Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 10

Orca (supercar) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Was AFD closed as delete against consensus that it was notable and a real car project (it has appeared at multiple trade shows). Reason given was that article is unsourced, which was largely true, but that's a repairable defect for which AFD policy recommends tagging and repairing, not deleting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orca (supercar) (also, google search on "Orca C113" finds over 12,000 car enthusiast references...) Georgewilliamherbert 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• What's with Administrators believing that their judgement can override several others, then delete, erasing all evidence. I see roving, rash summary executioners. SmokeyJoe 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While Jimbo's "unsourced material should be aggressively removed" was specifically directed at WP:BLP issues, we shouldn't keep things just on the basis that people assert that they are real, so sources might appear at some undetermined point in the future. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So why not give the authors a time period to complete their article? SmokeyJoe 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article was around for 29 days before an AfD was created, which serves as a "time to make this an article" five-day warning, easily long enough to find sources at the very least (currently, custom doesn't even require that they be used in the article). The "time period" that you ask for totals one month, three days. Does it really take over a month to expand an article on something notable beyond a sentence? If only I could apply such standards to my coursework, I would probably have moved on from this earth before the deadlines came around. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are 12,000 plus google hits for car enthusiasts talking about it, and hundreds of driving and car show photos of it. The question of whether it's real or not is ludicrous at this point. It's not (yet) "Wikipedia Reliably Sourced", true, but that's different than it not being real. Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so what if it is real? I am most certainly real. My name gets three million google hits, and my account name 10,000. That doesn't mean there are reliable sources on me. And pictures are not sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• UK Channel 4 car review program of the Orca C113 - WP reliable source. Still looking. Georgewilliamherbert 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I do admit that seems like a pretty good source. So recreate it then; why is it necessary that the old version, which was bad, get undeleted? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously, I cannot comprehend the amount of energy that has been wasted over an article that says, in its entirety, "The Orca SC7 debuted in 2005 boasting 850 bhp and powered by an Audi V8-engine." That, frankly, qualifies for an A7 speedy. Anyone feel like creating an actual article on it? Go right ahead. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I get the feeling from things like this that nobody will ever make some of these articles good, but they should still of course be kept, because someone might add sources! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7 and correct AfD closing, either one is enough for deletion, let alone both. If an article can be created that is verified by reliable sources, then create it, because it would be ludicrous to expect that it would be General-4ed by this deletion of a single vapid sentence. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wasn't too hard to find sources, new stub created, we're done here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Walking Cradles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It's not an advertisement

I see no difference in terms of written information between this page and the other shoe company pages I've seen on Wikipedia - which I researched and looked into before posting this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_companies

Do you simply not allow information about small companies? Is that the issue? If so, please realize that the shoe industry is a very small world. The reason I'm putting this up on Wikipedia specifically is because of the number of designers-in-training that are ending up on our site, both from the US and internationally. It's far easier for them to be able to go down a list of shoe manufacturers and see if the company makes the kind of products they want to design than it is to go to each individual website, or such was my thinking. As you can see reading the article, the information presented specifically tells young designers what they need to know about this line. Isn't that part of the purpose of Wikipedia?

