Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 19

Stirling Newberry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Stirling Newberry claimed that a fair and balanced view of his biographical info on the web was "Attacking" him and "libeling" him even though it was verified through numerous third party sources. We can't allow someone to get their biographies deleted because it doesn't present them in the 100% positive light that we all desire. Turbulantsalad 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do a simple search of him on Google, he's notable, and there's both positive and negative information about him out there, the article presented both. Turbulantsalad 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the deleted article is posted at Stirling Newberry/workshop

• Overturn, unless someone has evidence of WP:OFFICE. We don't delete articles because the subject does not wish an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, he claims it was being used to slander him through a false myspace link which was repeatedly added, Google searches don't nessicerily represent notability, and it was repeatedly altered against WP:AUTO and WP:COI by Newberry, including adding multiple links to commercial sales sites for his own music. He's not a special person, he hasn't done anything to deserve an article, and until he does, he should remain with just a user page --feba 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Only the first thing matters, as the things which don't need to be discussed in a proper AfD are grounds for blocking of users, not deletion. And the first thing makes no sense, as a false myspace link should, again, be grounds for blocking. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Negative information, living person, zero sources. I've also deleted that /workshop page, and suggest that nobody recreates it unless they have sources. -- Steel 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, oopsies. No idea how I didn't make that connection. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are sources for the info. Look at the page. Turbulantsalad 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not reliable ones. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I seriously disagree with the ability of the subject of the article to demand it's deletion without providing sources of his own. This practice today was completely out of line. Turbulantsalad 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to provide reliable sources or not? -- Steel 00:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am, however, I want someone to look at the actual incident in question. How was this a valid use of power? Why wasn't there an AFD? Why are we having to hash this out here? Turbulantsalad 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Because unsourced biographies of living persons must be immediately deleted. You must have sources for articles on living people. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Newbie here, but... straightout cut-and-paste from the user bio. Breach of NPOV from both sides - on the one hand it was altered with pejorative verbiage such as "inane" - on the other it was cut straight out of the subject's own self-written bio. Balance isn't achieved by merely breaching NPOV equally in opposite directions. No citations, no sources. 66.183.119.135 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can IPs even vote? I believe you are Stirling Newberry not logged in, based on your history on the page. Turbulantsalad 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can vote here, and no, it isn't relevant who he is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Eraser (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It is notable. I believe this software to be notable, I've heard about it many times, on many forums I've seen people that have claimed to use it, and seen several times people recommend it and mention it.

• If you search on Google for "Eraser", not only does it appear on the first place, but also 2,3,5,10,12,14, etc, etc...
• It has had 4,759,166 downloads just on SourceForge.
• It is listed on 48'th place of Top Downloads (all time) on SF.
• Mentioned in the media. It has media coverage. PC World Magazine article. Also mentioned in german magazine Chip Magazine where it got best file shredder award in a test. Just look at the huge press coverage list. Been mentioned in Wall Street Journal, New York Times, been distributed with CDs.
• Been distributed on CDs shipped with magazines in Japan, Greece, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Norway, etc.
• Mentioned in books. It's mentioned in the book Using Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, also mentioned on page 131 of the book "Identity Theft: Preventing Consumer Terrorism: An Attitudinal Approach".
• It's even been mentioned on TV, on TechTV.

The notability is unquestionable. -- Frap 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Consensus clear in AFD. No information in appeal here. GRBerry 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Updating for change in appeal: forums (and wikis) are not reliable sources, notability is not determined by google hit counts. GRBerry 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Smoke and mirrors was comprehensively blown away by Brian's thorough analysis of the purported sources. The fact that one lot of unsatisfactory sources was reinforced with another lot of equally unsatisfactory ones does tend to indicate that satisfactory sources are, in fact, absent. Do we have an article on the owner? If so, a redirect would be fine. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete it (Rm duplicate) Google says it's notable. Immediately after I mentioned the deletion in #wikipedia, someone was surprised it got deleted and said he have used it before. Search entries on Google, 1,2,3,5,10,12,14 are all about this software. Since Eraser is a word, for a software to get this many matches on Google, it indeed has to be notable. On the "Searches related to: Eraser", ALL entries are about this software. Eraser is unquestionably notable. -- Frap 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid AfD. Notable? Who knows, but this article certainly did not rise above the level of a directory entry (and WP:NOT a directory). Feel free to try again, establishing, from reliable sources, what is unique about this software. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  One bolded opinion per opiner please, though with the appeal nom changing this many times I've been tempted to reopine myself. GRBerry 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AFD. Google can't definitively say something is notable - it is only a rule of thumb and not a policy or guideline. --Coredesat 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe Google don't decide what is notable, but what about 4,7 million downloads just on SF, what about the mention in 2 books, what about mentioned in like 30 magazines, including LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal. What about being shipped on the CD with magazines in like 7+ different countries worldwide? If Eraser isn't notable, then 90%+ of the software on Wikipedia isn't notable. -- Frap 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nothing here which wasn't available in the AfD; you aren't supposed to come here just because you disagree with the consensus. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter, because the AFD could be wrong. According to WP:SOFTWARE, it is quite notable. -- Frap 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

