Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13

Pownce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This has been deleted by AfD, has had a DRV which clearly indicated the consensus was to endorse deletion, but it got undeleted anyway. The article has three references: one is to the site's website itself and two are just passing mentions of the site. And based on the Wired article, Pownce appears to be in a closed beta (at least as of less than three weeks ago). There is nothing in this article that even implies notability save for the person who started it. Undeletion was improper, it should be deleted again. Corvus cornix 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a redirect to the social networking websites "# (cur) (last) 13:01, 10 July 2007 Zscout370 (Talk | contribs | block) (36 bytes) (for now #REDIRECT Social network service; it is a social network site that I am seeing on the news, but I agree we should wait and see if the site does much once it goes "alpha live")." The restoration was done by someone else, listed at here: "14:20, 10 July 2007 Fuzheado (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Pownce" (38 revisions restored: obviously notable, article in BusinessWeek)." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Zscout, I misread the history. Corvus cornix 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, it happens. Anyways, relist due to the new information presented. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy relist. This article has never actually gone through a full afd; it should. No reason for a second DRV. Chick Bowen 01:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist This has new info: the Buisness week citation, now in the article, which is non-trivial. List it on AfD if you like, it shouldn't be deleted as a recreation. Also, the AfD should not be clsoed early on this one. DES ^(talk) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, no need to relist -- have you all lost all common sense? A web site mentioned prominently in Business Week and Silicon Valley publications is a speedy keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, we're not a magazine or newspaper, "mentioned in Business Week" is a good reason to consider again, but by no means a reason to speedy keep. And the fame or not of the founder has absolutely no bearing on whether we should keep the article or not, I'm not getting that one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Just as the books of a notable author, or the albums of a notable band, are normally themselves notable, the buisness projects of a highly notable investor are more likely to be notable than those of an unknown. And it was more than a mentuion, it was the focus of a multi-page article in BW, I think that counts as "non-trivial coverage by an independant source" DES ^(talk) 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it used to say "multiple independent sources", which was far better, we shouldn't rely on a single source. I've also never believed that notability is inherited. Album, book, etc. articles should stand or fall based upon the coverage that subject has received, not on who produced it. For less-noted works, we can always make a short mention in the article about the author, band, etc., and split back out if more sourcing becomes available in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There are at least four different sources now, not counting its own site. DES ^(talk) 00:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relisting is optional by definition... you don't need a DRV for that. But as much fun as it is to delete an article on some website, there seems to be way more than just the Business Week source [1]. --W.marsh 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is, Fuzheado's undeletion was perfectly proper. Don't relist and don't redelete. Picaroon (Talk) 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep undeleted per common sense.  Grue  13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What is common sense about keeping an article about a non-notable website which doesn't even really exist yet? Corvus cornix 21:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• More inline sources added to article. DES ^(talk) 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Grue. I also note 4,650,000 hits in Google, is this really "non-notable"? Walkerma 01:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is (was) an article about a child, now 3 years old, who developed meningococcal septicaemia aged six months, which led to her having all four limbs amputated, and who was not expected to survive, yet she did. The article was speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow and again by User:Swatjester with the comments "WP:BLP and WP:NOT", by which, I believe, they meant that the publicity from having such an article in our encyclopedia would be painful or harmful to the child, her parents, and other living persons mentioned in the article. However, I believe those two fine administrators were either unaware of or did not have the time to look at (SJ says he doesn't even now), http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/, the public web page maintained and regularly updated by the baby's parents which tells the child's story, with photos and videos, including a television appearance, provides a specific link to search Google for others, maintains a trust raising funds for the child, asks companies to sponsor specific projects, and thanks contributors, so apparently the trust is successful. In short, it seems that the parents believe that additional publicity for the child isn't a bad thing, but a good thing, in fact it helps them provide for the child's non-negligible expenses. They aren't ashamed of their daughter's handicap, as much as they are proud of the child's achievements in overcoming it. I don't think the intent of WP:BLP is for us to think we are wiser than they and protect them from publicity in spite of themselves. For what it's worth, I do believe the child is sufficiently notable to have an article due to multiple independent and continuing news and documentary coverage (see that Google link for example), but that part can be discussed at a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if people like, I am merely addressing the WP:BLP speedy deletion reason here. BTW, this was mentioned in a certain larger arbitration case which got somewhat heated, but I hope can be avoided here, so this discussion not be equally heated. Let's talk about the article, not the editors involved. Could everyone try really hard? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The grounds by which this is speediable under WP:BLP seems somewhat questionable, but I'd say it's a reasonably valid A7. It's a sad case and it's wonderful that she didn't die, but making a medical recovery against the odds and at a young age doesn't necessarily mean an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  I guess I went on too long about the BLP then, and not enough about the notability, sorry. Did you miss the part where I wrote she has been covered by newspapers [2], television [3], and a documentary [4], over the course of all three years of her life? "public face of the meningococcal campaign - 2006" "fourth set of new limbs - 2005" "disease ravages angel - 2004" Her story is a big deal in the NZ medical community.