If the size of the company is the issue, then I strongly feel you need to rethink that policy, particularly when you're talking about this sort of industry. My next entry was going to be on Ars Sutoria, but if Wikipedia is just going to delete it, then I won't waste my time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tres chic (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion. The way you word your statement leaves me absolutely no doubt. Wikipedia is not here to be convenient for your company, nor for your customers. We're here to be an encyclopedia. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Sorry, Tres chic, but Amarkov is right. And judging by what I can find on the web, it would be virtually impossible to write an article on Ars Sutoria which met our verifiability and sourcing guidelines. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)\
• endorse delete per Amarkov, I dont think the company meets WP:CORP. --mathewguiver 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's not that we don't allow information on small companies, it's that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means information needs to come from third-party reliable sources. If there are any, please mention them. ColourBurst 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The article Quikbook was not made intentionally as spam. It's was legitimate information about a privately held Hotel booking company specializing in boutique hotels that's been in business for around 20 years. Some of the questionable marketing content could have been edited instead, but overall, listing the company is warranted. Independent articles mentioning the company have appeared in various publications over the years (ie. Washington Post, NY Times, Money Magazine, CNN.com). Its entry should be no less legitimate than some of its more generic competitors in the industry (travelocity, orbitz). 20:30 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Speedy deleted during an AFD that ran for 14.5 hours. We are evaluating the speedy deletion, but the AFD was unanimous among the four opiners also. The only independent link in the article was this one. I point out that it is not enough to be mentioned in various publications, there is a need for being a primary subject of the independently published pieces. GRBerry 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. G11 does not say "if the article is about a non-notable subject...". Neither it, nor A7, can be used to speedy delete non-notable articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• We must endorse deletion, copyvios can't be undeleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Arguably valid General-11 ("How Quikbook Works" section in particlar), so unless someone can demonstrate non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources I see no reason to overturn the deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: is deletion review only for admins? Does my opinion count here? If it does, i'd appreciate the history becoming available so I can see the article. Fresheneesz 06:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Page temporarily restored, check the history of the article. Non-admins are very welcome to participate in DRV - sometimes the discussion is sufficiently focused on process that non-admins don't have to see the content, and of course if it's a 'keep' decision that's being challenged there's no problem. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re-deleted as copyvio, after discussing with Sam. Sorry guys, nothing to see here. >Radiant< 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, legitimate article topic from looking at google results like [1] [2], seems to be a recognized and recommended site. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without prejudice, article was obvious linkspam, as well as a copyvio from the quikbook.com website. If they are a notable company (and they may well be) please create a new article from scratch. >Radiant< 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I know that in the past the Kingsofchaos wikipedia article was littered with petty in game politics and things that could not be proven. However, the article at the time of deletion was in the process of a complete cleanup, including citation of notable sources. One of said sources was a major periodical, The Washington Post. Another of said sources was a video played on a local news channel. For these reasons I ask that the article be reinstated and in some way locked to prevent vandalism by petty KoC players that feel they should be a part of the article. Furthermore, much of the information that I and others added to the game history can be found in its changelog on its front page http://www.kingsofchaos.com/. Snoop0x7b 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• What a messy AFD for the low number of participants. However, it does become reasonably clear that there was consensus that independent sourcing was going to be essentially impossible. This brings the article afoul of our various notability guidelines, most importantly WP:NOTE and most specifically WP:WEB. The Washington Post article described above was not mentioned in the AFD. It is mentioned (unfortunately, not linked) in the deleted article, as "An article in the Washington Post on 24 December 2004 discussed the everyday lives of the four creators" (personal info on them omitted here). Based on that description, I'd have to say it isn't primarily about the game, so doesn't help establish notability. I'm currently leaning towards endorsing deletion, but I want to read the closer's rationale, so I've dropped {{DRVNote}} on their talk page. GRBerry 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • you missed something then, if you go to the bottom of the page and read citations, the washington post web article is definately there; atleast as per the last revision that I looked at. And yes it was relatively messy; but again we were in the process of a colaborative cleanup; and I do not believe that mistakes of past wikipedians (I.E. crapification of the article) should impact those seeking to make a page that is both factually accurate and independently confirmable. Snoop0x7b 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Found it elsewhere in the article; here is the link. GRBerry 20:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unless new information is forthcoming. No non-trivial independent sources = no article, for various reasons elegantly explained on WP:N and by Ungle G among others.. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - I closed as delete because nobody had expressed a view to keep the article. No problem with this being overturned, although given only one reliable reference, far more about the kids who made it than about the game itself, it still may not meet WP:V. Proto::► 00:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of articles related to quackery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Former article now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to quackery

This was closed as a 'move to project space'. Arithmetically, that's a reasonable close. But it is logically quite unacceptable. The existence of this crap anywhere on Wikipedia offends:

1. against the neutrality of the encyclopedia. 'Quack' is simply a subjective insult no matter what reliable source might use it. This list is akin to having a List of evil people or List of illegal wars of the USA (both of which I could populate and source). 'Relating to' is just weasel speak.
2. against the seriousness of this project. OK, so it is not in article space now. But we are a serious project, having a silly subjective and insulting list just brings us into disrepute. Does the Encyclopaedia Britanica go around listing people as 'quacks'? Will this instil confidence in our neutrality? Does it further our project?
3. against the spirit of WP:BLP. What is to be the response when one of the subjects e-mails WP:OTRS with "why is your encyclopedia listing me as a Quack"? "Hey, some Wikipedians found this list amusing" won't really cut it. There will be no answer other than: "I like it".

