Perhaps this will just take an arbcom case to sort out in the end. Phil Sandifer 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Five letters... WP:AGF. It's cocky to simply assume that the opposing viewpoint "did a bad job of considering the project's aims", while touting your own views as "obvious" and "best practice". I want to build a better encyclopedia. You want to build a better encyclopedia. Until they explicitly prove otherwise, I assume everyone else wants to build a better encyclopedia too. Krimpet 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious undelete. Phil is 100% on the money. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Jimbo's quote referred to a questionable AfD a year and a half ago, where an influx of new users and IP addresses contributed to the "delete" consensus and thus one could reasonably argue that particular AfD was "broken and should be ignored". It seems Phil Sandifer has instead taken this as a blessing upon his own personal standards of notability, and as a command to unilaterally enforce these "definitive rulings" that fly in the face of community consensus. Krimpet 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• • That is a flat misreading of the circumstances of the past AfD - the decision was made based on notability. Phil Sandifer 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's certainly hard to tell exactly what the circumstances are, though, considering it seems the only place the quote can be found is out-of-context in the Signpost article. To avoid making interpretation of this quote an issue, I have humbly requested to Jimbo that he leave his opinion on this current matter to clarify things. Krimpet 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm about to head to bed, but I'll go find the original discussion on Jimbo's page. Phil Sandifer 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I could care less what Jimbo said more than a year ago. After looking through the history, and the very thin sourcing, I don't see anything wrong with the closure, and the attitude here regarding consensus as only being compose of those that Mr. Sandifer finds acceptible is bad enough that I'm almost sure I must be misinterpreting it. The idea that we need to justify our ability to contribute and decide issues inline with projects aims, and if we disagree we're no longer fit to do so, is ... well, it's not AGF. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, I'd find Jimbo's stance on three other issues far more important to consider than any comments he has made specifically regarding this article. First of all, I believe Jimbo has made quite clear that, except for in those rare situations in which the Jimbo, on behalf of the foundation, exercises his "executive power," his opinions are to be given no more weight than those of any other reasonable editor in good standing. If this were an issue of concern to the foundation or if Jimbo felt the need to explicitly intervene, we would not be having this discussion at all nor would there have been four AfD discussions nor would there be any real opportunity to appeal the deletions and undeletions of this article--as WP:OFFICE has not even threatened to reer its head in this case, it is clear that Jimbo has not sought to excercise any executive authority and, thus, the opinion of all of us here is equally as valid as his. Secondly, Jimbo has also made quite clear the importance of verifiability and neutrality. In this article, I see one source--a story the article's subject wrote about himself--a link to the subject's blog, and a link to a podcast interview with the subject. Hardly neutral, and if in more than two years no other sources could be found to verify the article's contents, I find it highly unlikely that the article will ever live up to this standard of verifiability and neutrality. All discussion and process aside, if an article has no hope of ever becoming non-biased and well-sourced, it has no place on Wikipedia. Thirdly, Jimbo has always placed great emphasis on the importance of process and consensus. In the most recent AfD of this article, I believe that the consensus of the community was quite clearly in favor of deleting and that the process was in no way impeded. Overruling consensus in this case would, however, serve to interfere with this process and with the faith of Wikipedia's articles in the process. Ultimately, I see nothing about this article that should anyway separate it from being bound by process and consensus as is every article on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I would not have !voted delete here, but there was a clear consensus to delete and that's more important than my personal opinion. Also, hitting the delete (or, in this case, undelete) button when you are a party to the discussion is rarely a good idea. --BigDT 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. Many of the delete !votes were simply of the type "not notable", while I feel Phil had a pretty decent argument for inclusion. The subject appears to be a prolific journalist and writer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, valid discussion and good conclusion. We don't decide who is notable, other sources decide that. If there are no or not enough sources about the person, then he isn't notable. What he does is irrelevant. We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. Oh, and Jimbo Wales is known to change his mind on what should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, and does normally not consider his opinion to be "law"[5]. 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Perhaps Jimbo Wales should step in here, if that's what it takes. RFerreira 08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  He has been asked to comment (as of this timestamp, not yet). See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Cyrus Farivar revisited. GRBerry 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Just passing by, but I think the crucial point here is that wikipedia has moved since Jimbo made this pronouncement. (We should not be re-having the AfD discussion here -- rather addressing a point that might override the consensus.) Sdedeo (tips) 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC) A plague on both your houses. I think it's dangerous to overturn consensus, but on the other hand, this is the fourth AfD (#s one and two ended in keep, #3 ended in no consensus.) I'm concerned that lack of respect for consensus is heavy on all sides. Sdedeo (tips) 09:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete while I think its a bad precident to overturn community consensus... there is a reason we have WP:IAR. Jimbo has de facto stated the guy is notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If we follow your logic, Alkivar, why even have the community debate these things at all? Just let Jimbo do it. No? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Let me quote,

  I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think. -- Jimbo Wales.