123 Pleasant Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|AFD2)

This article survived a first AfD with an overwhelming majority of users supporting keep. A first DR was opened and closed in one day with participation only the nominator and one user. A second AfD was held, this time with opinions of both keep and delete. Delete had a mere majority but not even a super-majority, let alone a consensus. Article meets requirements WP:Local and has numerous cites, high G-hit count and one substantial source from a local print media with a circulation of 30,000 documented on a website. Editors of this article have committed to continuing improvement. This article should be undeleted because it has sufficient notability and verifiable sources to survive AfD, there is no honest consensus to delete and proper procedure has not been followed. Nominator is additionally concerned that deletion represents a thwarting of consensus Edivorce 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The original article was in DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 9, but the outcome was to relist on AfD, so we'll take a look. User:CharlotteWebb closed this as a keep, but User:Avraham deleted the article, and all the keep !votes were WP:ILIKEIT style arguments. I'm neutral because I didn't see the history the first time around, so I don't know if the sources were reliable, but seeing as the delete !voter talked about a blog and the official website, which are definitely not reliable... ColourBurst 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment the keep users did not merely say they liked the article. They also said it was notable, verifiable and sufficiently sourced.Edivorce 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Second AFD now linked above; it was closed by User:Avraham as delete. GRBerry 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you GRBerry. Endorse deletion as it seems clear that the article does not have reliable sources, therefore it is always going to be original research. ColourBurst 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The relisting was done by the admin that closed the first AFD. That is their perogative even if a deletion review is running, and is reason to close the deletion review. Such a decision on their part amounts to a decision that the first AFDs result should be disregarded henceforth. (The evidence there shouldn't be - and I don't see any evidence there that went unconsidered in the second AFD.) That invalidates the pair of keep opinions that were based only on having been kept in the first AFD. Google hits are long established as irrelevant to whether an article should be kept. Consensus is recorded in policy and guidelines, and to a lesser extent in precedents, and AFD discussions are about how to apply that consensus to a particular set of facts. Merge might have been a reasonable decision, but only material verfied from reliable sources should ever be merged. The article had no citations to reliable sources, so there wasn't anything to merge and it wasn't an option in this case. GRBerry 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment please provide authority for this "perogative". Edivorce 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The consensus that is recorded in the policies have established the AfD process, which solicits input from the ordinary editors and users. This AfD process is itself controlled by the consenus of these ordinary users participating in the particular AfD discussion. They get to form a consensus about the specific article. This is the consensus that has been thwarted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edivorce (talk • contribs).
    • It's not as much a "prerogative" but an admission on the closer's side that the closure was problematic and the discussion should be re-run. Once that is established the DRV becomes moot and is speedily closed. ~ trialsanderrors 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thats interesting because I contacted the Closing Admin when the 2nd AfD opened and as you can see she was not so much uncomfortable with the first AfD as whip-sawed by those seeking delete.Edivorce
        • That might very well be, but any standing article can be nominated for deletion at any time, and it will always lead to a closure of the concurrent DRV. We don't discuss deletion issues in two forums at the same time (see WP:MULTI). ~ trialsanderrors 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It stills show undue pressure on the Admin. Edivorce 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Nominating an AfD decision for deletion review = undue pressure? I don't even think this needs to be discussed any further. ~ trialsanderrors 22:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't know what was brought to bear or from where. I only know that the admin expressed the belief that she was right to find consensus for keep, that "complaints poured in" and that she would no longer engage in the process. Edivorce 22:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I checked the closer's talk archive and found that there was no undue pressure from the DRV nominator. This was perfectly within procedure. I recommend that from now the discussion focuses on the decision of the 2nd AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Your the one who opened the door.Edivorce 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • I don't know what's that supposed to mean. ~ trialsanderrors 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • I would not have speculated upon the admins motives but you did. It did not conform with what I knew. Thus you invited this exchange (opened the door). I hope it is over now.Edivorce 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Always? Some of the sources were claimed as not reliable by the one editor who was dead set on the article's deletion. In any event, is it not considered polite to allow a cooling off period before putting a page up for deletion again? I renominated a page on an Atlantic City councilperson that had far less effort put into saving it than this one, and was roundly thrashed for not waiting. DarkAudit 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, troutslap the people complaining about undue pressure, give the admin a cookie for admitting error. I see no reason why the consensus in the second AfD is invalid. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see anyone but me (not people) raising undue pressure argument. I don't see what's appropriate about "trout slapping" me, but I guess I can take it. I do not see where any administrator "admitted error"- quite the opposite. Edivorce 03:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not invalid, but rushed. When it was looking like the original AfD was going to result in a Keep, the editor most adamant about a delete made it known that he was going to go here. The speed at which the review was closed and the second AfD opened seems to violate accepted etiquette for cooling-off periods before a renomination. Articles have been kept merely on the basis on opening a second AfD "too soon". Articles that had far less effort going into saving than this one did. DarkAudit 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogers Ltd., Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I created this page based on a link on the Middletown, Ohio page. Rogers is one of the top 20 biggest jewelry retail chains in the US, and is also historically significant in the area (which is why somebody else thought it notable enough to be mentionned in the middletown page). If the page is undeleted, I will be sure to mark it as a stub and will keep expanding it. jh75