[5] There were 4 references in the deleted article, dated 2004-2006. AFD debate or BLP deletion perhaps, but I can't imagine this as a speedy deletion for no assertion of notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and merge, it looks like a news story to me, and those only go as full articles over here, but it could serve as great material in the article about the disease, and perhaps in articles about child surgery. I really don't see the BLP concern, though, there's no indication whatsoever that the family is averse to or hurt by publicity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and discuss at afd. it does not meetthe conditions for speedy as non-notable A7 because it asserts notable, nor for BLp, per Seraohimblade. Therefore it should be discussed at Afd where the questions raised above can be decided by the community. this is not the place for the discussion- DR is not a substitute for AFD. DGG (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per DGG. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion this is not a biography it's a case history, mention it at the article for the disease if you like but this is really just another tabloid piece. Guy (Help!) 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• WP:BLP is clear that individuals only notable for a particular incident are unlikely to be notable enough for their own article. This person is only notable because of a childhood illness.... The biographic article should stay deleted. As adding material to the disease article is independent of the existence of this article, there's no need to worry about merging in this discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The person is notable for the information about the campaign for vaccination in New Zealand and elsewhere. Obviously neccessary - if we speak about "the desease". It is named Meningitis, the particular crisis was a Waterhouse-Friderichsen syndrome and vaccination is possible but has to be supported by state in areas where population cannot afford the vaccination for its children. This is what the demonstrations in New Sealand are about. Greetings from Germany, Simplicius 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion although this is admittedly borderline on being a speedy candidate. However, I agree with the BLP issues raised above (single-issue notability). Eusebeus 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly answers the concerns raised in the speedy. Anchoress 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn, list on AfD maybe merging per logic of DGG, consider merging per Seraphim's comments. There's no BLP issue when the parents in question (who are the relevant people) clearly don't care or if anything want the child to be in the public eye. Whatever the final result, there was no need delete per BLP given the large number of sources and cooperation from the family with news sources. JoshuaZ 20:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The subject's wishes are only one factor, and not the most important one. We don't delete articles upon request nor create them upon request. This person is not notable apart from a single event, as I pointed out before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Being notable for one thing is why we should consider merging. The subjects wishes are very relevant when the claimed basis for deletion is BLP. In particular, the lack of problems with publicity undermines any basis for a speedy deletion due to BLP. JoshuaZ 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, did not meet any of the speedy criteria Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The grounds for deletion are clearly stated above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Which are not anywhere listed as reasons for speedy deletion. They're disputable and therefore need to be taken to AfD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge per logic above. violet/riga (t) 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above.  Grue  13:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list The BLP spirit of "do no harm", in this case, calls for having an article. (More vaccination leads to less harm to others, and we do not act in loco parentis when we act contrary to the expressed desires of the parents.) So the BLP deletion clearly needs to be overturned, because this deletion was actively against the spirit of BLP. As notability is debated above, and AFD is the proper forum for evaluating that, the article should be sent to AFD. GRBerry 12:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The subject simply doesn't merit an article. A mention as a case history may be merited on an article such as septicaemia, though probably not. What parents, and newspapers, and broadcasters, find interesting and important does not decide what should go into an encyclopedia. Moreover this individual's experiences fall short of the relevant biographies of living persons threshold for individual biographies by a mile. Collecting these pseudo-biographies of infants who have suffered some misfortune or other has little if anything to do with constructing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • which still isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a reason for deletion, and a strong one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Quite. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. No real claim of notability here. Having an unusual medical condition is not grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia. This falls within speedy deletion criteria, I think, as the existence of sources is not the issue. The existence of thrid party sources are a red herring here. The same as local bands, small businesses, college professors, or many other types of non-notable subjects, some people might generate mention in the media but still not be notable per our standards about what is encyclopedic. FloNight 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the coverage she has gotten is impressive; if a local band got three years worth of regular newspaper articles, television programs, and documentaries, all of nation-wide scope, it would be indubitably notable. However, due to the BLP speedy grounds, I can't rewrite the article and actually show it; so one side of this argument is arguing with one hand tied behind our backs. Please, allow recreation, give me a few days to actually write the article to show the notice the case has gotten. If you then still believe it to be non-notable, send it to AfD; but otherwise the speedy deletion is being used as an end-run around a truly fair appraisal of the article. That's what AfD is for, not speedy deletion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    If you simply wanted to rewrite, couldn't you have done that without all this song and dance? Even now you don't need permission to write the article. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, actually I do. See, arbcom has admonished the last admin who did just that, for "undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness". In other words, because BLP was cited as one of the speedy deletion reasons, I absolutely do need all this song and dance.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