• Hence, endorse. "Jimbo said something related to this over a year ago" is no reason to override consensus. >Radiant< 10:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse properly closed deletion. This is notwithstanding the fact that by applying the Jimbo-logic-exclusion-principle, the statement I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think. may also be discounted, thereby restoring the primacy of Jimbo's opinion...of course, once that is restored, then the statement become validated once again, and therefore must be discounted. Oh heck with Jimbo...his circular logic trap is giving me a headache. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter if Jimbo said anything, his word is not the be-all, end-all. The AFD closure was valid. --Coredesat 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Doug Bell and Ami Daniel; nothing wrong with the AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD. No arguments (besides Jimbo's say so) to overturn consensus just statements that consensus (as embodied in our guidelines and the AfD) is wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but 99% of the time it runs on consensus not fiat. Eluchil404 15:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I fully admit that our sourcing guidelines are draconian, but if they were not, we'd have to trust random people to be giving us correct information, which is not a good idea. What Jimbo said is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There was a consensus to delete, and the article as it stood did not clearly and unambiguously demonstrate notability. If there exists enough notable material about this person, then write a better article in userspace somewhere, and when it would undeniably pass notability standards, reintroduce it. However, I believe process was duly followed and thus do not feel it should be overturned. -- Avi 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; valid closure. Anyway, I believe the main criteria for establish notability is that behind guidelines like WP:PROF: it's not imporant where you publish, it's important whether your work is considered significant by others. In this particular case, I don't see where this has been established. Tizio 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion My prior comments were primarily aimed at trying to find a better reason for overturning than had been offered to date, which I did not consider adequate. The argument from Jimbo is very weak; in the AFD the first person to bring that fact up thought it only enough basis for a comment, not for a keep opinion. I think there evaluation of its significance is more accurate than Phil's. I can't help contrasting this case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Jacoby where all the opinions except the nominator's were keep, and we found a Slate article by somebody else in which Jacoby was a primary subject (and plenty of other sources about that incident). Nobody seems able to find any independent reliable sources about this person, and our well established general consensus across all topics is that notability comes from other people noticing you, not from self-publicity. This is why the backup criteria in WP:BIO for authors is that they have "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Authors is authors in any medium, be it online or print, full length books or short reviews. With that recorded general consensus (the current dispute is about the text around the bullet points, not the specifics of the bullet points) of editors who are trying to write an encyclopedia that fulfills all the content policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V simultaneously in each article, to backup the clear consensus in the AFD, there is no reason to overturn the AFD closure. And, obviously, if someone finds the reliable independent sources that haven't been found to date and creates an article using them, that would be great. Now, if we ever changed our standards and started using the blogosphere as a basis of notability, this would be one of many cases to reopen and examine again, but that is not our current consensus. GRBerry 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The closing administrator of AfD4 concluded that the outcome was delete. After my review of AfD4, this appears to be the correct characterization of the debate outcome. The AfD4 debate itself does not seem to be flawed as just about all the people who weighed in on this issue did a good job of considering both the topic and the article in the context of Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and process. Also, no significant new information has come to light since the deletion. The August 2005 statement by Jimbo is not new. Also, it relates to an AfD (VfD) other than the present AfD4. VfD has changed since Jimbo made that statement back in August 2005, so I am unsure whether the context of his statement has significance towards AfD4. Thus, I endorse the deletion outcome. -- Jreferee 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Whether he is considered significant by others has not been established by multiple independent reliable sources. WAS 4.250 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• where is the undeleted version so it can be examined per opening comment?DGG 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit history is available behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• A better option is for the collective community to not blindly follow sourcing guidelines that obviously lead to wrong conclusions As opposed to blindly and unilaterally implementing an 18-month-old non-edict from one person (even if that person was Jimbo). Yah, good choice there. Endorse deletion. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and if Jimbo really wanted it kept, he's perfectly capable of pushing the "undelete" button hisownself, don't you think? --Calton | Talk 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I think 4 AFDs in sequence like this is at least slightly fishy. Time to consider this one more carefully. --Kim Bruning 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  Seems like having four AfDs, spread over almost two years, is not all that fishy and that plenty of time has been taken. This seems to be really weak reasoning to overturn...and I think that is at least slightly fishy. Do you have any problems with how the last AfD was conducted and closed? That is the issue that an argument to overturn needs to be based on. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - An old quote from Jimbo and the existing of earlier afd debates are not arguments. Publications alone do not make a journalist notable. Look for sources writing about him (i.e. reviews, awards, etc.) rather than his own blog and publication list. Savidan 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment I find it odd that after all of this, the edit history reveals no serious attempt to add information about major articles written, and possible comments on those articles.DGG 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and overturn the out-of-process undeletion. The AFD discussion was run fairly and the community consensus was clear. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless new evidence is provided that can prove the subject is notable enough for inclusion here. --sunstar net^talk 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. Afd process is in order; no new sources. If some people think Vfd/Afd is "broken", pursue guidelines reform and try to persuade the community ("All journalists who have ever had articles published in mainstream media sources are inherently sufficiently encyclopedically notable to justify their own bio article" or whatever. Alternatively, Jimbo could decide to use extraordinary sovereign's prerogative to dictate new guidelines. Um.... Huzzah for Parliament! Bwithh 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I wasn't aware that the deletion process at Wikipedia was to continue requesting VfDs until one finally goes your way and you've worn everyone else down. By my account, the score is deletion 1, not deletion 3. Shouldn't you guys need to pass three more deletion votes before you've got a majority? What a joke. Jsnell 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • These four AfDs were spread over the course of two years. As dozens have already explained above, consensus can change, and the current consensus has been made pretty clear. Krimpet 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion We should not be overturning community consensus. Nardman1 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Would start to offset the many, many articles that have been deleted by jimbo & company against consensus and outside of established process. --JJay 00:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What would that accomplish? Let's keep this on the merits of the article in question rather than a referendum on Jimbo's God-King-ness. Savidan 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

