Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 6

Workflow Management Coalition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I have reviewed the deletion policy and still have no idea why the page was deleted. WfMC is a non-profit organization which produces technology standards, some standards you even list in wikipedia. Pages on those standards refer to WfMC but there is no page on the subject. So I added it. The cryptic removal note says "copyvio" which I assume means copyright violation and refers to a press release which has a substantially similar description of the coalition. The first paragraph was the same description that the coalition approves for use in all press releases about coalition activities. It is a well crafted paragraph which explain quickly and succinctly the working of the coalition. Am I to assume that you can not make Wikipedia articles about any subject which has been mentioned in a press release. I put significantly more work into the page which was original content as well. I don't see any indication that there was copyright violation. It is my first page creation on wikipedia, so it may be that I don't understand the rules, but I have re-read the gidelines many times. There are other pages on other similar organizations. There was nothing defamitory or anything that anyone would object to. It was objective and I believe would generally be helpful to people using the wikipedia. Goflow6206 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse deletion. We are not a press release, thus, even if permission only in certain cases were allowed under our fair use policy, it would not apply. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Note that as of now, this has been speedied four times, for four different reasons. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for reasons given above. (aeropagitica) 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK well, I am learning. Thanks for the patience. Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) is a legitimate consortium which has had a defining effect on the information technology industry over the last 13 years. There are 300 member organizations spread across the world. There are local chapters in Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, and a number of other place. The standards are incorportated into dozens of commercial products, as well as a dozen or so open source workflow systems. There are many academic paper written on the subject of the subjects of comparing research implementations to the WfMC reference architecture. I will try to collect "evidence" of this notability. Seriously, the coalition is at the center of a lot of important research -- I realize being in a very specific field somethings are obvious but those outside of the field it is not so obvious. I have no interest in "advertisement" but in providing a clear succinct description of what the coalition is to those people looking for this information. But it is going to take some time until I get the proof that it is important enough. Until that time, wikipedia will have to do without a page on the Workflow Management Coalition.

• I'm Abstaining, though before the comment above I'd probably have supported it's deletion. However if evidence (such as the academic papers, or coverage of WfMC in the media etc...) is shown I'd support overturning the deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben Goertzel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This wikipedia page, which discussed me (Dr. Ben Goertzel), was deleted, I believe after a deletion request made by someone who is angry at my colleague Bruce Klein because of politics within the Immortality Institute. This individual has been vandalizing the agiri.org wiki site and spamming Bruce's colleagues for a few weeks recently. I am a PhD scientist with 17 years track record. I have about 75 refereed publications including 7 books with major scientific publishers, and am currently CEO of an AI software consulting company, Novamente LLC (whose Wikipedia page was also deleted, but I am focusing on getting mine restored first, as IMO the case why I merit a Wikipedia entry is even more obvious). I am also CEO of a bioinformatics software consulting company, Biomind LLC, which is currently helping to build a major portal site for the NIH, Immport, and has an ongoing relationship with the CDC which has resulted in a number of refereed co-authored publications in Pharmacogenomics. The wikipedia page on me was brief and not very extensive (a little more than a "stub", though), but there are plenty of other scientists with weaker publication records than me who have wikipedia pages, so I don't really see why mine should have been deleted. Apparently it was deleted simply because some individual who was mad at my colleague Bruce Klein requested it to be so. It was not a "self-promotion" page -- in fact I never edited that page. I encourage you to reinstate the page, or else discuss this matter with me at ben@goertzel.org. Thanks, Dr. Ben Goertzel 69.140.44.37 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but feel free to recreate. You can just recreate it, this time asserting notability. And I'm really not too tempted to say a page should be recreated for someone who assumes that it was deleted because someone was mad at his colleague. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Hi Ben. Your article has actually been deleted twice. The first time was the result of a full Articles for Deletion discussion on 7 August 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Goertzel) where the entire community was invited to debate the merits of the article and its subject. It was decided that your notability had not been established to Wikipedia's standards. I don't think the Bruce Klein article even existed at that point. Your article was subsequently recreated and deleted a second time on 2 January 2007 through an expedited process because the new article also failed to establish your notability. I was present on IRC when the matter of the second deletion was raised. (I remember the incident because you and I know each other, so I was surprised to see the name of your company mentioned.) The decision to delete the article for a second time was made by User:Alkivar, a DJ who has no connection with you, Bruce Klein, Biomind, Novamente, or any other company you are associated with. I assure you that your article was not deleted as a result of an individual who was mad at Bruce Klein. —Psychonaut 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, looks like a valid WP:CSD#A7 to me. Dr.Goertzel, please don't take it personally, notability is absolutely independent of worth. Every town has a hard-working mayor, most of them are pillars of the community and tireless workers for the public good, but only one of them is Clint Eastwood. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As it stood, the article failed to assert the notability of its subject. (aeropagitica) 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, on the afd somebody said "Keep the page is obviously a stub, but Ben Goertzel is an important figure, having published several scientific books with reputed publishers, and having developed many new ideas, technologies and organizations." so perhaps... give it a chance? Though that comment probably was made by himself, so I won't go so far as supporting overturning. Mathmo ^Talk 06:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of FieldTurf installations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:FieldTurf installations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD1|AfD2|CfD)

