- Adam4Adam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)
Article asserts notability through verifiable sources. More can easily be provided. It is neither POV nor spammy; it was Wikified and had considerable information within. This article is being confused with previous versions with which the current author has no connection. The article was Speedy Deleted desite a "hangon" that had been there less than 24 hours. The topic of this article is a website used by men to meet for sex. The subject of this article may be creating an unjust bias against the article itself. House of Scandal 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can you post the sources here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- As the article was brushed out of existance while I was away from my computer, I don't know exactly. I am almost sure one was The Washington Post. If given the opportunity, I could have presented an avalanche of evidence. Some guys who met through this site were robbed or assaulted and it made the news in several media markets. It is also being used to locate and discharge gays in the US military. Health official are concerned about STD spreading through its members. Finally, the Washington Blade did an article about men finding long-term partners through it and its ilk.House of Scandal 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems likely that it was the Washington Blade rather than Washington Post that mentioned Adam4Adam by name. I think there may have been a Post reference, but I can't know as I was given no fair opportunity to improve it. House of Scandal 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn I spend alot of time in AfD debates and I know the difference between a good article and a bad one. Although I can't see the Adam4Adam article, I have never seen the author make an article that wasn't properly cited. What's going on here? Shaundakulbara 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note - I'm the most recent admin to delete the article. The assertion above is operating under a critical misconception, the speedy delete had nothing to do with it being a repost or lacking sources, it was because the website fails to meet the WP:WEB criteria used as part of Wikipedia's effort to establish standards of notability. WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 is the specific speedy delete criteria employed. Reviewing the content of the article, it should be evident that the action was proper and the article should not be restored in its current form. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- The New York Times, Washington Blade and New York Daily News were referenced to show its notabiliy. These don't count as WP:WEB-required "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? As shown here, other references could have been provided if requested. Those three sources are enough so that the "hangon" should have been honored. As someone asked above, "what's going on here"? Seriously, what's really going on here and why wasn't an opportunity given to address concerns if it is true that "the speedy delete had nothing to do with it being a repost"? House of Scandal 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are the actual mentions themselves non-trivial? I mean, for instance, the mention in the New York Daily News is ridiculously unimportant. Just mentioning the name of a site in an article (really just a side-note to the gossip column in that article) shouldn't (and I don't think does) count as much. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Several articles concern Manhunt.net, Craig's List and Adam4Adam collectively. Others mention Adam4Adam only. If given an opportunity, I would have discerned between trivial and non-trivial references. Why wasn't this article sent to AfD debate if notability was questioned? Why would someone Speedy Delete a substantial, Wikified article that has references and a "hangon" request? I'm not new here and I have seen articles with a fraction of this article's merit get a chance. The swift and unilateral deletion of this article was not per guidelines. House of Scandal 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. The "hangon" tag was being abused by 71.160.33.83 (talk · contribs). I can find no abuse of process in this deletion. Whether or not it actually is notable is irrelevant here, the article as it stood when deleted did not make the claim to notability as far as I can see. If the article is notable, this can be established during a request for undeletion. Please note that I am endorsing deletion, not opposing undeletion. --Yamla 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Failure to meet WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion, and a website being used to lure a murder victim is certainly a claim of notability. Whether that claim is sufficient and whether the references adequately support it is a question for AFD. —Celithemis 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That's not quite accurate, WP:WEB serves as guidance for CSD A7, which _is_ a valid speedy deletion criteria for non-notable websites. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is quite accurate. A7 is that the article does not assert notability, not merely that it isn't notable. -Amark moo! 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak overturn and list at AFD per this not being an A7 (it asserted notability - per A7, an assertion is enough), though I would more than likely argue to delete in an AFD, as most of the sources provided are either trivial or are multiple copies of the same Reuters story, which is not about the website itself (it just mentions it, which is not enough). --Coredesat 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - There's also an article about it at the New York Times Here's a second NYTimes article. This is obviously a notable subject. This seems to have been way too hastily deleted. Jeffpw 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn owing to numerous sources provided in this DRV. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have not been able to review all the sources alleged here because two of them require subscriptions. However, of the sources that I have reviewed, none establish the notability of this website. [1] is not an article about the website. It mentions the website in passing as an example but provides no detail to suggest that it is anything more than an average example of such a website. [2] and [3] are reprints of the same article (and thus is not evidence of "multiple" coverage). [4] draws from the same article but isn't even a full reprint - it's a mere abstract of the Reuters article. [5], [6], [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21210892.shtml], [7], [8] and [9] are independent articles but again are mere casual mentions of the website in articles which are about completely different topics. Unless definitive sources can be presented which are actually about this website, I must endorse the speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Speedy deletion decision seems ok. Article made no claim to encyclopedic notability. I agree with Rossami on the sources. Sources provided use the website as an example of a wider category of websites - this kind of use is a trivial reference.Bwithh 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The site has also been the subject of independant reviews which concern it solely. One neutral (semi-disfavorable) review is quoted in the article. The articles in which Adam4Adam is mentioned aren't about "completely different topics". They seem to be about (A) this sort of site re:STD's, (B) this sort of site re:the US military and (C) this sort of site re:relationships. When publications like New York Times discuss these topics, Adam4Adam is often mentioned. That the esssence of notability -- to be noted repeatedly --WikiLawyering aside.Shaundakulbara 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I just love how "Wikilawyering" can wheeled out to toss any beyond-superficial consideration of policy overboard. Bwithh 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per above Fotografico 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and submit to complete AfD to resolve issues. Lack of claim of notability when notability can be shown is no excuse for speedy deletion. Haiduc 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: If anyone is interested in the unusually high turnout, I did a quick check and found this post. There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article, and it has been added to a "To Do" template, {{LGBT_open_tasks}}. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Response - On the LGBT page there is a small section devoted to deletion discussions. This is one of the articles listed there. The link goes directly here. There is no prodding there about how someone should vote. If the article was about plants the opinion of people involved with the botany project might be solicited. Etcetera. Elsewhere, the article creator asked for admin help right after being told by you:
"I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you."
Since when does an article creator saying something an admin doesn't like have a bearing on an article's notability? You told someone today to trust the process. To take issue with LBGT project people being informed about this discussion is contemptable. Shaundakulbara 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response - Chairboy, your comment above seems a red herring to me, designed to distract from the real issue, which is that the article was deleted in spite of having notability. It also seems to me (once again, from your own comments) that you have your back up about this issue, and are being defensive. Seems to me you made a mistake. Another admin made a similar mistake with this article, and retored it. I urge you to do the same. And I also take issue with your implication that the LGBT Project is being used for votestacking, and that we project members are somehow not objective enough to determine if an article subject meets WP:N. If I have misinterpreted your remarks, I apologize, but I don't think I have. Jeffpw 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your member Shaundakulbara has made personal attacks against me, implied that I'm on some sort of anti-gay crusade, called me an asshole, and so on, and your congratulatory backslapping for these actions in this edit is unfortunate. I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place, if there's higher than usual turnout in any DRV, it's customary to make a note for the closing admin to review so he/she can make that determination for themselves once the review is over. In regards to my comment above, read the exchange. I've done nothing to prevent anyone from restoring the article, but when a user immediately launches into accusations that I'm some sort of evil, power mad dictator who's conspiring against them, why should I go out of my way for them? I'm a volunteer here, like anyone else. My responsibility is to exercise good judgement, and when someone else tagged the article for speedy deletion, I reviewed it and determined that it was an A7 deletion. If I made an error, then it should have been easy to find someone to undelete it once I told HouseOfScandal that I didn't appreciate his immediate assumption of bad faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
More deceit, more hypocrisy, and now paranoid histrionics too.