      You're confusing two things here. If you wanted to undelete, you should not do so without consensus. To create a completely new article, however, which is what I think you mean when you say "allow recreation, give me a few days to actually write the article to show the notice the case has gotten", you're asking for permission you don't need. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

      I hope you're right, Tony, but that's not at all clear. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Having an unusual medical condition is not grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia." Actually, that's not my argument, my argument is Wikipedia:Notability, which she clearly meets, with extensive continuing coverage, not just of one event, of her whole life. However, yes, having an unusual medical condition, and the way the world reacts to that, certainly can be grounds for a biography in an encyclopedia: Robert Wadlow; Joseph Merrick; Laura Bridgman ; Joseph Merrick, Britannica Laura Bridgman, Britannica --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking that those people have encyclopedia articles for other reasons than having a medical condition. Such as Wadlow is a record holder as the tallest person, Bridgman is the first deaf-blind American child to gain a significant education in the English language, Merrick is very well known in popular culture as The Elephant Man due to his relationship with the royal family, bioghraphies, and a successful modern film. I'm still not seeing Cleverley-Bisman as an encyclopedia article...an full biography...rather I see some encyclopedic quality content that could go in several articles. FloNight 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's rather silly to put Charlotte in the same category as Joseph Merrick. For one thing, Merrick has over 3000 current hits in Google Scholar, while Charlotte has not even had a LexisNexis hit in the last 12 months. Thatcher131 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, possibly list on AFD for a regular discussion. There do not appear to be any BLP issues here; nothing negative in the article, plenty of press coverage, everything should be sourceable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of survivor stories (whether disease, crime, natural disaster, etc.) Certainly you could add Charlotte's case to the article on Meningitis as a notable example, and include the drive for vaccination. However, as the subject for a biography I can't see any three-year old being important enough for a biogrpahical entry, or having sufficient independent reliable sources (most/all of the info comes from her parents). One indication of importance (as distinguished from "notability") is inadvertently proven by AnonEMouse above. The famous disease sufferers he mentions have all survived the test of time; there are thousands of current hits in Google Scholar, for example. In contrast, there isn't even a LexisNexis newspaper hit on Charlotte more recent than 12 months ago. American cable TV shows real-life medical and forensic cases constantly: American Justice, Cold Case Files, City Confidential, Impact:Stories of Survival, Code Blue. There's an entire cable channel (Discovery Health) devoted to medical emergencies that has to somehow fill 8760 hours of programming a year. Surely we draw the line somewhere. Thatcher131 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely we don't demand that coverage continue indefinitely - would we delete the article of every person who doesn't get Lexis-Nexis hits in the past year? She got continuous coverage for 3 years, that shows it's not just one event. International interest continues to this day. (Finland television, for example). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, but I believe it has some bearing on the relative importance of a 3 year old. For example, there are recent stories on Chernobyl survivors. Or, take 5 cheerleaders who tragically died a week after graduation in a head-on accident. Just local news until the sheriff reported that the driver's cell phone had been sending and receiving text messages, and in fact had recieved a message less than 30 seconds before the fatal crash. Now the story is world-wide. Still just a newspaper story. It is not suddenly more encyclopedic because of the texting angle, just as I believe Charlotte's story is not made more encyclopedic than any other childhood survivor of crippling disease by the especially severe outcome, or by continued interest in the documentary, or by the parents' efforts to advocate for vaccination. Thatcher131 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnraisers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

First, as Kubigula noted in the AFD, additional references were added midway through the AFD and opinions expressed before that should be discounted. After that point, 2 users (Kubigula and me) opined that the amount of source material was sufficient to keep the article, and 1 user (17Drew) opined the opposite. 2 others users (Giggy and SalaSkan) !voted delete without giving any indication that they examined the sources at all. AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and drive-by votes that add nothing to the discussion should be given no weight.