Abstain for now. This article/list/category has a most convoluted history:

1. First it was spun off from FieldTurf to List of FieldTurf installations.
2. Then it was nominated for AfD - the consenus was keep.
3. Next I found it, and without noticing the fist AfD, nominated it yet again. This time the result was categorize to Category:FieldTurf installations.
4. A few days later, this category was nominated for CfD - the result this time was listify.
5. Now we're going around in circles, passing this article back and forth like a hot potato.

I am bringing this article to deletion review because I want to get some sort of definitive ruling. I'd like to get your input before I vote. any ideas? Lovelac7 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is the encyclopaedic purpose of the list? It looks alwfully like we're trying to do a job the company's marketing department should be doing. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone who's a fan of an American football team that recently installed FieldTurf on their playing surface, it was quite newsworthy. I don't consider this any sort of marketing thing at all, it has a newsworthy purpose to fans of sports. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• News? That would be Wikinews, right? I could see the merit in a list of all-weather pitches, including AstroTurf and FieldTurf, but "customer list of foo, inc." doesn't look like encyclopaedia material to me. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it belongs in Wikinews. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I like the idea of combining into a list of all-weather pitches. My only concern is whether that list would be too long. I think it would be useful content in one form or the other. Johntex\^talk 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• It certainly is interesting to sports fans, at least American football and baseball fans. I think we should have some kind of listing of what stadiums use what types of turfs. Wikipedia isn't really a meaningful place for these companies to advertise anyway... their market is the 1000-2000 athletic directors, stadium owners and so on who decide what kind of field a stadium uses, It's rather silly to believe those people are relying on Wikipedia for their information, or that they don't have a list of which stadiums use what anyway. --W.marsh 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion. What if we kept this as a category, but broadened the scope to Category:Artificial turf installations? That would avoid WP:AD and excessively long lists while keeping information useful to sports fans. What do you think? Lovelac7 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the distinction between different types of artificial turf is very significant, so your suggestion would cause us to lose some important information. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into FieldTurf or Delete. If the information is encyclopedic, then the list needs to be kept. Since FieldTurf is not long, the list could be retained in that article. So we go back to the way things were before all of the discussions. If the material is not encyclopedic just delete. However this should not be a category. I see the merge as a compromise and the delete as the better solution since news worthy and interesting are not the same as encyclopedic. Vegaswikian 08:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Return to list. The last version of the list presented the information in a way that was not well accomplished by a category. The second AfD didn't offer any compelling reasons to delete the list, so I see no problem either recreating the list as a separate article or merging it back to the FieldTurf article. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to FieldTurf. Let's just undo all of this silliness. Lovelac7 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Listify. Categorization loses information and merging it back into the article means the article becomes overly long. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above sounds like the best solution. Listify is a plausible alternative; category isn't needed here. >Radiant< 10:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the list is far too long to be merged. Those calling for categorisation in the recent AfD and listification in the CfD, as opposed to outright deletion, are in the minority, so I don't see why the heavy consensus for deletion in the recent AfD and the CfD was ignored and should continue to be. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and CategorizeThe information is important to sports fans as a list. Furthermore, it would be important to article readers of any particular stadium as a category. TonyTheTiger 18:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a list, not a category. This is the kind of thing that best makes sense as a centralized list, not a category spread out amongst the edit text of dozens of pages. --Cyde Weys 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Listify - per Cyde and others. Johntex\^talk 06:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Additional information - we now apparently have List of stadiums by turf type. --- RockMFR 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks more like a list of FieldTurf stadiums at this time. If the result of this discussion is a merge, then that article probably should be deleted unless it is expanded. Vegaswikian 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

BRUMPSKI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Reason for deletion is in error - Nonsense/vandalism target is false Wavemaster447 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a game popularized by KATG, or Keith and the Girl. It should not have been deleted as "nonsense."