• Undelete (and AfD if anybody feels the need) it's a store chain with a 90-year history and 46 locations. I'm pretty sure a decent article could be written about it, and it certainly has enough notability to be given the scrutiny of a full AfD process. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. Userfy or undelete One sentence sub-stub, plus two external links. More information here than was in the article. GRBerry 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice. This was a near-worthless article on an apparently worthwhile subject. Create a page with actual content, no need to come here. >Radiant< 11:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Atticus Clothing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

A notable clothing company. I found an older version on answers.com and I think it was deleted because it sounded like an advertisement (a section of it was a copyvio from their website). If restored, I'll cleanup the copyvio and add a bit to it. kollision 05:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore to previous version, that is, restore revisions up to and including the edit on 02:21, 22 November 2006 by Bklein3. Keep revisions after that deleted as copyvio and unsalvagable advertising. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per Sam above. Couldn't agree more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• What Sam said. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and partial restore per Sam Blanning. --Coredesat 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sam's proposal seems logical, and I encourage any admin who happens to read this in the next hour/whenever to speedy close this and restore the non-copyvio revisions (but leave the copyvio ones deleted). Pretty simple del. review, this, and no need for it to run any longer. Daniel.Bryant 08:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedily restored, per above. Here's hoping this doesn't come back and bite me in the ass. Not entirely sure if this should be closed, yet; if so, DB kindly offered to take care of the template work for me. Luna Santin 08:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• It is not an advertisement page. The purpose is to include the company's profile in Wikipedia, as of many other companies which are already there. Bruno Braga 03:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted It's at least an advertisement (I haven't checked for copyright), and was deleted twice before I delete-protected it against continued recreation. It is littered with advertising phrases like "Diverse cultural skills and specialized training enable Brastel's staff to offer the highest level of service to its diverse international customers in Japan. ", "The company also created customized CRM technology to effectively develop customer profiles and follow-up on their specific needs. This entrepreneurial spirit...", "The key to Brastel's success and long-term growth has been the balance of customized cutting-edge technology and highly skilled professionals who have the linguistic and cultural abilities, as well as professional skills to serve over 20 distinct markets.", "The product was an instant success", "The new prefix gave customers the option to make international calls at even lower rates than offered before...", "Brastel improved its CRM and switches to increase flexibility and stability in order to better track its increasing number of calls. Today, the company provides connections to 240 countries and territories and offers customer_service in more than 20 languages.", " Brastel advertises in the most influential foreign media channels" It's just a puff, reads like it's produced by the company, no criticism or comparison with competitors. jimfbleak 06:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's also a copyright violation, see the "about us" pages at Brastel, "marketing" for example is virtually a cut and paste, jimfbleak 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted (obviously, copyvio), if you think you can write a neutral article demonstrating notability by coverage in multiple reliable sources, write one in userspace and bring it here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Samuel Blanning. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Double endorse deletion, advertising and copyvio. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Can you please recreate the article on camp poyntelle i believe it was deleted for no reason. There was an article on christianforumsite which was removed because it lacked popularity. However, I am putting this site for review because it has grown much larger than it previously was and this site appears on top lists of Google, Yahoo and MSN searches for the keyword 'christian forum'. Hence this site can be associated with this keyword. Please check this out and its alexa ranking to see if the article that was one deleted, could be restored.