- Chairboy Statement: There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article
- Chairboy Counterstatement: I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place
You ignored a "hangon" and used your admin privileges to Speedy Delete an article which another admin had just restored. This was an abuse of power and when someone pointed that out (you were not called an evil power mad dictator and homophobe, that is your self-characterization) you decided to punish the author. When you volunteered to be an admin you agreed to follow guidelines and policies. Your observation of rules and policies should not be dependant on people kissing your butt. Encouraging civility doesn’t mean using the mop and keys to punish anyone who speaks to you in a manner you don’t like.
- Chairboy 3:why should I go out of my way...?
You went out of your way to kill the article. You’ve spent enormous energy trying to keep it dead. Don’t pretend like your current course of action was the path of least effort. And sir, I referred to you as an asshole indirectly, I didn’t say “Chairboy you are an asshole...I said “the editor who deleted this is an asshole.” You are one who keeps dredging up the fact that I was referring to you. Three Admins have already reminded me about civility, this was my first breech of it ever. ::Get over it, Mary! - it is NOT relevant to this article’s notability. You are the one making this about editors not about articles. When you forced this article to go to Deletion Review you thus chose to have your admin practices scrutinized and now you don't like the results. If it seems many people are saying negative things against you, if a respected Wikipedian with many peer awards says you abuse your power, if you are described as an asshole by a (different) editor who has never been rude before, if you are being cast as a villain by an usually high turnout of editors, what could be the reason? Shaundakulbara 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've already addressed each of the issues you've brought up independently, please don't mischaracterize things. As such, I'll refrain from responding other than to ask that you not call me 'Choirboy'. I've taken great effort to carefully spell your name correctly as a sign of respect, please consider returning the favor. Let's try to keep this civil. I have, and as I mentioned above, I feel as if you haven't made the reciprocal effort. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Misspell was an error and has been corrected Shaundakulbara 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Shaundakulbara is not currently a member of WP:LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see her active on your project pages, both regarding this issue and having just presented new business. Jeffpw's endorsement of her smears against me on your project talk page is unfortunate. I hope you'll discourage this type of thing in the future, it hurts Wikipedia and, in the case of your group, draws attention away from the good work you've done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not a member there. There was already a post about this issue there and I just followed the history trail. Speaking of which, as much as you want to play private eye and scrutinize what everyone says to one another on this issue on our talk pages and so on, it STILL doesn't affect the article's notability. How do you not know this? Shaundakulbara 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm counting four members of WP:LGBT who have voted here - how this could be considered vote-stacking I don't know. Also, if you were to check out our deletion sorting list, you would find that we do not deluge XfDs with keep votes, but consider every article on its own merits (and even vote against each other). To accuse us of votestacking, when there is no exhortation either way on our list or template, is the knee-jerk reaction of someone upset at their judgement being questioned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- overturn The reason I'm commenting is because from the description the sources seem sufficient and the deletion patently unjustified. Perhaps others are here for the same reason, not the listing on a WProject page--a completely correct listing on an appropriate wikiproject page. This is one of the purposes these pages exist--to keep DelRev and AfD accessible by those interested in a subject, not just the relatively few full-time adjudicators. CSD A7 is for no assertion of N--if it is reasonably asserted whether explicitly or by the material, it should not be SD in the first place, but go to AfD. If someone challenges it in good faith it should certainly go to AfD. Otherwise the deleting admin is setting himself above the community. . DGG 04:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Speedy Delete template says that a "hangon" may be ignored "and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria." Was that the case here? No. Shaundakulbara 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and CLOSE Enough already. It's clear that this was speedied out-of-process. Wjhonson 09:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and list A bunch of stuff to wade through. Originally deleted via PROD in May, deleted after blanking by author in August, incorrect G4 in September, then salted, salting cleared in December, incorrect