• Endorse deletion, to quote one of Jimbo's summaries, "abject nonsense on a stick". Guy (Help!) 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No content useful for an encyclopedia article adhering to policies and guidelines. GRBerry 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing in the article of any encyclopedic value at all. (aeropagitica) 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. KATG's own verifiability and notability are suspect as well, but even if it wasn't you wouldn't be able to prove that it is popular with reliable sources. ColourBurst 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ass to mouth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Keep voters made stronger arguments than delete voters and the article is verifiable. This is a widely used term/practice that should be covered in Wikipedia for comprehensiveness on topics relating to sexual practices and preferences. I request we Overturn deletion of this article. Johntex\^talk 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion they might have been louder, but regardless of how loud anyone is, it still fails policy. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It sucks, I know, since there's a lot of things we want to write about but can't because of a lack of external sources.. but this is a key policy to how Wikipedia works. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding reliable refrences for a sexual practice is difficult, but not impossible. For example, here is an article talking about the dangers of working in the pornographic industry, including the danger of practicing ass-to-mouth. It even includes an appeal for a health fund. Clearly this is importnat information. This glossary is from another site aiming to provide safer working conditions for sex workers. Johntex\^talk 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works... sometimes we give things a grace period for sources, sometimes we don't. We're always in our right to remove anything unsourced, including this article. I've never seen the article itself, but I'm guessing it's not even notable in the first place, sourced or not. Start new if you want this topic covered on Wikipedia, because you're not guaranteed a grace period. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What's not how it works? And who asked for a grace period? Not I. I am pointing out that the closing admin made a mistake. The topic is notable and verifible. The keep voters already pointed this out (note I did not vote in the AfD myself) and they did so with better arguments than those that favored deletion. We must overturn the deletion. Johntex\^talk 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion per Johntex. Full disclosure, I voted keep in the AfD. I felt at the time that the deletion violated consensus (and it looks like the closing admin thought so too, hence his/her close comment), but I didn't have the energy to deal with DRV. Contrary to the closing comment, I feel that the article asserted notability, the AfD discussion asserted notability, and the sources provided in the article, AfD and by Johntex above show verifiability. It is difficult to source sex articles due to a myriad of social stigmas in traditionally reliable sources, so in my opinion we have to take what we can get. This article was fine, and the deletion was out of process. —bbatsell ¿? 05:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. No, we do not have to "take what we get". If an article can't be sourced well, that can not be ignored on the grounds of "oh, well people don't like covering it". Articles need sources, period. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I did not intend to imply that "take what we can get" means no sources whatsoever (and if that is how it was interpreted, my apologies). As posted above by Johntex, we do have sources; my only point was that editors who are accustomed to being able to find a plethora of articles in the New York Times or World Book would not be able to do the same here, and that should not count against an article. If it's completely unsourceable, then it should not be on Wikipedia, no question. —bbatsell ¿? 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bbatsell is exactly right. The type of source we use for an article will necessarily vary by topic. The Economist and Wall Street Journal and Science are unlikely to have written about Pearland High School or the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. The topic will to some extent dictate the sources we are able to use. Johntex\^talk 08:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid close. If Johntex thinks this is a genuinely important topic distinct from Anal-oral contact, where it currently redirects (and I sure as hell don't), then he's welcome to write a better article, and I'll give him the deleted history to work from if he likes. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have access to deleted history, being that I'm an administrator and all. "Ass to mouth" is certainly distinct from "Anal-oral contact" because the former specifically includes NO anal-oral contact. Johntex\^talk 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing, I don't even need to be an administrator and I know these are two quite different acts. Mathmo ^Talk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've changed the redirect to Anal sex. If this term doesn't deserve its own article, at least the redirect should be accurate. Tevildo 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A copy of this page was recently requested to be worked on in userspace, and is located here. --Majorly (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, the more I think about this, the more I think we should give Max Hardcore his own wiki to stop this absolute crap from infesting Wikipedia. It's relevant to a subset of a subset of a subset of the pornography video market, who are themselves a minority in the population. The total budget of one of these "movies" would maybe cover the coffee bill for a day's filming of a real film, yet we treat them as if they are somehow significant. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• JzG, although I respect you, I believe your comment above shows that you have a deep bias against topics related to pornography and about sexual practices you believe are only practiced by a minority. We have lots of articles on things that only interest a small percentage of the world's population. Pontecagnano Faiano is one, and it has no references. Would you see us delete it? Johntex\^talk 20:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Johntex here again, JzG do you realise how much money is in pornography? It is not just a "few cups of coffee" that we are talking about, there are porno movies which cost multimillion dollar amounts to produce. Mathmo ^Talk 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I think he's saying it's not notable. Just because you give something a name doesn't mean the topic of that act is notable. So in addition to the verifiability issues, there's the issue of this being no more than a dictionary definition of a non-notable sex act. -- Ned Scott 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The page has been unilaterally (and, I assume, in good faith) been recreated (as a dicdef, so presumably not G4-able) by 24.252.70.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Just feel I should mention it here. Tevildo 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Theoretically, this is about process rather than content, so I'll confine myself to that side of things. (1) The AfD was nominated by User:CyberAnth, who is currently the subject of two AN/I references for indiscriminate AfD proposals of sex-related articles. The AfDs on non-notable wrestlers proposed by the notorious JB196 are (rightly) regarded as invalid - I know we can't invoke precedent, but this situation seems remarkably similar. (2) Although the number of Keep vs Delete opinions is irrelevant, many of the Delete opinions seem to be based on a distaste for the subject rather than the merits of the article; indeed, many of those !voting Delete had obviously not even read the article beforehand. (3) As we can see from the re-creation of this article, the wider community quite clearly believe that this topic - which is a major part of contemporary pornography, like it or not - needs to be distinguished from anal sex simpliciter. Trying to delete it on mere technicalities isn't going to work in the long run - it hasn't worked in the short run. Tevildo 01:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The article provides no reliable sources to permit verification. (aeropagitica) 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• None? Really? There is one in the deleted article that is undeniably a reliable source, and there are several provided by Johntex above. I have also given my thoughts regarding sourcing articles of this type above. Ah, well. —bbatsell ¿? 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, I have the article in my sandbox. I have started work on improvement. If anyone has any suggests or wans to work in it from there, feel free. So far I can stablish that there are at least 35 pornographic films using Ass to mouth, ATM or A2M as their titles, it is unlikely to be able to estimate how many films the act is performed it though it will be considerably higher. I can't think of another sex act that is regularly performed in such films and, let's face it, real life as well that doesn't have an article. The article is true and verifiable. The notability comes from its prevalence. I have further demonstrated the use of the term in gay pornography which was not in the article when it was deleted. It has already been demonstrated that the use of the term has escaped the environs of pornography. It is obvious that the term won't be bandied around everywhere as most media perform some kind of censorship (thank God for Wikipedia), and it's hardly a dinner table subject.