• The site is www.christianforumsite.com
• Alexa Ranking: [1]

131.172.4.45 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Alexa rankings don't mean much, and in any case 998,071 is not nearly enough. Top 100 or even 1000 might be something, but not top million. Come back when the site meets WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ok no problem, I just wanted to know that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.172.4.44 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Constitution Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

New article being written in stages Jon Roland 00:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly prominent organization, founded in 1994, whose website is at or near the top in searches on constitutional terms, and many sites and organizations link to its extensive collection of online reference material.Jon Roland 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the deletion review of User:Jon Roland's other article, Jon Roland, which was unanimously endorsed a few days ago due to WP:NPOV issues resulting from WP:AUTO. Constitution Society is Jon Roland's second article, about his organisation, which suffers from exactly the same problems. -- Steel 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comment suggests that because some adminstrators don't think an individual is suffiently notable for inclusion, therefore the organization in which he is involved should be excluded. That is a non sequitur. The CEO of Home Depot (Frank Blake) might not be notable but does that mean Home Depot should be excluded?

There is also a problem with rapid removals of new articles, which are likely to be written slowly over a period of several days by people not yet familiar with the formatting conventions, policies, and other considerations. On behalf of others, I urge administrators to give contributors a fair opportunity to answer criticisms, which should be emailed to them since most people are not going to be actively checking the various talk pages.Jon Roland 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Good thing I haven't mentioned notability then, isn't it? -- Steel 01:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing the organization is not notable? It is reasonable to require third-party validation of the notability of individuals whose names are not household words, but I find no such validations in a casual visit to the pages of other organizations in the field. Have you tried going to the search page linked above and entering the word "constitution" in any of the search engines linked there? Do you notice that the site of the organization appears at or near the top of most of them? That seems like notability to me.Jon Roland 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, valid Articles-7 and General-11 deletion. Please stop using Wikipedia as a tool for self-promotion; that is explictly what it is not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for your position that an article on the organization is "self-promotion"? How are you distinguishing the organization and its activities from similar organizations, such as the Federalist Society, the American Constitution Society, or the Cato Institute? Yes, I am the webmaster, and produced much of the content, but the overwhelming bulk of the content of the site was written by other people, even though I might have edited it. Most organizations have single individuals as webmasters who do that, and many publishers of the works of others have single editors who edit the submissions of the others.

As an interesting note on one of those other organizations, the American Constitution Society, they were originally organized as a "progressive" opposition to oppose the "conservative-libertarian" Federalist Society (mainly for lawyers although both accept nonlawyers as members), and first tried to get the name "Constitution Society", but discovered we already had it. Then they tried for "Madison Society" (Madison would have turned over in his grave), but found there was an existing organization with that name as well. They finally just tacked "American" in front of their original choice. We are the "strict constructionist" or "originalist" alternative to both of those, taking positions usually labeled as "libertarian". That would seem to put us in the same niche as the Cato Institute, except that their focus is on new work by their "fellows", and ours is on primary sources of constitutional thought by the Founders and those they read and who knew their thought. We thought it best to first lay down the historical foundations of constitutionalism before going to to applying it to present issues.Jon Roland 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the only undeletion reason given is that it's linked from many sites and therefore popular in search engines. That might make it an interesting case study for search engine optimization, but not notable for an article. - Bobet 11:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is important about being linked to from many sites is that the webmasters of those sites or their supervisors consider the organization and its activities, as evidenced by the contents of its website, as notable and worthy of the attention of their own visitors. There are no tricks of search engine optimization involved. Just the quality and quantity of the content. If you look at those links to it you will find abundant evidence of notability of the organization apart from its webmaster/editor.