MSK-008_Dijeh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Several articles were listed in this AfD at once; let it be said that I am contesting the outcome of the deletion of the MSK-008_Dijeh and RMS-106_Hi-Zack; the other articles were indeed unsourced and with little or no real world impact that I could ascertain. Anyway. These articles were nominated for deletion due to being "unsourced and non-notable fancruft with original research". Upon discovering this AfD, I have sourced the relevant articles including specific citations of "original research" from official or semi-official sources (quite excessively, I might add) and was presently re-writing the jumbled text of the article itself when it was summarily deleted. I and others in favor of keeping the article believe that our rationale were given no weight or ignored entirely. This is demonstrated by the deletion of the article despite the original AfD criteria no longer being relevant, as well as the fact that apparently I and the other "keep" votes were "members of the project." I presume this is in reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gundam, which I am not a member of. Furthermore, I was not aware that being in a WikiProject, for whatever reason, was grounds for having one's rationale in an AfD debate be discarded. This AfD was conducted as a head count, and nothing more.MalikCarr 01:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I pretty much agree with this. I helped provide some sourcing to two of the articles, which was objected to despite the fact that they followed the correct policies for such things as faras I can tell. When User:Malikcarr provided some examples of many other articles that have similar sourcing, his argument was simply brushed aside. Furthermore, I would like to point out that fancruft is an essay and not a policy, and thus is not a valid reason for nominating anything for deletion. Jtrainor 01:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I was actually putting up my own entry on this for this, but you beet me to it. The reasoning that the closing admin used has me troubled. It appears that he discounted all of the keep or merge comments because they were from members of WP:GUNDAM. Why should comments from a WikiProject be discounted so long as they give solid arguments? At best, this appears to be to be a no consensus once the WP:GUNDAM comments are taken into account. --Farix (Talk) 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I agree as well. The Dijeh and Hi-Zack are both intrinsic parts of the Zeta Gundam universe that have been fleshed out to extreme detail by the developers of the show, through liscences with video game corporations and technical manuals of Bandai produced model kits. There is plenty of reliable information and source material for these particular articles, and the only real argument against it could possibly be that it is taking too much attention to detail, and is unnecessary. This line of reasoning might as well say that individual articles on breeds of dogs are unnecessary, and that there should only be a central article on dog breeding on wikipedia. That is silly, and so is deleting these articles.149.142.119.170 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — 149.142.119.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

disregarded by closer- spa, IP, no unique arguments or sources offered in this opinionGRBerry

• • Comment Deletion Review isn't a reargument of the AFD, but whether the closing admin reached the proper conclusion based on the comments of the AFD. If you read the comments above, you will see how we are disputing the reasoning the admin used in closing the AFD and not with the reasons behind the AFD. --Farix (Talk) 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My intention was to point out that the closing admin could only have used the logic that the articles in question were trivial and unnecessary in reaching his conclusion to close the AFD, and that that sort of a logic should not have been brought to the matter. However, I primarily agree that whether or not one sides supporters are members of WP:GUNDAM should have nothing to do with the subject, as per User:MalikCarr's assertion. Also I'd like to apologize for the change of IP, I'm currently at my university and they don't always have a static IP.128.97.146.224 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — 128.97.146.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse perfectly reasonable closure. I didn't see any of the keep voters bringing forth multiple non-trivial published works about the "ENG-001 Estardoth" - because there aren't any. Now, without re-arguing the deletion debate, either point to such evidence having been presented, or just accept the deletion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  disregarded by closer- doesn't appear to have read the review request, the example article isn't under reviewGRBerry