The item has no possible use in project space, please overturn and delete --Doc^g 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an attack page. Labelling doctors as quacks, irrespective of their actual capability (or lack of) is deliberately baiting and offensive. Would we have a page entitled "List of articles related to idiots"? Failing speedy deletion, which I am sorely tempted to carry out, overturn and delete. AFD was wrong in this instance. Proto::► 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete! A lawsuit waiting to happen. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and/or speedy delete ASAP as an attack page. Definitely unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. --Coredesat 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename or delete. Wouldn't mind the list being renamed to something like "possible articles of interest" and used in project space. But its current title is an attack and should be deleted. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure and remain in project space. The list will be fine. It just needs a good clean up. I started the clean up process. The list just needs a narrow focus. Suggestion. Rename to > List of articles related to skepticism. Thanks. --QuackGuru 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So, what's its purpose? And can I put God Islam and the David Hume on it?--Doc^g 18:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure There was no consensus to delete in the AFD. There was consensus to get it out of article space. That happened when the AFD was closed and it was moved to a sub-page of the Pseudoscience wikiproject. Premature here Two hours later this deletion review opened. The next edit was to whack the entire list of people from the page. That basically made half the comments above mine irrelevant, because it eliminated the attack page aspect. (The list of relevant categories is clearly not an attack page.) Let the Wikiproject it was dumped on sort out what they think is worth doing with the page. They can use pieces, like the concept but choose to start afresh, or decide to start by editing this. Give them some time. If they decide they don't care, then send it to MfD on the basis that they don't use or need it. GRBerry 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Em, no. Points 1 and 2 of my reasoning still apply at any rate.--Doc^g 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It makes no sense whatsoever for this to be in project space. Project space isn't a refuge for unencyclopedic stuff that would be deleted if it were actually in the encyclopedia. Projectspace is for stuff relating to the project. This isn't project-related and it isn't encyclopedic, so it should be deleted, not merely shuffled off somewhere else. --Cyde Weys 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There are many lists on Wiki currently. The list will be good navigational tool. A resource list is acceptable. The List of groups referred to as cults is a reasonable example. Again, when the list is drastically shortened, focused, and has direction it will meet if not surpass the standard. It just needs a chance for more editors to pitch in their two cents. If Wikipedians spent more time on the list instead of attacking it would exceed their own standards too. We must get serious here and focus and brainstorm ideas in improving the list. Let the process continue. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing serious about labelling things 'quack': "Quackery is a derogatory term that is defined as the "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings. The dishonesty of a charlatan". That's not a call a neutral encyclopedia can or should ever make. Doc^g 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. You can always change the title to something like the List of articles related to skepticism. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. 'Sceptism' is not a term that exclusively relates to pseudoscience. "Articles related to skepticism" would arguably include stuff like Judaism's view of Jesus, holocaust denial, virginity (specifically "how many 14 year old boys say they've lost it") or anything related to people saying "O RLY?" to something. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I tried to clean it up but there is so much subjectivity that I hardly knew where to begin. I think there is a Skeptic Wiki project out there where this sort of POV would be more accepted. Levine2112 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Levine2112. We merely need more Wikipedians to pitch in. That is it. This discussion is actually helping the list. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure or move back to article space. See my !vote in the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it, and notice you didn't make any argument to support inclusion, let alone one that applies here. This is not AfD round two. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the distinction between 'overturn and delete' and 'speedy delete' is a bit academic here, because if someone did delete the article it wouldn't halt this discussion (as a speedy deletion halts an AfD). We'd still be having a discussion about whether to delete the article, only it would be about a speedy deletion instead. 'Overturn and delete' and 'speedy delete' amounts to the same thing at DRV's closing, except if we speedy delete the page before the closing, non-admins won't be able to see the page and there'll be a confusing break in the direction of the bolded words in the middle of the discussion. Anyway, delete, not compatible with the goal of building an encyclopaedia. WikiProject subpages are no more a place to dump unencyclopaedic articles than userspace is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure. As a Wikiproject, working on either referencing or removing the claims of debunkers, or indeed of quacks, this has merit. The lead states that it is for things that are subject of assertions from debunkers but does not imply that they are right. In project space, this is not actually a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. None of the things you mentioned do, or should, apply outside of articlespace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wow. I closed this AfD so I guess I can't vote, but: (1) I didn't find the arguments for deletion to be particulary strong and I still don't, and (2) the idea that projects aren't and can't be allowed to keep lists of articles of interest, liable for the introduction of biased material by self-interested parties, to be watched that reason, is plain scary. Also, the idea that this list is somehow a legal liability is beyond ludicrous; prudence is one thing, rank cowardice another. Herostratus 03:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course projects can. 'List of articles of interest to project x' is fine. Calling things 'quacks' isn't fine. And making sure this respectable encyclopedia doesn't insult people with quirky derogatory terms isn't 'rank cowardice', it's just professionalism. We strive for neutrality, this is undignified.--Doc^g 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we strived for projectspace to be neutral. In fact, I was almost entirely sure we did not. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Proto. I'm frankly quite shocked there is a discussion at all. JuJube 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please stop with the "speedy delete" stuff. Speedy deletion doesn't exist for one side to have their opinions be considered more important, and the fact that there is good faith debate is a certain sign that speedy criteria do not apply. If people don't agree it should be deleted, it is not a valid speedy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Query I don't follow the logic here. If it is an attack page it should be speedy deleted per G10 whatever its other merits. WP:CSD doesn't say, "These criteris only apply if they are not disputed". Sam Blanning makes a good point that actual speedy deletion is probably ill-advised in this case, but I don't see any reason to avoid arguing that one of the speedy criteria fits and should have been applied. Eluchil404 08:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I cast my vote for "Speedy Delete" because I thought that was the proper vote to indicate that I would like this POV-wrought attack article expunged from Wikipedia ASAP. Whether or not "Speedy delete" is the correct way of stating it at this point, I would expect that all of those who have voted this way (which is currently the vast majority) feel as I do and would like this pejorative list removed from Wikipedia PDQ. Sound reasonable? Levine2112 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for dangerous, subjective application on BLPs. I tried several edits that already indicate confusion among unsettled science, the unrecognized competitive nature of testing, and quackery. I agree about Skeptic Wiki project with Levine2112.