G4 on 29 Jan that was fixed by the deleting admin the next day, but the speedy deletion and {{hangon}} tags weren't removed. No real reason for not deleting is visible in the deleted history of the talk page, so the hangon tag should be disregarded. We are left with a discussion over whether the A7 deletion was reasonable. The only thing I see as a claim of notability is down in the Vicitimization section "In October 2006 it was the locus of a conspiracy to find gay men online to rob; a number of men in New York City used the site to lure another man to a remote area where he was robbed and murdered." Frankly, I don't see how this will survive an AFD that follows the guidelines, but with a very weak claim to notability it should escape WP:CSD#A7, so I think we need to overturn and list. GRBerry 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and list at AfD - Google cached reveals an article that mostly was an advertisement for adam4adam, but it did include eight footnotes, three of which were to the New York Times, New York Daily News, and Washington Blade. Speedy delete may have been too speedy of process. Comment: For those of you interested in having this article survive AfD, you may want to create a well referenced rewrite of the article now to update the article the moment it is relisted at AfD. Include an infobox (e.g., Infobox_Company) and sections such as a history section, a service section, a culture section, a criticism section, or other section for which there is Wikipedia reference material. -- Jreferee 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn (and list at AfD if you like, though I suspect it could survive that). Clearly the article ought to be recreated because it was a speed delete which was contested, if it is contested it ought to go to AfD instead. There never was an AfD thus it ought to remain in mainspace until there is one that supports its deletion. Mathmo Talk 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No, you're wrong - contested speedy deletes can still be speedy deleted by admins. Prods (proposed deletions) are stopped by contestation Bwithh 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The following statements are quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:
- reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended
- Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.
Can this be any clearer? - Shaundakulbara 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- How does that make my statement incorrect? I was specifically responding to Mathmo's assertion that the mere act of contesting a speedy delete tag negates the possibility of speedy deletion - that's the case for Prods, not CSD tagging. Compare Template:Hangon and Template:Prod. This seems pretty clear to me. The excerpt you select from WP:CSD does not relate directly to the point I was making (which btw, seems generally in line with what Chairboy and Ozlawyer have to say about hangon templates in the discussion on Chairboy's talk page[10]). Bwithh 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- The "hangon" tag may be ignored and the page may "still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria". This article does not unquestionably meet the speedy deletion criteria and hence the hang on should not have been disregarded. The guidelines I just pointed out make it clear that admins should not speedy delete unless its obvious an article has no notability, not does it even claim notability, and it is very likely no one would say otherwise. References to sources like the New York Times in connection to a murder in one city and a crime ring in another is certainly a "claim that might be construed as making the subject notable". Note the words "claim", "might" and "construed" -- the intent here is obviously to give every benefit of the doubt. The fact that the opinion here has been something like 14 to 3 in favour of "overturn" proves that, at the very least, the notability of this article is open for discussion. That means it should never have been speedy deleted. Even the admin who deleted this article said he would have restored it had he not been offended by the suggestion that he abused his privlidges. Would he have restored an article that DEFINATELY shouldn't have a place on Wikpedia? Of course not! Only an article that definately doesn't have a place should be speedy deleted. The rest go to AfD debates. Speedy delete exists to obliterate articles which are, in a word, worthless (spam, attack articles, hoaxes, vanity articles, and other badness). It is not for coherent articles with references to major newspapers and it sure isn't for articles that have 14 people saying it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. -Shaundakulbara 08:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- As I've said in the past, mere claims to encyclopedic notability are sufficient to merit removal of a speedy delete tag. But I don't see any sign of that in the article, and apparently Chairboy and Ozlawyer didn't either. Its a matter of opinion whether mentions in news articles are encyclopedically notable or not (whether its from a news source with local or national or international focus - the NYTimes is all 3 btw and not every article it prints is automatically esteemed knowledge for the ages), but its within reasonable bounds to see such mentions as not asserting