The nomination was clearly flawed, and I feel that many people, myself included, were foxed into thinking it was a debate about WP:NEO, the nominator repeatedly stated that was her main reason for deletion. The nominator displayed disruptive behaviour which I mentioned on her talk page. I do not think it was her intention to distract from legitimate debate but that was the upshot. Deletion of the article has caused many redlinks to appear though this will not currently be apparent as someone has created a new article on the subject which is vastly inferior to the one that was deleted. This is the effect relinks have, of course, they are an invitation to expand into areas Wikipedia has missed so far. Wikipedias strength is that it will go into territory other encyclopaedias balk at. The absence of an article on this topic would be incongruous and a clear gap in coverage of human sexuality. Mallanox 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I put up the DRV tag and moved the content into the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Anal-oral contact is not under review. Someone simply remade Ass to mouth as a redirect to Anal-oral, but as far as I know they are two separate articles. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also according to the logs that article was also never even deleted. It should be restored as soon as possible as it is not up for a DRV. --67.68.152.3 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry. Got tricked by the redirect and the comment above that the article was restored. Hope all is back to normal now. ~ trialsanderrors 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I still think it would be a good idea to put the DRV tag on the article under discussion, if only to discourage well-intentioned but inexperienced editors from correcting a perceived unsatisfactory situation. :) Tevildo 07:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Done. I hope I got it right this time. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I contributed to the confusion by reverting the substantive expansion of the page and returning it to its recreated state as a redirect (such redirect probably pointed to the wrong page, which detail also escaped me); I assumed in view of the recreation by Samuel that a consensus had emerged at AfD for the page's being maintained as a redirect, but I see now that such assumption was entirely wrong (although there doesn't appear to have been any firm consensus against the page's being recreated as a redirect). Apologies, in any case... Joe 08:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• overturn this one please the term is very notable not like bean queen and should have many sources to show it Yuckfoo 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• overturn verifiable per Clerks II Catchpole 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the Ass to mouth AfD nominator

I am the nominator and I can assure everyone that was is claimed above as my "indiscriminate AfD proposals" have, in fact, been good faith noms per my best ability to understand and apply WP content policies to improve this Project.

During the Ass to mouth AfD debate, it appeared to me that the majority of people arguing in favor of non-deletion were simply doing so based upon preference and not policy; that policy meant whatever the editor wanted it to be. That is very troubling to me for the future and quality of this Project.

I also wanted to inform that the Deletion review nominator here shortly after Ass to mouth was deleted proposed what appears to me and others a weakening of WP:V at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:ANI and planned clarification.

Thanks for hearing me out.