I do think this is a borderline case given the lack of depth of the two sources whose subject is this band. However among the users who opined after additional references were added to the article, and who gave an opinion that was based on looking at the sources, it was 2 to 1 to keep. The result of the AFD should have been keep or no consensus. Overturn and restore the revisions that Neil deleted when he closed the AFD. Pan Dan 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closer. Following the additional sources, the opining was actually 3 to 1 in favour of deletion per failing WP:BAND. There were a total of two editors plus the creator of the article who argued for retention. There were many many more who argued in favour of deletion. The "multiple reliable 3rd party sources" cited by the few "keep"ers were pretty sketchy, and the band has had no releases to support passing WP:BAND. Neil ╦ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Pretty close call given that there are a couple of sources, but the sources are both local. This just doesn't seem like a noteworthy band to me at this point. NawlinWiki 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BAND states that a band is notable if it meets "any one" of the listed criteria. The band has indeed "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" such as "newspaper articles" and "magazine articles". And as those cited articles demonstrate the band has met criterion 7 which states the band "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". It seems reasonable that if becoming representative of a "local scene of a city" is grounds for notability then a newspaper (The Wilmington Star-News) or magazine (Encore Magazine) serving the readership of that city and the surrounding eight counties would demonstrate a legitimate claim to reliability. Emerson1975 18:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum Newspaper states "Most nations have at least one newspaper that circulates throughout the whole country: a national newspaper, as contrasted with a local newspaper serving a city or region. In the United States and Canada, there are few truly national newspapers". Is it to be assumed that all Wikipedia articles must rely solely on the "few truly national newspapers" that circulate in the United States? Also, I would suggest NawlinWiki take a look at Chalkdust which lists as its only two sources The Anguillian which even if it were read by everyone in Anguilla would reach only 13,500 people and Caribbean Beat for which no distribution numbers could be found and has been in print since 1992, seven years less than Encore Magazine. Emerson1975 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this is not AfD redux. The article is mainly trivia, and then a list of In The Press which seems like trying to justify the article. The Bluegrass wikilink at the top takes you to a disambig page rather than the correct topic, the external links include a myspace page and there is a youtube video listed. The AfD was a majority to 6 to 3, and I see no reason to overturn the closing admins descision. Darrenhusted 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note I've trimmed it down to make it conform to the correct format for bands, but the In The Press section still need to be integrated in to the article rather than forming a list. Darrenhusted 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the statement "external links include a myspace page and there is a youtube video listed" needs some explaining. Also, Darrenhusted, if there are restrictions against this kind of link maybe the same links need to be removed from articles such as Living Colour, Aimee Mann, Ben Folds and Avril Lavigne. Emerson1975 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove them, no page should list Myspace or Youtube as they are not reliable sources. I always delete them. Darrenhusted 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing external links. You are in no position to do so or comment on the reliability of myspace or YouTube. External links offer the reader alternative sites to find out more about a particular subject and are not used as references or indeed sources. I feel you fail to understand the basic difference between references and external links.Dajbow 23:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that youtube is a copyright violation, and that myspace is not a RS. No pages should have myspace links, and unless you can show you own and waive the copyright for the youtube clip then you should leave them off. I would work on improving the main body of the article rather then fighting a war over youtube and myspace, both of which are no more than linkspam, and the only place they should be listed as external links is on the articles for youtube and myspace. And this is really not the place for this discussion. Darrenhusted 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Providing a link to an external source does not violate copyright laws as far as I'm aware but if you can provide some reference to support this then I'll gladly remove the link. If I had posted the video on this Wikipedia page or any still images from this, then I could understand your concern. However, YouTube provides multiple options to link to videos from 3rd party sites. With regard to Myspace, it's also a legitimate external link and is not being used as a reference source in this article. Good luck, Darrenhusted, if you plan on having all myspace links removed from band pages on WikipediaDajbow 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum As a link to the YouTube video also appears on the Barnraiser's official website, I assume the band has no problem with the video and that the recording was done so with their approval.Dajbow 21:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The laudatory reviews have been deleted from the In the Press section. A link was added by User:Dajbow for Fourth Generation Bluegrass. Emerson1975 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, the band hasn't released any material, and fails WP:BAND. Why is there such a deep desire to have it's article here? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 12:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I thank Steve _(Stephen) for his comments but I would like to point out yet again that this band clearly meets at least two of the listed criteria in WP:Band. I pose the question, Why is there so much hostility towards the inclusion of this article?Dajbow 14:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The "desire" to keep the article, Steve _(Stephen) , is an attempt to battle the hypocrisy that has come to light in the process of its deletion. As I have stated several times, WP:BAND states that an article about a band must meet any one of the listed criteria. And I don't understand why everyone keeps pretending that it doesn't say that. The band indisputably satisfies criteria 1 and 7, at least. I am also shocked that the users who endorse deletion are doing so based on arguments that they have ignored in articles that they have created, and then have applied a "stub" notice to protect their articles from scrutiny. In short, Steve _(Stephen) , it's the principle of the thing. Emerson1975 15:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, the close was proper on its face, and consensus was unarguable regardless of how well or not the band actually meets WP:BAND. This is not AfD part deux. — Coren ^(talk) 16:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is that when determining consensus, the recommendations of drive-by voters should be given no weight. Pan Dan 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why? I can see why you'd want to discount SPA or socks, but most AfD discussion is borne out of "drive-by" editor. You actually want uninvolved editors chiming in: if the only people who contribute are those who followed the link from the article, then you will unfailingly get a very biased discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." (I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes and no. There is an argument to be made that an article should be clearly notable enough that a cursory glance to the article and sources is sufficient to establish it. If I stumble on an AfD for an author, for instance, whose article talks only about an "upcoming" book, and which only has a blog and a press release as sources, I don't think there's a reason for me to start doing in-depth research beyond a quick google. The article should have had better sources/claims in the first place, or at the very least the contributors should vigorously defend the article in the AfD (and with better rationales than WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT). I've never hesitated to switch a !vote around when someone brings in new information, but as a rule the article should be judged on its current merits, not on what it could hypothetically be. — Coren ^(talk) 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• The AfD participants didn't have to look for sources themselves in this case. The article already cited two articles in 3rd party publications whose subject was the band. It was possible to reach the conclusion, as 17Drew did, that those sources are not enough for a neutral Wikipedia article. But 17Drew was the only delete opiner (after the 2nd source was added to the article) who gave any indication at all that he looked at these sources. Pan Dan 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I wasn't commenting on this particular article, but on your comment on how to assess consensus (which has now gone all-meta and should probably be kept off this DRV). — Coren ^(talk) 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• You said that AfD participants should judge an article on its current merits. The gist of my response was that some delete opiners in this AfD failed to measure up even to that (relatively low) standard. (How is that not relevant to this DRV?) Pan Dan 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• I am slightly disturbed by the assertion that un-interested parties should not be involved in an AfD, after all if I happen on an article and think it has no merits then I would PROD it, if that PROD were removed then I would AfD it, and I regularly scan AfD to check to see if any articles up for deletion merit keeping. SPAs are almost always interested parties, whether it be to delete or keep, if a number of people look at an article and, having absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject, decide it is not worth keeping then surely this is consensus, and those who seem to have a vested interest in the article (like the creator) need to accept the majority. But saying that "drive-by" editor's opinions should be disregarded leaves all AfDs open to being stacked by single interest SPAs. This article was correctly deleted, and should return to that state. Darrenhusted 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are arguing against a straw man. Please, please, please read the above comments more carefully, especially this one:

• I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly what I mean by "drive-by voter." (I strongly agree with you that uninvolved editors [like me] should contribute to the discussion.) By "drive-by voter" I mean someone who gives no indication that their opinion is based on more than a cursory look at the article, the subject, and the sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Are we all looking at the same article!?! Every statement in the article is referenced and each reference leads directly to the newspaper or magazine article that was cited. There are also several links to other Wikipedia entries. Plus my point wasn't that other flimsy articles exist so why not this well-documented one, it was that other flimsy articles are protected by stub labels because they were made by editors. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the reasons for deletion. I am beginning to think logic and truth are useless in the "Through the Looking Glass" world of Wikipedia. Emerson1975 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I participated in the original discussion. I said that there wasn't significant coverage of the band, and there isn't. The references provided are of questionable reliability. Some are just lists of performers, and others are definitely or appear to be self-published. There's quite a difference between "local" coverage and "some guy on Tripod.com". More to the point though, the AfD seems to have been closed properly to me. Kubigula's !vote was pretty much a different interpretation of how much coverage the band would need to pass WP:BAND, followed by a comment by Emerson1975 about how the publications are reliable (with no explanation for why they meet WP:RS) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 17Drew 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 17Drew please re-examine the references for this article. In particular references 4,8, 9 and 11. All are from credible sources. Please refer to earlier comments by myself and by Emerson1975 on Talk:Barnraisers regarding why they meet WP:RS.Dajbow 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment According to WP:RS "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." The newspaper articles that are referenced are from The Wilmington Star-News which has a circulation of 50,000+ each day and is owned by The New York Times Company and the magazine articles are from Encore Magazine, an entertainment magazine which has been in print for 22 years and circulates 20,000 issues each week. The review by "some guy on Tripod.com," as you put it, was added by Ricky81682, an administrator. Emerson1975 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment OK, we keep getting told that the band meets #1 and #7 from WP:BAND. So for #1 they've had a few reviews and write-ups, as has even the shortest lived pub band. But for #7 where do we have the evidence that they are the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city? And let's not forget that WP:BAND is a guideline, not an absolute policy. And let's not forget what elements of WP:BAND they do not meet: never charted, no gold, no tours, no albums, no notable members, no awards, no competitions, no media, no radio, no TV! And yet we still keep getting told this band is notable? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While the band might, in a very technical sense, meet WP:BAND, there's just no reason I see that one like this would need to be included in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It seems to me to meet WP:N (or criteria 1 of BAND) in a pretty straightforward and non-technical way. Encore and the Wilmington paper are both respected and reliable third party sources. I see no compelling reason to deviate from the guideline. The close decision was certainly reasonable, but after looking at the article and the deletion arguements, I respectfully disagree.--Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If and when the band actually release anything, or get significant non-trivial pres attention, there'd be no problem with an article being created then. Being deleted now doesn't mean it'll be gone forever. Neil ╦ 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to address this abiding demand for released material. I understand that things are quite different in other parts of the world, such as the UK, where press coverage is often hyperbole and mass popularity is generally seen as desirable, but this is not always the case in the US, and I suspect that is why the framers of Wikipedia saw the need to require "any one" of the elements that make a musician "worthy of notice" rather than requiring all of the possible guises of "fame", "importance" or "popularity". The band in question is a Bluegrass band, folk music that is by its nature not a mass market genre and relies heavily on live performance and grass roots support. And is not the point of an encyclopedia to offer gathered information on a vast array of subjects great and small, not just to act as a Who's Who of really popular stuff that is common knowledge anyway? Emerson1975 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This could possibly be the most ridiculous, subjective, and uninspired attack on the notability of an article that I have witnessed on this increasingly poor-excuse for a website. I came to Wikipedia to find more information on the Barnraisers, as I had recently seen them perform, and unwittingly stumbled upon this mess. Those of you attacking this submission; get over yourselves. Who honestly has this much free time to stage such a relentless, baseless crusade for the deletion of a bluegrass band? Did the Barnraisers somehow wrong you? Are they a threat to national security? Perhaps it is that you are the singular authority on all things music and anything outside your comfort zone scares you. By voting to delete this page, you are furthering the agenda of a "name brand society" that essentially dictates to the wiki audience who and what should be known. This faulty logic of needing a CD to be relevant is tiresome. The Barnraisers are a known entity--albeit not by the droves of crazed fans that you apparently require for notability. The citations and sources for the page are legitimate. There are plenty of wiki articles in existence with fewer references, far more obscure content, and somewhat questionable sources; some of them submitted by this article's biggest detractors. The critics of this page and those voting for deletion should be a little more introspective and take a closer look at their own contributions before casting their stones. All I ask is that you simply stop the hypocrisy. Though, if it is the case that the Barnraisers are, indeed, a threat to both Wikipedia and national security, please let us know.