Comment: If you had read my review request above, you would have found that I am only supporting the recreation of two articles. The one you mentioned is indeed unsourced, and until I can find references for it, it's likely going to stay deleted. With that in mind I believe you should re-evaluate your decision, since there -were- "multiple non-trivial published works" about the other items in question. MalikCarr 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. No policy reason was given for the deletion, and the original arguments did not even apply. Pretty straightforward. --- RockMFR 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - RockMFR's statement cannot be taken at face value, and quite practically are a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Policy reasons were VERY clearly given. It failed WP:RS since the only sources given were amazon.co.jp links to catalogues full of Gundams. It failed WP:OR in that most of the articles, outside of the existance of a line of toys, speculated on in-universe matters without a single source and utilized conjecture. It failed WP:V for most of the discussion. MalikCarr made good efforts on some of the articles to provide links to model kits and the like, which at least provided some verifiability, and he is only requesting recreation of the articles he attempted to improve. While I understand the frustration some members feel about the closure, and the reason given for the AfD's closure, I can't let statements like that stand. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The "amazon.co.jp links to catalogues full of Gundams" source you are so eager to do away with contains all the relevant information pertinent to the mecha in question's in-universe statistics, operators and usage, as well as the factual design artists, and in some cases illustrates the creation of the mecha from rough drafts to what was approved for the animation. I apologize for not being able to provide an equivalent English-language publication, but that goes with the territory with this being a Japanese creation and all. Are you suggesting that, since it is not in English, it is not reliable? I'd really like to assume otherwise. Additionally, the "verifiability" claims as well as those with original research have been refuted for a majority of contested points, and once the two articles in question are restored, I will clean up the points that were not directly stated at sources such as Bandai America's GundamOfficial.com website. If that isn't reasonable enough, then the only conclusion I am left with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT since, at this point, the thing has been sourced to death. MalikCarr 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The only weak issue I see here as a complaint with the closure, and that is afterall the only issue to review here, is that the AfD consensus was borderline and was closed about 8 hours before the 5-day recommended AfD discussion period. However, I don't see this issue as sufficient to overturn the closure. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure; AfD apparently closed per consensus/policy; 4⅔ days is "about five days". "Worse stuff exists" is on the WP:ILIKEIT list. If editors want an article on these, write one, but avoid {{OR}}, {{unref}}, and {{inuniverse}}. WP:FORGET is likely to help in writing new, compliant articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: As has been stated, this is not a discussion on the merits of the AfD; we are discussing the fact that it has been STATED for all the world to see that project membership is a valid reason for a closing admin to discount dissenting opinions. Last I checked, that was neither concensus nor policy. Additionally, it would seem that some in favor of maintaining this unjust action have not fully read my review request. I encourage individuals on both sides of this issue to fully read the request. MalikCarr 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Unforutnately, fly-by opiners that don't do their research are a too common phenomenon, though usually more in AFD than here (because usually few people are here, and the volume here is low). Hopefully the closing admin will disregard completely unrelated opinions, like saying article X should stay deleted when you asked for Y and Z undeleted. GRBerry 19:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Let's hope. MalikCarr 19:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment My concern is that the closing admin apparently devalued the comments of some of the editors based on a perceived association with a WikiProject in order to reach his conclusion that there was a consensus to delete. Unfortunately, the endorsers aren't touching this or explaining why this should be "ok". Doesn't the statement, "the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances" not ring any alarm bells? And if this was such a close call, why not give it the benefit of the doubt and give it the remaining 8 hours that it should have had? That makes the closing appear all the more dubious. At the very least, the AFD should be reopened to run the remaining 8 hours. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply: While I agree that that closing comment by the admin discounting the opinions based on project inclusion was inappropriate, I don't see that the conclusion reached regarding consensus is incorrect. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There seemed to me to be a consensus in the AfD for deletion. For example, "If a corporation can make vast profits off of plastic model kits of these "non-notable fancruft" that in and of itself is worth keeping" is tangential to notability and verifiability; "Looks like plenty of sources and references to me" seems none too sound either when there weren't, based on the version in the google cache, which is apparently what people at AfD saw. Arguments in favour of deletion on the basis of original research and lack of reliable sources seem passably well founded. The version I can see in the google cache contains no information that would be useful in helping to write a compliant article. (As with my previous comment, I base this on MSK-008 Dijeh and RMS-106_Hi-Zack only.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Again, if you had fully read my review request, it was stated that after the AfD was added, I had sourced and referenced the article appropriately, demonstrated that it was not "fancruft" and provided assertion of real-world notability. If the Google cache does not show these 11th-hour edits, I apologize. However, that is irrelevant. The point of this review request is to assert that the closing of the discussion and the assumed "concensus" was made in bad faith. The remaining bits of the article that contain "original research" will be fixed after it is restored. While I could simply make a new article from scratch, I will not allow a precedent to be set whereby dissenting opinions can be dismissed because some editors are part of a Wikipedia Projet (which, ironically, was in and of itself an incorrect statement). Membership should NOT be criteria for having one's opinion be any less valid or relevant. MalikCarr 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Addendum: Wait a minute, what do you mean, "when there weren't, based on the version in the google cache, which is apparently what people at AfD saw."? If they were viewing the Google cache of the article(s) in question, then their votes are in and of themselves invalid since the concerns raised in the AfD had been addressed appropriatley, and then some. Futhermore, what about multimillion dollar industry is "tangential" to notability and verifiability? If you want to verify it, go to any of the thousands of websites that sell plastic model kits of these items in question. I'll provide a few links for your further reference. Hobby Link Japan, Hobby Search (English version), Little Things. MalikCarr 00:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse Deletion - "The point of this review request is to assert that the closing of the discussion and the assumed "concensus" was made in bad faith" : no proof of this has been shown. The asseration that the closing admin disregarded keep votes due to participating in Wikiproject is also not demonstrated. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Are you blind?! It's right there in the talk page! "the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances" Are we in the Ministry of Information here? Did that not happen? MalikCarr 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm afraid I must concur. It quite clearly shows that the closing admin disregarded the arguments of those who wanted to keep the article purely because of who they choose to associate with, rather than because said arguments are bad. Jtrainor 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw lots of good arguments for deletion, not a single one for keeping. He didn't disregard well reasoned arguments, he disregarded 3 ILIKEIT's from the WP the article was from when a bunch of other people with no stake in Gundam articles saw no reason to keep. To me, the only thing I can take from his statement is that the lack of any sort of argument outside of the WP particpants, along with the fact that no arguments were offered, made the deletion decision easy. I'm merely pointing out that you've said that this DRV came about due to a closure done in bad faith, and I do not see it. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. I rectified all the criteria of the AfD, in spades, and that amounts to ILIKEIT? More importantly, "delete per nom" is a "good argument"? I give up. MalikCarr 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't been with wikipedia long, but it doesn't take an expert to see that Elaragirl's assesment of the AFD is quite skewed.128.97.146.224 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — 128.97.146.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Addendum: Just to let the numbers speak for themselves, I figured I'd save everyone the trouble of counting them off on the AfD itself. Of the six votes for "Delete," fully half of them were "delete per nom." Great arguments there, surely. Of the three votes for "Keep," one of them is a member of WP:GUNDAM. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a member of it, and as far as I know, neither is Jtrainor. I'm not sure of his motivations, but as far as I'm concerned, I just dislike injustice, and that's what we have here. On the quality of the "Keep" votes, Jtrainor added no less than eight references to Bandai source material from Amazon, which were discounted, and I added two to show that the article "asserts real-world notability" from lucrative sales of plastic model kits of the specific mechanics in question, and a third one to do away with the stark nativism of some delete votes to Bandai America's North American website, detailing the "fancruft" specific details of each mechanic in question. Of course, these are all not worth mentioning, because we are (not) members of WP:GUNDAM. I would like to thank you for showing your true colors, however, in the assertion that "having a stake in it" is grounds for your arguments to be dismissed. MalikCarr 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why does it matter whether the keep comments came from WP:GUNDAM or not? In fact, I'm very troubled that you would say such a thing. The simple fact is that it shouldn't matter. And looking at the three keep comments, none of them appear to be of the WP:ILIKEIT nature either. As fore the delete comments, only the original nomination and your comment had any arguments behind them. One argument had an identity crisis of "delete or merge" (merge being a variety of "keep"). As for the rest, they were non-arguments that are really no better then any other argument described in WP:ATA. And in the end, the sourcing problems with two of the articles were being address, though under a hostile environment. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sarcasm, Farix. The line about "not worth mentioning" was meant to be sarcasm. MalikCarr 03:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If I was commenting to you, I would have included one more indent. --Farix (Talk) 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