CyberAnth 12:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it was, as a redirect to Anal-oral contact. Sam Blacketer 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, no, this is entirely unacceptable. If it's going to be a redirect, Anal sex is the best option. Redirecting to Anal-oral contact makes as much sense as redirecting it to Foot fetish or Transvestite. It does not mean that. Tevildo 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure by the book. What sources? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and let some of the article's new found attention be used to improve its sourcing. The concept/term is widely used in pornography so sources will not be hard to find. Simply deleting the page is on Over The Top reaction to a poorly sourced article. There was little time given to allow the article to be worked on.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It never was an encylopedia article and it never will be. This is yet another attempt to turn Wikipedia into a dictionary of street slang. The nominator should know better than to waste our time with this. --JWSchmidt 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, actually read the comments of those who voted for deletion. It largely boils down to we don't like it and there's a bit of WP:V in there for good measure. I believe it is possible to prove the verifiability and notability of the subject and I believe the sources I have found prove that. The article goes well beyond a decdef as is evidenced by the analysis of its usage and it's history as a subject. If any editor feels their time has been wasted on this subject, it baffles me why they take the time to say so. Mallanox 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - As with the the majority of the sexcually themed nominations we've had of late this is basically wikilawyering as a rationalization of censorship. Artw 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete as an improper close, and a2m the next person who thinks its a wise idea to attempt deleting this clearly notable subject. Silensor 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse' -- split off from Anal-oral contact only in the unlikely event that enough verifiable information is added to that article to crowd it. Perfectly reasonable AfD decision, why are we bothering to review it? Jkelly 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete and Transwiki ; I do not necessarily endorse the course of the AfD, but it came to the right action for the wrong reasons: this is a dictionary definition and nothing more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Mallanox. This is yuck, but it's a legitimate topic for Wikipedia, and WP:V is met by the references now at User:Mallanox/Sandbox. — coelacan talk — 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn it is undeniable that this term is widely used. The fact that it is widely used by the pornographic film industry does not make it less valid. Also, the deletion of this article did not take in consideration the pages that linked to this article. As a result, these pages now have red links:
  • John Stagliano
  • Aurora Snow
  • Gauge (porn star)
  • Jenna Haze
  • Jules Jordan
  • Melissa Lauren
  • Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 6
  • List of View Askewniverse motifs
  • User talk:Annalyticalbee
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 2
  • Anal sex
  • ATM
  • Coprophagia
  • Jay and Silent Bob
  • Talk:Anal-oral contact
  • Wikipedia:List of protected pages
  • List of sexology topics
  • Talk:Anal sex
  • User talk:SamuelWantman
  • User:ALargeElk/External links
  • Talk:Dirty Sanchez
  • Alisha Klass
  • Ass worship
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to Mouth
  • Max Hardcore
  • Ariana Jollee
  • User talk:Dante Alighieri/Archive 3
  • User talk:216.83.97.2
  • Tiffany Mynx
  • List of pornographic sub-genres
  • A2M
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 10
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Karl
  • User talk:212.138.47.23
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 1
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Carl
  • Jayna Oso
  • Taylor Hayes (porn star)
  • Angel Dark
  • Cindy Crawford (porn star)
  • Talk:Islamofascism/Archive 3
  • User talk:70.82.128.118
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • Talk:Top (sex)
  • Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang
  • User talk:195.252.89.42
  • User talk:69.117.39.7
  • Artificial Mind and Movement
  • Sophie Evans
  • User talk:69.251.170.178
  • User:Wilt/VandalismLog
  • User:Mallanox
  • User talk:60.228.219.54
  • User talk:71.142.4.230
  • User:Glen S/VandalismLog
  • User talk:24.141.154.240
  • User talk:66.190.12.185
  • User:CyberAnth
  • User talk:71.2.33.245
  • User talk:70.254.3.149
  • User:Gmaxwell/nocite/a
  • User talk:24.45.189.159
  • User talk:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1
  • User talk:24.46.85.83
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log
  • User talk:71.10.127.213
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 27
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to pussy
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ass to mouth
  • User talk:Majorly
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 6--16 desember 6 januari 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo - a redirect (to anal sex) is fine (but note it is not anal-oral contact - ass to mouth is when a woman (or a man) has a penis up their bottom, then puts it in their mouth. Anal-oral contact is rimjobbing, etc). The use of 'ass to mouth / a2m / A2M' in the title of a mnovie doesn't mean we ought to have an article; the phrases 'Buttz', 'Teenage Anal Princess' or 'Naughty College Schoolgirls' appear in the title of plenty of porn films, but we don't have an article on that. Proto::► 10:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A valid point - on the other hand, we have deep throat (sexual act) as an article in its own right, rather than a redirect to oral sex or to Deep Throat (film). I would argue that A2M is equally, if not more, distinct from basic anal sex as deep throating is from basic oral sex, and so would support a separate article. In any case, if we keep the page as a redirect, someone is going to rewrite it - if this DRV comes up with a delete recommendation, I think we'd better go all the way and salt the page. Tevildo 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note - the term is used widely enough to have been used in a talk by Professor Robert Jensen, Ph.D. of the University of Texas in a presentation to a conference at Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN, February 26, 2005. PDF transcript. Johntex\^talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the article in the sandbox now has 8 in-line references. Johntex\^talk 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Endorse DeletionI consider myself to be one of the most liberal editors on sexual topics having undeleted Playboy Online, Playboy Cyber Club and related pages I must say that I actually support the redirect approach. The page is to trivial in terms of content. If the page had more significant content then I could factor in the number of page links. However, in this case, unless the editor wants to propose an expanded page, there is no reason to have anything but a redirect. My vote is to endorse the deletion, but keep the door open for a significantly expanded reconsideration. TonyTheTiger 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion Just because we may not like the existence of such a practice, doesn't mean that an article on that practice should not exist. The practice exists, is verifiable, is not a POV issue and we shouldn't censure, which is what seems to have happened. --Bob 01:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Johntex and Bbatsell. Term appears notable and I see no concensus to delete in the AfD. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Johntex, it appears he has found a site that clearly passes WP:RS. The term is notable (and I find that rather disturbing) but rehashing this debate is pointless, with reliable sources it should be overturned.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. The deletion decision did not follow consensus; majority view was to keep (I counted 9 more keeps than deletes, actually). =Axlq 06:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't use "votes", but valid arguments and rationales. Most of the keeps lacked such rationale. This is a prime example of why we are not a democracy. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My read of the situation was exactly the opposite. The keeps had good rationale, the deletes just had ick factor and a focus on the writing of the article - which is not valid grounds for deletion. Johntex\^talk 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I will admit, not all the delete supports were logical, but again, that is why we don't look at numbers alone. A non-notable dictionary type article is still a non-notable dictionary type article. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I definitely agree with you that we don't allow dicdefs. I think this article has grown beyond that, however. We definitely have more informaiton there than a dicttionary would provide. It may never be thorough enough to be a Featured Article, but we have lots of little articles like that. Above you said, "I've never seen the article itself,..." Have you had a chance to look at the article yet? I think the most current copy is at User:Mallanox/Sandbox. Please check it out and let us know if you think it can stand as a short encyclopedia article. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Johntex, I did not see a delete consensus in the AfD. VegaDark 08:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you think the deletion was wrong, ok, but at least read the discussion first. The article wasn't deleted based on consensus, it was deleted based on "Almost totally unsourced, and it failed to assert notability.", aka, policy. A consensus is not required to delete something for failing policy. -- Ned Scott 09:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am fully aware of the reasons behind the deletion. I disagreed with them. Notability is a guideline, just like consensus is a guideline. Apparently there were some sources before the deletion, so it would pass verifiablity. Therefore the closer was using the existence of one guideline (WP:N) as justification to ignore another guideline (WP:C). But, now that Johntex found an aditional reliable source, it now passes WP:N as well. VegaDark 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and undelete per Johntex. The subject has multiple sources available, and consensus was lacking for deletion. RFerreira 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. Article did assert notability as an important trend, which was recognized by Afd consensus. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - The arguments for deletion were valid; it was unsourced and did not seem to improve over the 5 days of AfD with suggestions that it would be difficult to source. The arguments for keep were equally valid; it is not a neologism, nor was it original research, and it is a notable sex act. Therefore the decision should have been to keep by default per no consensus, but it seems like the closing administrator took it upon themselves to delete instead (even noting that we should come straight to DRV). As a side comment, I'd like to point out that while the article was deleted, the sandbox version fixes all of the policy complaints of the nomination/close and so the discussion is somewhat moot since the final decision was (by default) without prejudice. Whether the sandbox is merged into an overturned DRV or placed on an open article space, the result is the same and would easily withstand a new AfD. ju66l3r 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Endorse Overturning deletion - As the editor above pointed out it should have defaulted to no consensus. Plus also generally I feel the article should exist, it is a common sex act and will have plenty of places in wikipedia where it could be linked to. Was planning to link to it myself in another article until I saw it didn't exist anymore, hence I'm here now writing this.... Mathmo ^Talk 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse overturning deletion it is a common sex act in hardcore pornography and the subject of many interviews with porn stars as to whether they will or won't perform the act. Much in the same vein as anal sex. Dismas|^(talk) 09:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. People were adding sources while the AfD was going on and they were being removed immediately by overzealous proponents of the AfD. I was the first one to add the reference by the Univ. of Texas professor (which I literally found in 30 seconds of Google searching), and within 1 minute of adding it, it had been deleted. There are certainly more sources available now than many other valid Wikipedia articles thanks to the work of the kind soul who has it in his sandbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.218.135 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Lost (season 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