Obesanes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This place was deleted as a hoax/nonsense article, when it clearly is absolutely not one. It's a place-name of several merely obscure little villages: one in Northumberland, one in East Riding of Yorkshire, and another in the Scottish Borders. This was deleted wrongly. His Third Grace 3Pd 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion unless you actually have any evidence this isn't a hoax. I see none: [6]. --W.marsh 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion When a town has has no Google hits and doesn't show up on maps of the area, it's almost certainly a hoax. Source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion was in-process, reasonable, and supported by policy. An opposite conclusion might also have been reasonable, and i might have opted for a keep had I noticed the AfD, but this isn't supposed to be AfD part 2, and I see no errors of process here. One sentence is hardly a major loss. If additional information can be found, preferably with sources, this could be recreated -- it has not been salted. DES ^(talk) 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You might have voted to keep an article on something almost certainly a hoax? Not good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If this were an AfD I would want rather more evidence before declaring this to be a hoax, and would try to find some. At the momment that is a moot point. DES ^(talk) 00:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse; the onus of verifiability lies squarely on the editors of the article, not the closing admin (or AfD contributors). — Coren ^(talk) 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Crimson Editor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A notable text editor. The first afd shows a strong response to keep the article (6 out of 9 vote for keep). The second afd has only 2 votes, which are "weak delete". There is not enough strong reason for deletion. minghong 10:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 3 actually, including the nominator. In my opinion, three unopposed delete votes is pretty much consensus to delete. If this fails, I will happily restore everything and start a third AfD to gain better consensus. —Anas ^talk? 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The nom would have us restore a non-notable article on a technicality and the idea that there's a quorum at AFD. We're not a bureaucracy. Is there any evidence to contradict the strong 2nd AFD nomination? I note that strong AFD noms tend to result in less participation, as no one really can refute them, and if the nom says it all a lot of people don't want to just say "delete per nom". --W.marsh 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per lack of reasoning. AfD has no quorum, and 2 votes (3 counting the nom) counts as consensus. Besides, while their votes may have been weak, their reasoning was strong and grounded in policy (non-notability and lack of reliable sources). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; "unopposed" is about as strong a consensus as you can get! I might have chosen to relist to garner stronger numbers, but the closure was correct. — Coren ^(talk) 16:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Truth_in_Numbers:_The_Wikipedia_Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A lot of my solid reasons can be primarily found in User talk:NawlinWiki#My reply concerning "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story". To expound that, its references have been added. Also, this article is not a crystal-balling stuff as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media documentation as well as an upcoming feature film. Why does Wikipedia fail to acknowledge its upcoming documentary film about itself? Plus, Nic Hill, who is the director of that Wikidocumentary, has his own userpage here a la User:UDP and he has been trying pretty hard to woo several users to his announcements about his daily workings on this film like for instance from this talk taken from User:Deiz's talk page. Go ahead and prove me wrong if Jimmy Wales does not recognised this Wikipedia feature film when you asked him about it! What is more, some other foreign Wikipedias already has this upcoming film article in their place, these include the French Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia, and even the Indonesian Wikipedia has a special Wikipedian page about it! But regrettably not in this Wikipedia at all albeit it is hugely well-known and no one seems to bother about it. Pole Heinz Tower 08:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, as I can't see that there is any new material here like a third-party taking note that would put us in a position to write about it. I'm not even sure what the DRV rationale is supposed to be, here. Maybe the G4 issue? As for other Wikipedias, they aren't sources nor necessarily trailblazers for us. --Dhartung | Talk 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AFD consensus was clear. Neither recreation satisfied the concerns, and all but one of the sources are either the film's Wikia (which it shouldn't have, given its limited scope, but that's a matter for Wikia) and IMDB, which is not a reliable source as its information is contributed by the people who post there. --Coredesat 10:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Any movie about Wikipedia that doesn't include me must be extremely non-notable. Ok, ok... endorse per strong AfD consensus. An article on a non-major movie that far from release is really unlikely to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still do not understand exactly why this has been deleted repeatedly. However, it is clear that the consensus favors deletion, at least until the film is released. I would favor waiting until the film is released, then using this material to recreate the article. Surely then the article would not be subject to deletion.--Filll 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion - Deletion is illogical and robs our readers of important information about this film. Film is listed on IMDB and many other "in-production" Hollywood films have WP articles. Badagnani 19:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is on IMDB, but so is How to Fly the B-17 (Part 3, Emergency Operations), and Whack Attack 3: Every Booty Must Get Boned! and Grateful Grandma's Gang Bang. IMDB's entry requirements are extremely low, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that simply being on IMDB means a wikipedia article is necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Argument is spurious. One is an ambitious, international documentary about Wikipedia and the other appear to be low-budget/self-made porno films. The deletion remains illogical and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS red-herring arguments will not change that. Badagnani 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Listed on IMDB = article on WP has never been WP policy or practice and (God help us) never will be. Speaking of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, how is "many other "in-production" Hollywood films have WP articles" not a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Nothing out of process in the close. Eusebeus 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but if the folks want, Undelete and move to Wikipedia: space. Until the movie is out (or reasonably close so) and there's plenty of evidence that the folks have noticed the movie, there shouldn't be an article - but before that, Wikipedia: namespace is perfect for this stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Mmmm, Whack Attack 3... Um, I mean endorse per AfD. --Kbdank71 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is very interesting (and maybe might make a good projectspace page), but there's no real reason to overturn the AfD consensus. -Amarkov moo! 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. IMDB, like Wikipedia, is a website that allows people to submit content. Being on IMDB doesn't mean much and the AFD looked like a valid one to me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse recreate when it exists, but the AfD was fine. Darrenhusted 13:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per Pole Heinz Tower. I don't see why this has been deleted so many times. There are sources and the film is definitely notable.--Orthologist 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The arguments to undelete are unconvincing. At this moment, this documentary is thoroughly unimportant. I don't even agree with restoring this to the projectspace. Does this matter to the project at all? --- RockMFR 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Agree that this documentary is not notable per Wikipedia standards of what is encyclopedic content. A listing on IMDB does not make something notable as the listing standards are low and do not require strict sourcing. FloNight 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime_South (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Addresses all reasons for previous deletion. Over 10 published citations are now used. Animesouth 05:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse (my) deletion Well, where shall I start? The article was previously deleted by an AfD, to begin with. It's substantially similar to the old article, and the dredging up of some newspaper human-interest pieces and blog posts doesn't really change that. It's also an ad, which one might not be surprised to see from the evident conflict of interest here. The AfD concerns really aren't addressed-the newspaper pieces tend to be substantially about other topics, and use the convention as a "springboard" into those, and are human-interest pieces which provide little of substance. The rest of the references are bare lists or anime fansites (except the first, I have no idea where that came from or what source published it, it looks like a press release). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are 7 newspaper articles listed - none of them are adverstisements. -Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't say the newspaper articles were ads, I said that the article here is. (Or was, since Coredesat redeleted). You're advertising your convention here, just like the last time around, and dredging up a few blurbs from local rags and reviews on blogs and fansites doesn't make the subject notable or that acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Salt. Also there is a serious issue with WP:COI. Not sure why you recreated the article (04:44, 13 July 2007), then open a Deletion review case ( 05:06, 13 July 2007)?? This is a little disturbing also Wiki Edit War in Full Bloom--Hu12 07:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I could not open a Deletion review without listing the 15 new sources. -Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have deleted the article again as G4, but restored the history behind a {{drv}} tag. Anyone can go in and view the history to compare versions. --Coredesat 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please leave the article open so the newly cited sources can be verified. -Animesouth 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is still there, it's just behind a tag, which is the appropriate thing to do in a DRV (not just recreate the article). --Coredesat 13:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: I still cannot see it behind the tag. -Animesouth 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Click "history". I accidentally forgot to undelete the article. --Coredesat 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Sad Endorse deletion I probably would have voted to keep this, but the AfD consensus was clear. Besides, apparent WP:COI issues are very worrying indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: All the non-cited sources that called for its deletion have been addressed. -Animesouth 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment At the very least, this should not have been a Speedy Deletion. 15 new citations created an article which allows it to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since the article the article's deletion prevents it from being reviewed, the citations are listed below: ^{[1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]}