....errr... whoops. Sorry about that. MalikCarr 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the original closing decision - Deletion guidelines for administrators: Deciding whether to delete brings up two items relevant in this discussion: (i) Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (ii) Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. My reasoning: The closing admin determine that the rough consensus was to delete. That appears to be the correct consensus. In other words, the debate was interpreted correctly by the closer. Thus, I endorse the original closing decision. The remaining issue seems to be whether the closing admin respected the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. Even if the closing admin did not respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants, I do not believe that the remedy for this is to relist the article or overturn the original decision in view of a correctly interpreted debate. Thus, I maintain my endorsement for the original closing decision in view of administrator deletion guideline item (ii). -- Jreferee 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unless I am mistaken, concensus is -not- to be based on a headcount, (EDIT: Seems I was right) but on the quality of the arguments given. Since Elaragirl has decided to bring up the issue of the "quality of argument," I see no reason why the practiced keep or delete by number of hands should be critera in this deletion review. Furthermore, do you honestly believe that fallacious allegations of membership in a Wikipedia Project should "tilt the balance" in an AfD debate? It may not be a WP (GROUPMEMBERSHIPISNOTADISCUSSIONPOINT, perhaps?), but I do not believe that that is a dynamic Wikipedia should endorse. Do you?
  • Furthermore, I'm rather depressed at how few "endorse" votes have bothered to defend their points against concerns I and others have raised. Kudos to those who have, but it would seem that spirit of "quality of argument" is dead if only dissenting votes may be scrutinized and discounted. MalikCarr 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The closing admin (i) determined that the result of the consensus was delete and (ii) gave as "Reason for deletion": "the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances." The DRV request raised the concern that "our rationale were given no weight or ignored entirely." The AfD "Reason for deletion" includes the phrase "tips the balances." This tells me that the closing admin did give weight to all the rationales and did not ignore the rationales. As for the use of "per nom" concern raised outside of the DRV request, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states "if several people already have showed support for the nominator, adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator will not contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing." There were two "Delete per nom" arguments in the AfD. Guide to deletion shorthands indicates that per nomination, per nominator, or simply per nom means the user agrees with and wishes to express the same viewpoint as the user who nominated the article for deletion. Since two "Delete per nom" arguments do not exceed the several people threshold of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it would be appropriate for the two "Delete per nom" arguments to contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing. -- Jreferee 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • With closing admin Blnguyen's additional explanation (below), I do not think he disrespect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. -- Jreferee 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Self-enodrse - I didn't throw out the project's votes, it was a borderline case, so I looked at the two groups, and if only the authors want to keep something, and nobody else does, this is an issue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: One would think an admin would be considered to be in favor of his own deletion unless stated otherwise... MalikCarr 06:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Step 3 in the Steps to list a new deletion review is to inform the administrator who deleted the page about the new deletion review and invite him/her to participate in the deletion review. Blnguyen's participation in the deletion review is appropriate. Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Purpose, it is appropriate to first attempt to resolve any issue in discussion with the closing administrator before posting a deletion review request (e.g., courteously invite the admin to take a second look). -- Jreferee 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-AfD again from start or copypasted the previous AfD- Well, I have seen that the article may be merged or cleaned up, and also may need to be rewritten from start again, but the closing admin's argument is simply like "discrimination" though it may or may not his original intention. With respect to the closing admin, closing admin's argument is similar to "Well the only people want to keep the land is only the native people and people associated with it, lets we abolish the land". I assume and believe that closing admin intention is not this one, though. I am sorry if my comment here is not nice , especially to closing admin.Draconins 06:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse Consensus seems clear (evev excluding per nom "votes"). Sites offering an item for sale do nothing top establish notability (since the owners have a vested interest in their products). Still, the closing rational is poor and breaking up mass nominations when the arguments do not apply equally (even if they still apply) is generally a good idea. Eluchil404 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, WP:GUNDAM notability rules do not override WP:N. If reliable secondary sources have not extensively and non-trivially covered the article subject, it is not real-world notable, and may be suitable for a Gundam-themed wiki (I'm sure there's one out there), but not here. Closing admin acted correctly in applying less weight to votes with evident bias, and more importantly, in evaluating the merits of the claims made (the fact that something is sold based on something else establishes its notability?) and acting accordingly. Seraphimblade 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - valid closure within admin discretion, but without prejudice against recreation, if reliable sources can be found that support notability. There would be little point in undeleting in any case: from an encyclopedic standpoint there's nothing worth salvaging. Certainly if I was rewriting these articles I'd be cutting everything and starting from scratch, it's easier that way. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - and see [6] for an external attempt to influence this DRV. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, while I see some provocation to vote on this matter, I don't see totally external attempt to influence, rather most of them are angry with such AfD. Some even suggests to evacuate the Gundam from Wikipedia, which also what I feel recently. Though, I am sorry with Moreschi as the target. Well, for your information, many people nowadays also seems to be angry with many AfD in wikipedia, scattered in many internet forum, and that is an consequence of deletion or keeping an article. However, this Gundam AfD may be one of the big sparking problem since Gundam is a pop culture in eastern asian world and has strong fan base (this is one of the things which keeping Bandai as the world's class producer of toys). I have seen many discussion around recent Gundam AfDs on many anime-related forum, and this link is not even the big one. Draconins 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I give up. The status quo that has been created on Wikipedia, as of these most recent endorsements, establishes that there are no "reliable sources" for Gundam-related items. I and others have gone to exceedingly great lengths to satiate criteria for these and other article massacres, and have been overturned consistently. I have cited published, internet, corporate and even copyright-holder sources and provided a dizzying collection of assertions of notability, which are swiftly ignored with either a cursory glance or no acknowledgement whatsoever. Congratulations, gentlemen. Of course, I trust you will now take the torch to other articles that have "violated" these policies too, yes? Here's a delightfully unsourced article in dire need. Looks like "fancruft" to me, and I don't recognize half of the things on it, so it's certainly "non notable" as well. And since there is no systematic bias against Gundam in Wikipedia, I presume it will be crushed shortly as well. I am correct, yes? MalikCarr 10:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's a lost cause when some here declaring the Keep comments as meetpuppets even when there is no evidence so that those comments can be deminished. So I guess that means that closing admins are now permited to be predigest against certain Wikiprojects now. --Farix (Talk) 12:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Per Seraphimblade's concerns about reliable sources. Also, it's perfectly reasonable to have suspicions about meat puppetry where Gundam-related articles are concerned. Here's JTrainor giving an offsite lesson in how to stack the votes in Gundam AfDs [7]. --Folantin 11:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for proving my point entirely. MalikCarr 11:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point being what exactly? --Folantin 12:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That any and all references cited containing sources for Gundam-oriented material are not deemed "relevant" by Wikipedia's standards. Honestly, if Bandai America's website is not "reliable" I'm not really sure what is. MalikCarr 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I most definitely will not assume good faith with regards to creepy Internet stalker behaviour. Jtrainor 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The AfD established a conensus to delete with two thirds of those who participated in the discussion presenting valid and reasonable arguments as to why the article does not live up to the standards of WP:V and WP:N, and the other third failing to present any evidence to the contrary. As I can see nothing to suggest a failure of process here or a failure on Blnguyen's part in closing the AfD, and as I have not seen any evidence presented after the closure to suggest that consensus would now be different with regard to the article, I cannot endorse restoring it. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It just gets better and better. Yet again, "delete per nom" is a valid and reasonable argument, and providing reliable sources and clarifing or removing unsourced materaial is "providing [no] evidence to the contrary." Are we even reading the review request anymore? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to go "GUNDAM BAD" in this day and age? MalikCarr 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please be civil. --Coredesat 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per AmiDaniel. To the nominator: AFD is not a vote, and "delete per nom" is a valid argument. AFD concerns were never addressed by any of the keep arguments, and no third-party, non-trivial sources establishing notability were provided. Bandai is not a third-party source, and an online store selling a model is not a non-trivial source. The fact that you can buy a model of it does not fill WP:N, WP:V, or WP:FICT. --Coredesat 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "AFD is not a vote, and "delete per nom" is a valid argument." <-- This is a contradiction of terms.128.97.146.224 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) — 128.97.146.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I would like to thank this anonymous poster for suggesting in succint terms what I have been trying to state. As the template thoughtfully provided states, "please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia." "Delete per nom" is a ballot, not a discussion. It establishes absolutely nothing, other than the user doesn't like the article. One cannot debate "delete per nom" because there is nothing to' debate, other than the original nomination, and in this situation, the original nominator did not engage in debate with the dissenting editors. If "concensus" is established because of "delete per nom" for a nomination whose argument in and of itself was not debated, then the policies on issues such as polling and what have you are henceforth obsolete. Under this system of mob rule, which has been endorsed by the deletionist camp, the only thing necessary for an article to be deleted is for one user with a bunch of friends to nominate it. Nine "delete per nom" votes against four "keep" votes with specific, detailed rationales amounts to "a conensus to delete with two thirds of those who participated in the discussion presenting valid and reasonable arguments" per User:AmiDaniel.