Do the administrators have some prejudice against the content and positions of the organization or its webmaster? Is this about ideology? That may be unfair, but that is certainly the impression one gets from the above comments.Jon Roland 13:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Past success in search engine optimisation is not a reason for inclusion. Bring multiple non-trivial iundependent sources. No, actually, have someone who is not the founder, webmaster and CEO of the group in question bring these sources. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So is that what it's about? Prejudice against me personally? Is anyone here even bothering to look at the site where all this evidence is readily to be found, or are you content to just make knee-jerk reactions? Okay. I'll ask around to see if any of our people are versant with Wikipedia. Probably not, since I think one of them would have mentioned it. Several know regular HTML, at least to save into it from a word processor, which is why they let me do the website, but this is a new system of formatting for us, including me. However, since the article is blocked, How do we submit it? Do you want one of us to submit the entire article here on the talk page?Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per no real reason given to undelete. Search engine rankings don't matter for our purposes, as it's possible to game them... so possible, in fact, that there's an entire industry devoted to doing so. I'm also sensing a pretty blatant WP:COI issue here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can be, but it is also easy to examine a site to see that that is not what was done. It should also be noted that the high ranking has persisted since the search engines came online more than 12 years ago. This is not a new organization.Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion not opposed to a future article on the subject that meets WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. ~ BigrTex 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Secondary sources please? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is blocked, the only way to submit such sources is through this talk page. Here is the original article with some secondary sources added. More to follow:

(Copy and paste of entire article removed. -- Steel 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Jon Roland 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are not sources. You still don't have sources. You have sites which link to it, but that does not make a source. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, now you have me confused. As far as I can tell from your guides a "secondary source" is something written by someone else, but how is that to be offered if not in either a link or a quote as part of the article? Are you saying a "secondary source" can only be another member-contributor to Wikipedia? The guides don't seem to say that. Is this a communication problem, or are are you reading your own guides differently than a newcomer to Wikipedia does?Jon Roland 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source is a newspaper, magazine, reputable website which is peer reviewed and whose sourcing can be trusted, which has written an article/column/posting of which the subject of the article is the primary focus of the article. The source cannot be associated with the subject of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The source also must provide information on the subject; it can't just link to the site. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I am beginning to see what you want. Let's see if we can clarify the boundaries. According to the above statements, it would not be sufficient for a reputable site to have something like:

We have determined after thorough research that the four most prominent organizations in the field of x are

• Federalist Society
• Cato Institute
• Constitution Society
• American Constitution Society

because it doesn't say anything specific about any of them. Similarly, it would not be sufficient to have the conference proceedings, distributed to attendees, have something like:

We asked one of the most notable organizations in this field, the Constitution Society, to provide a speaker for this conference, and they provided ...

because conference proceedings are not of sufficient stature in themselves, and it doesn't say anything more about the organization than that it is "most notable". Further, it would not be sufficient to have an extensive article on the organization in a professional journal that is no longer being published and available in only a few remote libraries and not available through interlibrary loan to verify it.

But it would spoil the esthetics of most articles to submit the evidence required within the article itself. After all, the articles of the organizations listed above don't have that. Presumably the evidence was presented through another channel, such as this talk page. I wouldn't want to clutter the article on the Constitution Society with evidence of its notability. I don't mind submitting it to the administrators directly, however.

But how do we present evidence that is not online or accessible for verification? Is there a way we can send images of pages of the sources? Or snailmail paper copies?Jon Roland 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You have established notability. That is not in question. However, you still must be able to source the article, which it seems you can't do. -Amark moo! 02:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not easily, because, as I said, we don't keep a scrapbook. I have heard about such sources, but almost never inquire further, or ask for a copy. I don't even have copies of most of my television appearances (Dateline NBC April 25, 1995, interviewed by Stone Phillips, several appearances on C-SPAN, etc.). That may seem strange to others, but our organization and its missions differ somewhat from those of others. It has been our policy to disclose only certain things, after some discussion, and to keep many of our most important activities, members, donors, etc., strictly need-to-know. When part of one's mission is to expose criminality in government, one acquires powerful enemies, and other efforts that have been careless about security have paid a severe price. So, for example, when we issue press releases about some subject, we focus on the subject and hold back on what is going on behind the scenes by our people. We help organize meetings, but usually under the names of other organizations not well known to be connected with us. If we want to hold a national meeting, we just all agree to attend one, such as the annual gathering of the Federalist Society, and caucus in a hotel room or restaurant.

So, although this has been an interesting exercise, I am not sure it is a good idea to pursue it further. Perhaps it is better to just let others write the article, if they wish to do so, and, except for selected information such as our website, to remain somewhat in the background. Thanks for the consideration of the administrators, and please visit our site as ordinary visitors without an editorial mission.Jon Roland 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One final point, for the benefit of future reviews. You might check all the links to documents on the Constitution Society site, and to the Society itself, in many articles in several languages which were submitted by other contributors, who it would appear consider the site and its organization notable enough for the purposes of that article. This is also a counter to the charge that the high ranking of the site is the result of "gaming" the search engines. The Alexa rank for Wikipedia for the Society's website is 15.Jon Roland 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)