--I'clast 10:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per BLP concerns. >Radiant< 12:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. If the project wants it in their space it should remain. It is a usefull list of articles related to the work of the project, but it should be renamed to something neutral and relevent. I suggest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to pseudoscience. --Bduke 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is I note that some editors above think that this is a vote and that a majority makes it 'right'. This is not a vote. Nor is it a repeat of the AFD. In the AFD I voted Keep. I lost but as the information is still accessible to researchers and editors I am willing to consider project space an acceptable compromise. This material is valuable to me as a science researcher and I would be very disappointed if it was erased because of a few editors who are unwilling to utilize rigorous scientific research to support their claims. Maustrauser 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have the wrong idea about AFD. It's not a match, so you can't 'lose'. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Doc, NPOV issues abound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hughgr (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
• COMPLETE DELETE The argument of a few with heavy POV that this is somehow valuable to researchers is ludicrous, of course. A self-titled so-called "guru" of quack makes a 'commie' enemies list and this is a valuable resource? It is merely a list of what one new editor thinks are those who supposedly hate quackery (has anybody actually asked them?) whatever quackery means, and the alleged 'quacks' who he believes they, and he, can't stand. Hardly a significant contribution to an encyclopedic endeavor. More like an exercise in demon purging. If it flunks the smell test as an article, why does it suddenly smell better over here in a project space? (Answer: It doesn't!) A quick delete of this pejorative, edit-war magnet will clear the stink on WP and allow us all to get back to more worthy endeavors. Steth 05:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... does that argument make sense? Most every projectspace page would be deleted in a heartbeat were it in articlespace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question. Could not the page simply be renamed to (say) "Articles of interest for this project"? Would this not satisfy all parties? I call on the closing admin to consider this. Herostratus 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• This list has NPOV and BLP issues, so there's two possible solutions: rename to something neutral as suggested above (so project people can keep the info, yet issues are met, or delete. I think RENAMING solves the problem best for both parties. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The consensus on this vote was move to project space specifically because it was felt the list could be cleaned up and useful to other projects such as Pseudoscience. Yes, the term "quack" is unacceptable, and was supposed to be eliminated as part of the integration with another project. If this is not done then I would support deletion as an WP:ATTACK article, otherwise I can see salvaging some of the list for another project. -- Kesh 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I do not understand this. I thought we already voted this page off of Wikipedia. Did we not decide that this was just a collection of opinions? And I agree with Kesh just above... this is a WP:ATTACK article. Thank you. CuTop 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid you misread me. The AfD did not "vote the page off Wikipedia," consensus was to move it to project space. However, I was of the understanding it would then be rewritten or merged with a neutral project. If that is not what happened/is happening, then I support its outright deletion per WP:ATTACK. -- Kesh 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete - I understand that this deletion review is to review how the AfD was performed. I suggest overturn, because no matter how many times I look at it, the vote said 19 delete, 10 Move, and 5 Keep. As far as I can see, unless there was a really good reason not to delete it, the lower court had no reason not to delete it. If you rename it to something without the word quackery, then it isn't the same article, but I would assume that the lead would have to change as well to reflect the title. If that were the case then it is a different article anyway, so delete it. There is no reason this author should not have to work within NPOV guidelines just like the rest of us. By keeping it, we are only encouraging similar behavior by others. If we want to set a precedent for that, then lets save it for something worthwhile that has more agreement. --Dematt 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - "Lower court?" :) -- Kesh 04:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Complete delete Overturn and delete. Dematt is precisely right. The result of the vote was overwhelmingly to remove this list off of Wiki space completely. I have just perused the space where the article is being editted and discussed now ([3]) and it seems that its most staunch defenders are claiming that it is a private article and outside viewpoints are unwelcomed ([4]). Are the rules different in Wiki Project spaces? Is article ownership allowed there? Once again, there seems to be overwhelming support to delete this article from Wikipedia entirely. TheDoctorIsIn 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - AfDs are not a vote. The closing admin reviews the votes, but they are weighted by the arguments. In this case, the closing admin found move to project space the better argument. However, that should have included renaming & editing the article to make it NPOV, which apparently was neglected. Also, yes, rules are different in project space, as they are not actual articles (which is why I endorsed moving/merging this list there). I am disappointed it was left in a very NPOV (possibly WP:ATTACK) form, but this can be fixed. I'm abstaining here, but pointing out what the AfD actually reached consensus on, as there seems to be some misunderstanding. -- Kesh 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Query - there is much support (as demonstrated here) to delete this article entirely from Wikipedia. It is clear that the page's "owners" are unwilling to compromise their POV and change this from an attack piece to an NPOV article. Is this the right forum to vote this page off of Wikipedia or is there a better place to do this? Do we need to nominate the Wiki Project article for deletion now and go throught he whole process over again? Thanks for your expertise here Kesh. TheDoctorIsIn 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Project space is not a refuge for POV attacks that are unacceptable in the main Wikipedia. Allowing this list to stay creates a precedent which gives attack groups a back-door into Wikipedia. How about: Articles related to Communism (Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Stalin, Pol Pot, mass murder, etc.) or Articles related to Fascism (Hitler, genocide, George Bush, Republican Party, Fox News Channel, etc.) ? MaxPont 10:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Unfortunately PS is another list with a NPOV problem. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Docg's first argument read like this:

1. "against the neutrality of the encyclopedia. 'Quack' is simply a subjective insult no matter what reliable source might use it. This list is akin to having a List of evil people or List of illegal wars of the USA (both of which I could populate and source). 'Relating to' is just weasel speak."

As far as I can see, the lead and contents still have not addressed this concern. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Scientific skepticism is related to scientific method and a good list would include all of modern science, medicine, and physics and would be lauded. Any other use of the term is just a hijacked version. Quackery is used to express an opinion. The new title still does not reflect the contents. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The is a good change. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Alert: Comment

According to Docg***

1***) The list is against the neutrality of the encyclopedia as labeling people or subject matter as quack or quackery.

Answer: The simple answer is changing the title to the 'List of articles related to scientific skepticism'.

In the name of science, this list will follow in the foot steps of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎.

2***) This list is against the seriousness of this project.

Answer: The topic matter of *scientific skepticsim* is very serious. The purpose of 'Wikipedia' is to build the world's largest (and of course best) 'free encyclopedia'!

*What is scientific skepticism?*

Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic aims to decide claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates her or his enquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within her or his field of science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favour before they could be accepted as having validity.

3***) This list is against the spirit of WP:BLP.

Answer: Simple solution: The list of persons has already been whacked and permanetely eliminated. In fact, there is no BLP concerns because the persons sections was removed.

Simple problems have simple answers. The process of developing and improving this new list is underway. The comments made by many Wikipedians has and will conitune to strengthen the article. In the last 24 hours the list has gone thru some changes. The POV title can be changed with just one click. The topic is scientific, serious, and important. In the spirit and harmony of Wikipedia I merely ask this list remain and continue to sprout, expand, and strengthen its roots & beginnings on Wiki. As the information is updated the list will become more focused, directed, and centered for all to read, get informed, and educated. As I journey onward in the project, I will continue the collaboration process.

Good will to all and god bless. Cheers from a true believer, advocate, and promoter of Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I have reinstated my comments because another editor was editing inside my comments. Thanks. --QuackGuru 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The above is edit warning to ensure that what he regards as relevant stay is. This demonstrates WP:OWN and the inherent subjectiveness of such a list. Do serious participants int he project even want it?--Doc^g 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alert - these are the comments User:QuackGuru deleted above (his idea of collaboration.) with my comments reinserted.

Comment - Unfortunately PS is another list with a NPOV problem. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Docg's first argument read like this:

1. "against the neutrality of the encyclopedia. 'Quack' is simply a subjective insult no matter what reliable source might use it. This list is akin to having a List of evil people or List of illegal wars of the USA (both of which I could populate and source). 'Relating to' is just weasel speak."