• Endorse deletion - sources seem to be trivial mentions that do not establish non-local interest in the event. Furthermore, there are WP:COI issues (as noted) - and also be wary of the fact that you seem to be a good-faith single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a public relations service; there are other ways to promote your event. - Chardish 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment People really need to tone down the COI stuff. We get it, it's there, but the guy still has a right to contribute. COI is something to keep in mind, not to beat someone to death about. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. We need to take COI seriously now rather than later: WP must be, firstly, a source of reliable and unbiased information, a mission obviously compromised if editsors write on subjects with which they have COI. We're now having some problems with coprorate COI as well, even from some fairly large companies one would expect to be above that sort of thing. As WP continues to become popular and attract press attention, COI is a problem which will only get worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm having a tough time swallowing the method of thought that says the only way a directly related party in an article can contribute to Wikipedia is through issuing a press release, or somesuch. Original research is one thing...RCHM 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Nothing out procedure here. Eusebeus 15:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please note that this article meets all WP:COI guidelines. It is a very neutral article, and it is newsworthy, as seen by the sources given. There are 5 verified separate published news articles on this event. No other anime convention article on Wikipedia is as well-sourced. -Animesouth 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn

- I'm concerned the veracity of this article's existance is being at least partly clouded by past interpersonal issues between users shown in various comments left, and would request more parties look at the picture in here. I see lots of badfaith presumptions executing here when I lurk around other articles' history sections and edit summaries, both by Animesouth(which I've openly criticised the behavior myself) and many other users as well. This seems like it's still leftover remnants from wether or not Anime_South was to be included in the List of anime conventions.

-This deletion seems peculiar in the face of some other anime conventions that still have articles and are strikingly similar. Some other users, such as Monocrat voiced similar concerns during the FIRST deletion back in January. Since then, similarly written articles for anime conventions continue to exist.

-If there's COI in the edits made by Animesouth, fine, revert them if so necessary. But I don't see a COI in the article's original creation. And (with respect to other anime convention articles) comparatively speaking, I see no notability problems with the last iteration of the article. The only thing I saw that should be removed is some things edited by Animesouth which are just too far into original research, and weak citations like blogs. Lets actually get into specifics. Below I shall state what I think needs to go as of last entry before deletion:

1. 15 self referenced to the subject of the article, not the best source for a cite which should ideally be 3rd parties.
2. 13 is a photo gallery, NOT an article or a reference.
3. 8 is just a HORRIBLE image, but also is a footnote, not an article.
4. 6 is nothing more than a link advertising services, and the section that references it Partnerships should be trimmed accordingly.
5. 5 and #4 should go being only blog entries.
6. 1 also should go as its nothing more than a pdf file of locked text, not an image record of some kind.

-Also, all remaining references being used as citations that are being hosted by Anime_South itself on their domain lack any kind of link on their own webpage which hampers the veracity of using them as citations. There isn't any information or linking in the NEWS section that discusses these on their webpage, or an IN THE PRESS section, which leads one to think those citations are only being hosted for Wikipedia's benefit. That narrows the scope of the cites usability significantly.

-Let me reiterate, I see no reason this article should be deleted especially considering the establishment of OTHER anime convention articles which have not or never been nominated for deletion in line with the reasons listed on Anime_South's first deletion. But I have no problem recognising that Animesouth's edits and contributions should be held with the highest of scrutiny to WP:COI. RCHM 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse strongly; consensus was clear. Deletion is correct. — Coren ^(talk) 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with you, but considering the DRV is about re-evaluating notability, then the past consensus for delete isn't binding. -- Ned Scott 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, currently the issue here is not if original deletion was correct(which is what it seems like you're indicating because of the tense you used.)RCHM 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Loserz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am only assisting the creation of this deletion review per request on my talk page. Hence, I have no opinion regarding the article in question.