A second criterion I have discovered in this deletion review, as well as the AfD itself, is that "delete" votes may be taken at face value, while "keep" votes are subject to intense scrutiny and weighted accordindly. If a "delete" vote is debated, it is irrelevent. On the other hand, a "keep" vote may be dismissed if it was related to the article, e.g. an editor who has worked on said article.

A third criterion is that the deletionist camp is under no obligation to present their own rationale. In addition to the incredible power of "delete per nom," a deletionist simply need contradict a "keep" vote's points, and it is seen as well and good.

The fourth and final criterion is that, due to this precedent, there are very few fictional things which can be "sourced" on Wikipedia. For example, let us consider... oh... say a space ship from Star Trek. A reliable source on this ubiquitous ship would be a published book of Star Trek ship references that includes details and explanations and what have you. Without this reference, the article is "Fancruft" since it cannot be confirmed that that is actually "how it is" with regards to the fiction in question. However, this book was either put out or endorsed by the copyright holder, which means it is not a "third party" source. Moving right along, we locate another book or guide, which was published unofficially by a second firm. Though this source is "third party," because it did not create the item in question, and holds no rights to it, it cannot be called "reliable." Well, now, we've got ourselves a Catch-22_(logic), haven't we? Because of the establishments made by the deletionist camp, which cannot be questioned, there are no sources for any items such as this.

Gentlemen, this is why I find it so difficult to assume good faith and be civil and polite in these discussions. The opposing camp will not debate this issue, will not accept dissenting viewpoints, will dismiss evidence otherwise as being "not notable" "unreliable" or "cruft", and seems to have almost universal approval from the administration. What point is there in attempting to uphold the standards of Wikipedia through its various policies if these are misinterpreted or ignored entirely by a camp that goes forth to torch articles with the blessings of "the powers that be"?

Normally, I despise quoting 4chan, but I'll make an exception this once: "In before "disregard above post, user violates WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:RS"". Good day. MalikCarr 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Per (user X)" is valid because it is a statement of agreeing with whoever user X happens to be. A vote would simply be "(vote)", with no rationale whatsoever, or an invalid statement by policy or guideline standards. "Plenty of sources" is not a reason to keep an article if none of the sources are reliable. If the article had some reliable sources, then it would be a different story and we may not even be having this discussion. --Coredesat 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion per Farix, admin's closing rationale seems shady. 66.184.95.97 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 66.184.95.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  disregarded by closer- spa IP, no new arguments or sources offered in this opinionGRBerry

• Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RX-78_Gundam See any familiar names and arguments in here? Jtrainor 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Intriguing. Originally, I had used the term "deletionist camp" as a metaphor for what could be construed as an organized movement. However, upon further investigation (thank you Jtrainor) it would seem to me that some of the same players have been popping up in these AfDs. Notably:

• Delete - And who exactly would want this pile of nonsense? Delete , then take a look at dissassembling Wikiproject Gundam, which clearly isn't doing a lot of good in building a verifiable set of Gundam articles. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Okay, this is ridiculous. No sources. No listing of even what episode or manga or whatever it appeared in. It's nothing but a page of made up stats. This is NOT an encyclopedia article, and tagging it for cleanup isn't going to make it one. If the rest of the articles in the Template are this bad, they need to be burnt with fire. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet, when we source all of these claims appropriately, it still apparently needs "burning with fire" (sic).

• Delete per IslaySolomon, Edison, among others; if these are so culturally important, there should be third-party sources. There aren't. I don't share MER-C's disbelief, after all, Doug Bell (talk · contribs) already had to close the AFD from hell. Incredibly crufty {{inuniverse}} stuff, failing WP:N, WP:V, and a million miles from WP:WAF. Transwiki if so desired, always assuming that the Gundam wiki will take this stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison, Proto, Sandstein, Moreschi. WP:V, WP:N and WP:INN refer. Apparently the well-intentioned editors who wrote WP:WAF wasted their time. Transwiki if anyone wants it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unreferenced, no demonstration of notability. --Folantin 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At the expense of sounding like a deletionst, "see above comments."

Intriguing indeed. What's more, review of the user talk pages of some deletionists here, along with Moreschi and MER-C, geneses (plural of genesis? Maybe?) of many Gundam AfDs, shows regular collaboration on other, usually more constructive ventures (I do like the improvements made to some of the opera-related articles; quite an underappreciated art these days). Perhaps I was a bit presumptive in dismissing the possibility of there being something of a cabal here. MalikCarr 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Go read WP:TINC. Thankx. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is a collection of pages that were meant to be policy, but were too narrow, unpopular, or redundant to actually succeed." If one were to make a policy that stated that there is no sun, would the sun not exist? MalikCarr 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah. You'd be suprised what there are policies for. Jtrainor 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Malik, I'm confused. Many people think articles you like should be deleted, and these people comment in many AfDs... therefore they're part of an evil cabal? Please consider this against the chance that you are just wrong. -Amark moo! 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You, much like --Elaragirl^Talk|Count, misunderstand. I have not made any accusations that the deletionist camp is an "evil cabal," but rather that there is a possibility that there is organized and strategic effort, including editors and administrators, that have a goal of eliminating these articles. There is evidence for and against this thesis; recently, there has been a modicum of further evidence in favor of this theoretical effort. That's all I've suggested, and I would prefer if you would assume good faith and cease making conjecture based on observations I have made. MalikCarr 04:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's assume good faith on your part when you basically state you think we're out to unfairly delete articles and that there's a conspiracy to destroy Gundam articles. When people try to explain their positions, or why comments like this don't improve the situation, you accuse them of an effort to destroy the articles you like. Since you don't appear to assume good faith on the part of anyone else, but demand we assume good faith on your part even after you insult us, claim we're violating process, and suggest we're acting in a manner that is biased, there isn't any reason for anyone to assume good faith anymore. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me; this veil of civility between deletionist and inclusionist camps was only making the situation even more maddening. MalikCarr 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not an inclusionist. badlydrawnjeff is an inclusionist. Kappa is an inclusionist. Jtrainor is an inclusionist. You are simply opposing the deletion of an article you find interesting. Don't try to conflate this to some sort of epic conflict. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 06:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad you have cosmic powers capable of peering into the insight of my choices in supporting or opposing deletion of an article. Perhaps you could share with me the secret of your mind-bending techniques? With that kind of power, I could learn what makes a deletionist tick. MalikCarr 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Relist - The close was:

The result was delete - the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An association with a Wikiproject cannot be the only factor used to justify the credibility (or lack of) during a debate.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The reason cited for the decision to delete was inaccurate. Even if it were true, membership in a Wiki project is not a valid reason for discounting someone's opinions. This is as bad as if the original article had been kept based on the claim 'the only people arguing for deletion are Deletionists'. [8] Edward321 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Questions: Can anyone tell me why Hobby Japan is not considered a reliable source. It is independent, the company found 10 years before the first Gundam anime(found 1969, First Gundam 1979), is a publisher for American companies like Wizard of the Coast, Wizkid. They have published a magazine named after the company Hobby Japan in teaching modeling and providing information in various related information. The company also publish Arms Japan and GameJapan which is obviously not Gundam related at all. Another company, Media works published a magazine called Dengeki Hobby, which is 1 of the 9 magazines they published per month, and publishes various other books, occasionally using Gundam related models as its cover story, can anyone tell me why this is not reliable, too. Please quote specific policies form the WP:RS page because I fail to see how these are not reliable. About verifiablity, Just need to buy the issue yourself or ask the quoter to infringe copyright law and scan a copy for you. From the WP:N which tons of deletionist quoted: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. If a topic have at least 2 non-trivial(cover story), reliable published works, independent sources of the subject itself, and can even source more sources from ModelGraphix, Newtype magazine, how did the article got deleted because it is not notable? MythSearcher^talk 07:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist at AfD - Further research (on my own, the sources tossed up here aren't worth beans) suggests that the topics IN THIS PARTICULAR DRV (the two articles)are mentioned in mainstream sourcing. If the original rationale is that they were non-notable and the only people arguing keep were partisan , that might be acceptible, but with reliable sourcing I cannot maintain that view. If article is kept deleted it should be allowed to be recreated with PROPER sourcing. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you could be so kind as to list and link this "mainstream sourcing" you've found? I'm sure it would help to put this entire matter at rest.128.97.146.224 07:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 128.97.146.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Mainstream sourcing doesn't always needed. Let say how Roche Limit is important then look on mainstream sourcing for it. For in depth view, you should consult detailed reference, such as what mentioned as not worth beans, like many scientist in the world do.Draconins 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources not worth beans indicating it's very difficult to determine notability from them. I found both the mecha armor suits mentioned here in an book discussing Anime's impacts on culture. I linked them at WP:GUNDAM and will put them (and some information) into any recreated article. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. More sources are good for any article; and hopefully the ones you provide will prove useful for other articles as well. Edward321 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is difficult to determine notability from a Japanese webpage doesn't mean that this notability doesn't exist. We're talking about Japanese cultural icons here, it's blatant that the majority of the sources will be in Japanese. I'd try to do some more in depth research on Hobby Japanand Media works before discounting them as being "not worth beans."128.97.146.224 09:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 128.97.146.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, now I become interested how you can decide if any scientific article is notable. About the difficulties to determine notability, please re-read MythSearcher's arguments above. An important thing which may concern me if you cannot know notability because the language and different culture. Try to read this if you have access to jstor.org, to open something. Another thing fun to read is Article about Pepsi promo legal issue. Actually this kind of articles are somehow quite common, but uncommon in English. FYK, in Japan it is common to see people old and young watching anime or reading comic (manga). If you want even you can look for Chinese (mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan), Korean, and as far as Indonesian. Draconins 10:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The fun thing is, anime has became so common and natural in these area(I live in Hong Kong) that it is almost impossible to not come across unreliable newspaper sources. I just read like 5 articles in various mainstream newspaper last week with nothing similar to the origin plot but they call it a plot summary(I guess it is better than the NGE China official release where the government cut half of the scenes away to make the not so brave main character Shinji into a brave hero fighting off evil plotless series). An older introduction to a then new toy series the Keroro Fix series stating it is copyright infringement of Gundam fix series was actually by the copyright holder company itself, various things that fans will just laugh at were seen in these so called reliable sources and yet tons of kids got their information there. (Which gives me a headache just to fix them in the Chinese wiki) MythSearcher^talk 19:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per MalikCarr. 74.70.203.43 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC) — 74.70.203.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  disregarded by closer- spa, IP, no new arguments or sources offered in this opinionGRBerry

• Overturn per nom. :P Seriously, though, the closing admin stated outright that he was discounting keep arguments because they were being made by WikiProject Gundam members (apparently he also didn't notice that despite editing a lot of Gundam articles, I'm not actually part of the Project). That's clearly not a good reason to disregard arguments; in any AfD those working on the articles in question will probably be among those opposing deletion. If editors who work on an article are to be disregarded in AfD, then that's an admission that Wikipedia has a systematic bias toward deletion. That the deck is stacked in favor of deleting an article from the moment it gets AfDed. Clearly that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Redxiv 03:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Perfectly reasonable closure, and the foot-stamping-in-lieu-of-actual-arguments is getting old. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The same could easily, and indeed has been, said of many of the deletion rationales. MalikCarr 08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Great, you aren't going to debate this either? Ugh... MalikCarr 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)