As far as I can see, the lead and contents still have not addressed this concern. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Scientific skepticism is related to scientific method and a good list would include all of modern science, medicine, and physics and would be lauded. Any other use of the term is just a hijacked version. Quackery is used to express an opinion. The new title still does not reflect the contents. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This is a good change. --Dematt 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry for having to do this. --Dematt 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Alert. Another editor named Dematt has taken my edits without my permission and mixed it with s/he own edits. I do not approve of this behavior. I orginally wrote the info here. Then a different editor has mixed up my edits with his/hers

here and again here. I do not give permission to other editors to take my information and mix it with her/his comments. This caused confusion to who wrote what information. Please stop, respectively. I did not delete anyone else's comments. I removed my own comments that were mixed up the another editor's comments. These are my comments. I reinsertated my comments without the other editor's comments mixed in with my comments and left all the other comments alone and separate. I hope other editors will consider to remain civil. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I hope all the other editors understand since I >originally wrote< the comments, respectively, other editors would be advised not to write inside my comments or write on top of my comments. I will remain civil. God bless and thank you. --QuackGuru 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

QG, you seem to have serious problems understanding WP:OWN. Your comments here are the first indicator you need to re-read that policy, but the above makes it even more clear to me. -- Kesh 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. Kesh. It seems you do not understand the situation, sir. Another editor mixed up my comments with his/hers. This caused confusion to who wrote what here. I origianlly wrote comments here, then another editor wrote over my comments. It became very confusing to who wrote what here in the discussion. Mixing up comments has nothing to do with the article. You are completely mistaken and off base. Thanks. --QuackGuru 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I give up. If somebody doesn't' understand what my comments were about, feel free to look through the edit history, they make more sense there. --Dematt 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The list has been updated within the last 24 hours. Most of the comments made by Wikipedians to delete refers to a prior version that no longer exists. Comments such as the BLP concerns no longer are valid. So, most of the deletion comments do not pertain to the current version. Comments about the title as labeling subject matter as quack can be fixed by just changing the title and intro. As a matter-of-fact, the list will benefit Wikipedia with knowledge of and about scientific skepticism. Cheers. --QuackGuru 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Observation Qguru, I think you mean this list will benefit the donation box of Stephen Barrett Enterprises, a so-called 'non-profit' whose actual non-profit status can't seem to be verfied. Many Wikipedian articles in your "list" have been fertilized with numerous links to SBE (Donations Gladly Accepted!) by his disciples. Even your list has multiple SBE links. I was wondering if you are in some way connected with him. Could you let us know, eh? This is one of my concerns as to why it, IMO, doesn't pass the smell test no matter where you place it. Kindest regards, Steth 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Message Hi Steth (or should I say hello to your CuTop and DoctorIsIn friends as well). First off, I liked the other nickname you called me, Quru. I am not connnected as your conspiracy theory suggests. Now that you can't point the finger at the article you resort to your last attempt to point the finger at me. The list smells like a garden of roses. I find you interesting with your multiple friendly accounts. Hope to see you around again. Its been a nice adventure. Great day. Oh. One more thing. Do you have any good ideas for improving the article. You never had. I thought so. Maybe. I hope you one day consider contributing to Wiki instead of playing around and trolling. --QuackGuru 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, per Amarkov. The claims of POV are not and should not be considered problematic outside of article space. — coelacan talk — 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

K12 Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This request is on behalf of User:Plin, who created the article. It has been deleted several times, most recently by myself, because it sounded like spam. I also discovered that it contained copyright violations from http://www.k12.com. However the creator insists that the article is his/her own work, and I offered to set up this DRV as a courtesy. I myself believe the article should stay deleted, not only because of the copyright violations, but because it sounds like spam. See discussions between myself and the user [5], [6]. Fang Aili ^talk 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an ad, it's a copyvio, and it's been deleted by three different admins, now. Even if the original poster (who, surprisingly, seems to have used two different User names) has the copyright and proves it, it's still an ad. Endorse deletion but allow for recreation in a less ad-speak form, iff it can be proven to pass WP:CORP. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I think I need to clarify that I was not the original poster and I do not use two different usernames (please don't make any assumptions). If you can give me an example or two to where there was a copyright violation I would appreciate it because I reviewed it and I don't see any.--Plin 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It was originally created in October by User:Canada96 , and then deleted. You recreated it. The original version was a copyvio, your version included a copyvio. Thus my "two different User names" comment. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It is indeed an ad, I find some copyright violations also. If the material is released under the GFDL by K12 on their website, the copywrite issue would go away. But it would still be an ad, so eligible for speedy deletion. A total rewrite is needed, based on WP:FORGET, preferrably using independent sources only. If that is a reasonable article, that passes WP:CORP then expand it using the company's web site as a source, rather than copying from it. The homeschooling movement is big enough, and covered enough (albeit in specialty press) that there is a reasonable chance of passing WP:CORP. GRBerry 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Old School 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Old School Dos Has Proof Of Existing Old School Dos has proof of existing. Un-protecting the page so it can be re-directed to Old School Dos would be helpful for anyone looking for information on Old School 2.--WhereAmI 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - crz crztalk 04:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• How about merging and redirecting to Old School (film)? I don't see how the new article addresses the crystal ball problems brought up in the AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 05:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter in translation series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Further down in this debate SmokeyJoe notes that the article was transwikied without its history. This article should be reinstated at least long enough to properly finish the transwikification process. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD debate was no consensus. User Proto recorded the result as delete SmokeyJoe 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Mere assertions that something was no consensus do not make it so. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter in translation series. There is an AfD debate without consensus. The issue I have is that the AfD process has been deviated from. No consensus is no consensus. If someone disagrees with arguements, including Proto, then the debate should be reopened.--SmokeyJoe 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