The editor who challenges the deletion, Loriendark, said this regarding the deletion:

In this page's defense, I'd like to point to the fact that there is a webcomic section. This is a popular comic and it deserves a page to explain about it's origins, characters, plot and creator. It is no less than comics like Control Alt Delete, VG cats and Penny Arcade who still have pages on Wikipedia.

This page was deleted by NawlinWiki with this rationale:

a7 nonnotable webcomic, no sources

As stated before, I abstain from commenting on the merits of this case. Kurykh 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Loriendark also posted this on the talk page of the aforementioned article:

This page was posted for speedy deletion by someone who clearly does not understand the Webcomic section, is infact.. for webcomics. He did not give reason for its deletion. Could not backup why it was deleted and why other comic pages still exist. This is not about destroying an entire section, it is about improving Wikipedia as a whole. Not taking from it. This is utterly a disgrace.

—Kurykh 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Loserz comics themselves are hosted here after an issue with site host:http://loserzcomic.comicgenesis.com/
• Loserz is recognised by:
  • http://comixpedia.org/index.php/Loserz
  • http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/p/105/loserz
  • Major Spoilers (http://www.majorspoilers.com) Named Loserz the 25th best Webcomic of all time. Only three behind the ever so notable VG Cats.
  • http://www.majorspoilers.com/archives/753.htm
  • Also of note Loserz has 32,900 Google hits. Loriendark 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lori
• Endorse deletion no new information to overturn AfD, article was unreferenced and would be deletable under A7. Also, fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article was under construction and will have references. As I posted above. It is not an advertisement for Loserz, simply reference for all those who want to know more about the characters and plotline as well as the creator. I'm sorry, I don't believe you're looking at the precedent here. Loriendark 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lori
• Boy, the history here was convoluted at first glance, so I broke it down:
  • 2005-September 2006: Article created and grew organically
  • 2 September 2006: 1st AFD closed as "no consensus" by Xyrael
  • 10 September 2006: DRV sends it back to AFD
  • 15 September 2006: Second AFD closed as "delete" by Xoloz
  • 20 September 2006: Article recreated, then speedy deleted and WP:SALTed by Lucky 6:9
  • 12 July 2007: Article \recreated and speedy deleted by NawlinWiki.
• So what deletion is actually being challenged here? The DRV Nom, such as it is, presents no real argument. The article needs sources towards meeting WP:WEB, not obviously invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. So endorse deletion for now pending actual arguments/evidence. No offense, Kurykh, but couldn't you have looked into this before bringing it into DRV? It's convoluted at first but once you figure out the essence of the complaint, there's really no credible argument for undeletion yet... this could have been told to the petitioner without the time of a DRV. --W.marsh 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, what would be needed for an article are real, reliable sources, not Comixpedia or the like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion decision, but there's an article that could exist here in future; if the article was under construction then construct it in your namespace before bringing it here and asking for the okay to move it back into articlespace. Neil ╦ 08:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Okay, I'm new here, but I've done a bit of research both before and after putting the article back up- I think that the fan base, the number of other artists (Josh Lesnick of Go Girly and CuteWendy, notably) who respect and refer to Mr. Schoenek, the 25th best Webcomic of All Time rating, and the generally well-known nature of Loserz in the Webcomic community justifies leaving it up in its current incarnation including several references and external links, including the link to its rating at 25th best webcomic of all time- while Loserz may have more of a cult following than the mass appeal of some other webcomics, you will find few people who have been webcomic readers for a long time and have not come across Erik Schoenek's work. Article's previous incarnation lacked sources, but my version includes verifiable sources and references for notability. Saydrah 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It seems as though Wiki has it in for "Cult" status comics. Yet the comic "Something Positive" has just as cult a following and has a page here. Why axe the Loserz wiki page? It's being brought up to the standards of the rules, it's just taking a little time, I mean the page was only put up two freaking days ago, since then it's been given references and source links. Honestly now, why rush to delete? Give it two months. If it still doesn't meet the rules word for word as they've been laid out in the wiki rule book then delete it. I mean christ, even in the didgital age this stuff takes time. We're not all Wiki-editing masters you know.

Foomartini 07:59, 14 July 2007

• Endorse deletion and salt, the first AfD was stacked with SPAs, the second AfD was conclusive, the two speedy deletes were correct, this second DRV should not be happening for an article already deleted three times. And once again we are in a situation where the Keep editors are treating this like AfDx3, ther has been nothing wrong with the deletions, this is not the second bite of the apple. And the "something positive" argument is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and has no place in a DRV. Darrenhusted 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It does not matter if it was deleted three times. The issue is that it has enough references to now stand on its own as a n informative article about a popular webcomic in the webcomics section. It has been proven as a notable and entertaining comic and deserves its own Wikipedia page for those who'd like to know about the artist/author and his characters. He has a history with other comic sites and a fair fan base. Loriendark 01:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Lori
• Endorse deletion As the closer of the AfD at issue here, I cannot close this DRV also. I can opine that the sources provided are not reliable, and offer no new information that would merit reconsideration. Xoloz 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)