Lost (season 2) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

Lost (season 3) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Overturn No offense to the closing admin, but this is a situation where the "votes" were counted and the fanboys were feared. These three articles clearly violate policy and had been given plenty of time to be corrected. What good is our policies on plot summaries if it can be so easily dismissed? I stated shortly before the AfD close, I could probably create some plot related Lost article, for no good reason and intentionally make it pointless, and people will still find a reason to keep it. This is not logical thinking.

The original version of these three articles was something that conflicted with the individual episode articles. A mediation case was opened on which set of articles to keep. Individual episode articles were to be kept, but to help settle the dispute the mediation looked for a new reason to keep these pages. They found a new role for the articles, but so far those articles have yet to successfully obtain that new role, and no indication that anyone is interested in actually doing it.

Keep arguments did nothing to address the policy issue. It's only a duplication of plot summary, something we have way to much of on Wikipedia. The logic for deletion was strong, and the logic for keep was flawed. This is the kind of close you get when people want to avoid a dispute with tons of fans who don't understand the policy, so I understand, but it's not an acceptable solution. Someone needs to step up to the plate and do what is needed. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and delete. I was a part of the mediation that Ned Scott referred to. In the mediation's unanimous decision, the season pages were to be created to consist of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, not plot.

As the nominator of the AfD, I wholeheartedly agree with Ned Scott's opposition to the outcome. The nomination and those who voted to 'delete' cited where the articles currently violate policy, whereas the keeps did not state a counter to this policy violation. I do not have much to add to Ned Scott's accurate disagreement of the outcome here. One thing I can say is that my nomination was falsely criticized by some editors for not informing WikiProject Lost of my concerns of the articles first, when actually, a week before the AfD, I in fact posted the issue on the WikiProject talk page and did not gain many responses. This false criticism swayed some opinions. -- Wikipedical 04:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. The keeps cited a meditiation case (which isn't a reason that something must be kept), and various arguments about how other plot summaries exist, too, so this one should. Neither of which should be considered. Oh, and "not worthy of deletion", but you don't just get to say that, you have to show how. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - seems like a disruptive DRV (because Ned didn't get his own way?), consensus was plainly keep, but was closed as a No consensus, Ned has provided no rationale for deletion and also the fact is it's his interpretation of policies, which obviously no one concurs with. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll be retracting that, I hope? Ned has indeed given a perfectly valid reason to overturn, whether or not it's accepted. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you hope I will be retracting? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You believe Ned is violating WP:POINT. I think this DRV is in good faith (but I am neutral on the actual DRV because I haven't reviewed it yet). ColourBurst 04:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus. I see no evidence that the closing admin made a bad call here. Looks to me like it was borderline between "keep" and "no consensus." --Elonka 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As the closing admin, I thought the same thing and actually closed it as "keep". But, after a note from Ned, I re-reviewed and changed it to "no consensus". Cbrown1023 15:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• While I'm tempted to say overturn closure and close as keep, it is apparent that there are decent arguments on both sides, so endorse no consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Closing admin. I of course endorse my "no consensus". However, I hope Ned understands that Deletion Review is on the review of a speedy deletion or other form of deletion process that may not be accurate and could be interpretted differently by other users. The closing admin, acts based on the opinions put forth and does not put their own opinions into it. So that means that unless the article can be interpretted as having more than a "no consensus", it cannot be deleted be deletion review. Only by another AfD can that occur. Cbrown1023 15:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So policy has no weight? -- Ned Scott 21:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I don't see that the reasons for deletion were overwhelmingly strong. The nomination "as of now, these pages do not discuss any themes or character developments; they are blatantly plot summaries" makes this sound like a content dispute to me. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's pretty clear that from the discussion alone it was "no consensus", however it still violates policy, and we don't get to follow or not follow policy just "whenever we feel like it". I would say there is a fair consensus (or no consensus) to use fair use images of living people, and we don't allow that. We are not a democracy, and AfDs should not be judged by the micro consensus alone. The policy reflects a much larger community consensus as well as being policy. Making the argument that there was no consensus means nothing, because the articles should still be deleted. This is one of the major reasons we are not a democracy. -- Ned Scott 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close and keep - closure was well within consensus, and the fact that some users believe the articles could be improved is not an urgent reason to delete. Newyorkbrad 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They've had months to "improve". The fact of the matter is they were originally created as alternative to episode articles, but we couldn't have both episode articles and season articles. The mediation tried to find a new use for these articles, and so far they have failed to fulfill their new role. No one is interested in fixing them, there wasn't a demand for them in the first place, why is this even an issue to delete? -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus decision. The decision appears to have been reached after the discussion had run its course according to process, a discussion that was evenly split. (aeropagitica) 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that the discussion was split, my point is that policy has weight on the issue as well that was not considered. Like I said before, I could intentionally make a pointless article and people would vote keep on it. There's no logic being used here, it's a bizarre pattern being seen all through Wikipedia, and it's a real problem. We have a very clear policy on plot summaries, and we had a goal for these articles, and we have no indication that the situation will improve for these articles. This is not a popular vote, it doesn't matter how many people you find that say keep or endorse no consensus, because policy in this case trumps that. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Plot summaries are fine in the appropriate context; the plot summaries here appropriatly complement our coverage of this television series. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Complement" and "overkill" are two different things. -- Ned Scott 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and this appears to be an instance of the first. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus. The argument you use that these articles cannot be kept to the policy concerning plot summaries can also be made with all the individual episode articles. Should we delete those as well? One of the purposes of these articles, if I'm not mistaken, is to provide a concise season summary so that those looking for a reference on a particular season don't have to wade through 23 individual articles. This is what sets them apart from any random LOST plot article that you might make. However, I see your point that they cannot be kept to policy, and I do question their usefulness. So there are two points of view, and especially judging from the comments here I do not see a general consensus. --Kahlfin 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're basically saying that it does violate policy, but because enough people don't want to follow policy we should ignore it. That would be appropriate for a guideline, not a policy. -- Ned Scott 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus Right now Lost (TV series) is popular. As a encyclopedia we should cater to the popular demands in terms of informational needs. Thus, although it might not be proper to have plot summaries and episode summaries for an average television show, it is probably correct here because the pages contain sought information. I do believe that the most popular shows should have such pages since their popularity will likely ensure adequate editorial quality. I do not concur that the policy you referenced bans plot summaries. It means in general they are not encouraged, however. TonyTheTiger 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • They certainly are not banned and I never made that argument. The fact that this is catering to popular demand is the very reason I listed this on DRV. Remember, these articles did not occur naturally, they were specifically transformed in order to help settle a dispute. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus - This was only ever closer to the mark of Keep than even Delete, and the closing admin's decision to review to no-consensus was the best desision at the time. A delete desicion would connote an overall standing of delete by the consensus, which it wasn't. -T. Moitie ^[talk] 02:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am equally as frustrated as Ned is with this kind of response. As it has been stated and restated, the articles violate policy, and the keep votes have not formed any reasonable counter to this fact. An AfD should not be decided on 'votes' at all. One single well-reasoned response for 'delete' that firmly proves a policy violation can justify any AfD. -- Wikipedical 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I never said that it was votes that decided. Deletion is based on the general consensus, not the power of the arguments. If it was more agreed that the articles should have been deleted, then it would have been. But it was undecided. I think it was unreasonable to have bought this to Deletion Review, as it questions the admins desicion after the AfD. Their desicion was certainly not wrong here. T. Moitie ^[talk] 01:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keeping, appealing to it "fanboys" for the reason for deletion is mere guesswork on your part as to what is going on in the voters' minds. For your information I'm NOT a "fanboy" of Lost, had heaps of friends who loved it but I hate the show. Believe it to be a stupid waste of time. Yet... I'm supporting keeping it. Because you shouldn't let your own opinions bias you in these matters. Mathmo ^Talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough that I'm speculating about the fanboy-fear, but regardless of that the point about policy is still there. And for full disclosure, I would consider myself a bit of a Lost fanboy, and am ironically pushing for deletion.. so .. I guess it goes both ways :) -- Ned Scott 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Ned's link of plot summaries leads to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts." While that is indeed policy, it has no bearing on plot summaries as they are not indiscriminate. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, check bullet point 7. -- Wikipedical 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse decision We already had the AfD. --theDemonHog 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not surprised at people's responses here. However, my whole point has been that consensus, or a lack of consensus, is shadowed by our policy on episode summaries. This is totally going out of our way to include not just summaries, but a redundant summaries. The only reason those articles stand today was because they were a compromise in a debate long since dead. They didn't occur naturally and I question the "need" for them. This isn't even in a gray area for plot summaries. Editors are blindly defending the articles without good reasons, why is that given more weight than policy? Because no admin wants to deal with all the keep supporters bitching at them for deleting the articles, that's why. I don't blame them, and there's far more important things to spend our time with rather than pointless little articles like these that will eventually die one way or another. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)