encyclopedic notability. Crime stories in newspapers are generally not encyclopedically remarkable. In addition, apparently no argument against the speedy delete was left on the talk page to accompany the hangon. So Chairboy was left with just a hangon tag. If it was felt that the speedy deletion was too hasty or out of order - that's why deletion review exists. There's no reason here for the bad faith assumptions about Chairboy's intentions or views. I'm not here to express opinions on Chairboy's behalf, but it seems clear to me from his talk page that he was ready to restore the article as a courtesy response to HouseofScandal's first assertion that he could provide a ton of evidence to show verifiable encyclopedic notability. Chairboy chose not to do this when he saw that HouseofScandal was assuming bad faith and asked HouseofScandal to make a request to another admin. This seems reasonable and does not indicate that Chairboy was tacitly admitting he was in error as you suggest. By the way, hoax and "vanity" articles are not subject to deletion by WP:CSD while this article is within the bounds of consideration under A7. Bwithh 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- FACT: If 14 people question the speedy delete versus 3 who don't, then it didn't unquestionably meet speedy delete requirements. I can forgive Chairboy or anybody for a lapse in judgement. But at this point, your position just seems absurd. Your arguments about what constitutes notability don't belong here...that’s for AfD. All that is required to avoid quick delete is a "claim that might be construed as making the subject notable". BTW...Chairboy deleted the article the same day another admin recreated it after speedy deleting it by accident. The author apparently had no time to present a case and Chairboy was effectively vetoing another admin's decision.-Shaundakulbara 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, consensus can change even for deletion review decisions, so there's not exactly a solid "fact" to be uncovered here. No, this isn't AFD, we're discussing whether Chairboy's speedy delete decision was reasonable. I've already said that just a minimal claim of encyclopedic notability is needed. I don't see it in the article and I think Chairboy made an ok call. And I don't see why whether you "forgive" my opinion or not matters. Bwithh 11:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, not a legitimate speedy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Many things are clear as crystal in this review: 1. The page in question did not meet the utilized requirement for speedy deletion (CSD A7) 2. The article has various sources and thus stands a good chance of passing a good-faith AfD listing. 3. Some of the editors who opposed the SD could have been more civil; however, 4. Chairboy's refusal to un-delete the article because he was offended by what other editors said is petulant and childish (at best) 5. His job as admin in the situation is to consider the article, not those editors he is corresponding with, and there is no excuse for using your administrative powers (or holding them over someone's head, for that matter) because you are angry with the person. (I'll also note that, while Chairboy IS a volunteer, he should remember that his peers in the Wiki community elected him to his post). 6. Chairboy's supposition that posting this DRV on the LGBT noticeboard was vote-stacking (and that is clearly the assertion he was making) is troubling for various reasons, but for me mainly because it seems he assumed that all those who are members of the project would vote overturn simply because they are LGBT or interested in LGBT issues. This shows an enormous amount of disrespect for that project, as well as the LGBT editors of Wikipedia. Please, in the future, do not reduce us to our genders or our sexualities. That is extremely offensive. 7. Events like this one show a clear need for a serious discussion regarding Speedy-Deletion and the policies therein. CaveatLectorTalk 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you feel my actions were in any way improper and, as you suggest, indicative of a person who should not have the admin bit, I invite you to make use of the request for comment mechanism so we can discuss this in greater depth. I make myself available for scrutiny at any point, and I'm always looking for ways to improve. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy has been created to assist your admirable efforts at improvement. I hope it is helpful. Shaundakulbara 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I note that the reason given for deletion in the logs is: "WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization". Surely the Victimization subsection of Adam4Adam would have been enough reason by itself as claim for notability? Seems to me it should have appeared easy to see that this reason (Articles, subsection 7) for speedy deletion doesn't apply. Mathmo Talk 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Chairboy acted in good faith, but I disagree with the A7 speedy deletion, because the article did assert notability. Picaroon 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Was all the drama really necessary? Some people should be ashamed of themselves, and I certainly don't mean Chairboy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
|