...did you deliberately ignore what I said? Mere assertions that something was no consensus do not make it so. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I don't understand what you mean. Can you please explain?--SmokeyJoe 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on WP is not a vote, and it isn't required to be unanimous either. Even though the nomination said "fancruft", it was probably interpreted as WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DICT. ColourBurst 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Was this ever sent to Wiktionary as requested? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Presuming no, undelete long enough to transwiki, then delete again. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note Let's treat this as a request to undelete. If there is no consensus to overturn the closing admin and any editor who is willing to organize it can arrange the transwikiing. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note the articles were transwikied, to wikia:harrypotter. Proto::► 09:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Great, but it ought to be sent to the sister project for which it is appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Restore or Reopen Debate. Michaelsanders 01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Was there consensus? Didn't look like it... Michaelsanders 01:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is anyone going to show how there was no consensus, or are you just going to keep asserting it? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There are "keeps" among the comments. The arguments behind the keeps were not refuted.--SmokeyJoe 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And there were arguments behind deletes which were not refuted. Besides, there were no reasons behind the keeps; there was one which said nothing, one which gave no argument, and one which simply refuted a few of the deletion arguments without explaining why it should be kept. "Real world information" is not a criterion for inclusion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, more debate would be needed to reach a consensus. In the mean time, there is not consensus. Therefore the result should default to keep.--SmokeyJoe 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The threshold for deleting is rough consensus, not consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 04:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't agree that the consensus was rough. I say there was no consensus. Can you provide a definition of "rough consensus". I note that one is not provided by the link.--SmokeyJoe 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just follow through to Rough consensus. ~ trialsanderrors 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As a definition, that's a pretty poor one. It looks like something used once many years ago. To me, "rough consensus" is an oxymoron. SmokeyJoe 05:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I think you don't understand what consensus means ... it is not the same as unanimous. Consensus means a significant and notable majority decision, not everybody agreeing. Proto::► 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proto, I think I do understand consensus. I think you attempted to guess where consensus was going to arrive, given time. I think you guessed wrong, see below. SmokeyJoe 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• No Reason to RestoreThere were 10 "Deletes", 3 "Keeps" and several "Transwikis" - Given that the articles have already been transwikied to the Harry Potter Wiki, I'd say there was a consensus to delete. John Reaves 04:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be able to find the discussion and the history. SmokeyJoe 05:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter in translation series. John Reaves 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The history and discussion for the original articles doesn't seem to be there, and neither is it at wikia. SmokeyJoe 22:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you wanted the original articles. Of course they're not on Wikipedia, this page at the HP Wiki should have link to all of them, no history though. John Reaves 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that the history, discussion and discussion history are important? SmokeyJoe 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the tranwiki was to move the content, not the comments. John Reaves 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur SmokeyJoe 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

The "GNU Free Documentation License", or "GFDL", one of the many "copyleft" licenses that permit the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content, was chosen for this purpose. The license also states that, as a condition for the use of the information, its authors be attributed and any redistributed content remain available under the same license.

The transwikification of the content without the history, and hence without the authorship, given that the authorship information is no longer available at wikipedia, is a violation of the GNU Free Documentation License. Am I wrong? SmokeyJoe 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Note the information has already been transwikied, to wikia:harrypotter. Following a transwiki, the article is deleted from Wikipedia. That made the blatant, clear, and obvious consensus to delete even more blatant, clear, and obvious. Proto::► 09:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki was not the best option, and that decision had not gained consensus. See below.SmokeyJoe 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the articles have already been transwikied, so there was a clear consensus to delete the articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayden54 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse: the principle argument to keep seemed to be that the information was not replicated elsewhere - in other words, that it was original research. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue of original research really applied to the articles, and if it did the issue should have been raised in the AfD. SmokeyJoe 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• My main grip is that judging "consensus to transwiki and delete" was premature, and Proto was wrong to delete. I admit that that as articles, the pages were substandard. But there could be found a solution, within wikipedia, other than delete. I didn't agree with transwiki because the contents of the page are not, in my opinion, suitable for wikia:harrypotter nearly as much as for wikipedia. I also have a serious problem with wikia:harrypotter being substantially a copyright infringement as a derivative work (debatably). A better solution would be to merge to Harry Potter in translation. Unfortunately, this can not be done properly without undeletion because the pages' histories and discussions have been lost. Note that the pages were very old and had a great many contributors (contributors who thought there contributions were worthy).

I propose that the pages be undeleted and marked to state that the contents are not encyclopedic (excessively long lists) and that they are to be merged with similar pages (probably Harry Potter in translation). Time must be allowed for the merge to ensure that the effect on the destination page(s) is an improvement. Finally, a redirect should be left. SmokeyJoe 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your claims of "no consensus" and "copyright infringement at the HP Wiki" are unfounded. Stop using them as reasons for undeletion and opposing transwikifaction until you can provide a valid argument for either claim. John Reaves 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No consensus is blatantly obvious.

"copyright infringement at the HP Wiki": See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and its talk page and see Derivative work. SmokeyJoe 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple math says you're wrong. 10 deletes, 3 keeps. Hard to understand? The point of the Wiki is to write about HP in an "in-universe style" (which I'm assuming is why you referenced the MOS). As far as "derivative work" goes, you've yet to show any examples of how this applies. If you can find any (which you won't) feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. John Reaves 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

At the Manual of Style you can find explanations and references showing that derivative works are liable to be ruled as copyright infringement. SmokeyJoe 23:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

By what definition is it a "derivative work"? Using that, any literary analysis should be ruled copyright infringement. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us know if you find any. John Reaves 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, satire & analysis are considered "transformative", a key meaningful word used by US courts. Transformation breaks the "derivative work" problem. This is here a tangent on a tangent. If you are really interested, then go to the Manual of Sytle (writing about fiction), read, and ask your questions on the talk page. SmokeyJoe 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, you should be be contacting all newspapers, magazines, et cetera and letting them know how much trouble they're in. I'm sure they'd like to know. 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read Derivative work.SmokeyJoe 03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Already wasted my time there. You're wrong, the article isn't going to be restored, give up already. John Reaves 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the clear consensus was to delete. The transwiki took place anyway, rather than as a result of the AFD (and I have no problem with the transwiki having taken place).. Proto::► 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion – though I thought it was to be Transkwiki'd to Wiktionary, as wikia:harrypotter is not in the best shape. Oh, well, the information's not gone, I'll bring it up at the WP:Harry. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  Again, note the consensus was to delete. It got transwiki'd to the wikia project as a sidenote, rather than as the aim of the AFD close. Only 3 people suggesting transwiking to Wiktionary out of the 16 people who contributed to the discussion (10 requested 'delete'). Proto::► 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is not consensus. Its sounds like you are holding on to the rejected Wikipedia:Supermajority. It is not even the ill-defined rough consensus. Transwiki does not mean delete; you have to leave a redirect to preserve the history. Several of the "Delete"s were refuted. Never has is been necessary to "refute" every "delete" argument. There were arguments for "keep" that were not answered. I really do not think your definition of consensus is mainstream. SmokeyJoe 03:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Two problems. One, if there is a good reason for deletion, it should be just as necessary to refute all the deletes as it is to refute all the keeps.

No, to refute means to prove wrong. It is a very strong word. An argument may be weak without being refutable. Also No because the default is to “keep”. SmokeyJoe 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And two, if it's indeed a non-mainstream opinion, why does only one person agree with you? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am surprised at the limited support and the vehemence of opposition. I really can’t see why my proposal is so abhorrent. How can it hurt? The final solution, a redirect, is very cheap. Perhaps another answer is that there is a biased culture of deletionism here in the Afd pages. SmokeyJoe 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The "final solution" is to leave it deleted, which is what will happen. John Reaves 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Close I'm not sure how to go about this, but I'm making a move to close this review as "Deleted". John Reaves 04:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Omar barnett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Galdemway 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, I can not think of a single reason why I would say to overturn this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt Repeatedly recreated articles on Mr. Barnett _SUBWAYguy 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• I asked the nominator to provide a reason, until then we can close this. ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)