Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 22

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

MENTIONED IN CHILEAN NEWSPAPER, AMONG OTHERS

• Overturn/Undelete There are interwikis for this term in French, Spanish and Polish. Why shouldn't there be an English article? Drhtl 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC) User has since been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry Corpx 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete A majority of editors favored keeping this article. It is verifiable, linking to at least one article "about" it, in a Chilean newspaper, which compared the term's signifcance to political language used by Chilean politicians. Omitting it from Wikipedia strikes me as a decrease in information from Wikipedia without a compelling cause, as it passes WP:NEO and WP:V. It can just as easily be flagged for cleanup/more sources. Jchristie7 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I asked for a private checkuser from User:Raul654 after i caught a edit that crossed my mind and the two users above were confirmed as sockpuppets, along with most of the keep voters of the AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that doesn't include me...I voted keep, and I hope I'm not being accused of anything now. Giggy _U^CP 01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I voted keep as well. No sockpuppet here as well - Seems a shame I have to go to the database dump to get the content of the page...-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - I said keep, but consensus was to delete. "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." (WP:DRV), Jaranda made no mistake in reading consensus...just because it went against you doesn't mean you need to complain about it. Giggy _U^CP 01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling other keep voters will have something to say about that, haha. Those are some pretty big sockpuppets with a lot of history! Thanks for the block. :) 75.50.173.75 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone and don't know anything about any other participant, but you might be a little bit clearer here about who exactly you mean and don't mean by "most", so that you're not painting all participants who were in favor of keep as socks. The way you're leaving it here casts suspicion on at least one four legitimate editors. On the merits of the case: I think your closure should have taken into account the idea of merging the article, or giving it time to develop by putting a stub tag on it. And since you closed apparently before you became suspicious, I don't see how you judged your closure as representing consensus. Tvoz |talk 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: These are directed at Jaranda, not me (I hope). Giggy _U^CP 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was directing my point at Jaranda who came on here and made a general statement about "most" "keep" voters being socks when a specific statement should have been made, naming exactly which ones he found to be socks. But I have to say, Giggy, your comments here don't make a lot of sense. The consensus on the AfD actually was to keep - 2-1 the comments were for keeping the piece. So Jaranda's closure went against consensus, and seemingly was based on something else, and I am questioning it. His decision was made apparently before he discovered any puppetry. Tvoz |talk 01:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• First argument for keep, was "I've heard of it, so I think its notable". I don't think this holds much water unless the claim is sufficiently backed up. The next one linked to 3 sites, 2 of which just used the term, and were not "about the term" (wp:neo). Even though the 3rd site provided a definition, I don't think it counts as a reliable source. I think you were basing your keep "vote" on google hits, which are not really a sign of notability either. ExpImp brought up a valid point, but the sources in use were from the originator himself, and not from independent sources, which leads us to the chilean newspaper that I cant read and cant judge. Corpx 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, just because you can't read it doesn't mean it isn't reliable - I think a notability tag on this article would have been the prudent way to go, since there were actually sources listed in the piece, although maybe not the strongest. Of course with the article gone we can't look at it to see - my point in this DRV is that there was no consensus to delete, and the closer didn't convince me that there was. The point about accusations of puppetry stands as well and I am hopeful that will be clarified soon. Tvoz |talk 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• You can hit the Cache button up top and view the cache of the article. Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but I'm very vary about the notability of this term when the only reliable source is a Chilean newspaper (not in english). Also, WP:NOTE would be pointless if every article with questionable notability is just tagged with a Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Importance_and_notability template, with the hope that references will be added in the future. I think the consensus was to delete, when the "invalid" arguments are discounted. Corpx 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I never noticed the "cache" button before. Will take a look. Tvoz |talk 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have said five of the users were blocked as sockpuppets. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And how many "keep"s were not? Also, would like a reply on my points about stub or merging. Tvoz |talk 04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - I "voted" to delete in the AFD I believe the consensus was to delete when the "invalid keep arguments" are discounted Corpx 02:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just because it was 2:1 in favour of keep doesn't mean the consensus was keep...especially in cases of sockpuppetry. Consensus is more then just numbers. Giggy _U^CP 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  There was no talk of sockpuppetry during the AfD, and I don't see any consensus there to delete. Tvoz |talk 04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• As the presumed "sock-puppeteer", I would like to apologize: a) If I was insulting to Jaranda, although I did feel the deletion process was sloppy, and b) mainly, for violating your terms of service. I do have a lot of respect for the work you do, and for Wikipedia. If you see the accounts in question, they created valid articles and made valid edits on many subjects, not just these. And I felt strongly that the articles were legitimate. However, it was wrong of me to try and "cook the books" and accidentally cast aspersion on the legit editors. I am imperfect and make mistakes. Thanks for your ear and I'm sorry. 75.50.148.229 05:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Canvassing Just would like to note that Jchristie7 (talk · contribs) had canvassed only the users who "voted" keep for the AFD about this review. Corpx 05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment.I don't know what canvassing is, but from the context it seems to be clear. I was led here ("canvassed"?) by a comment on my talkpage by Jchristie7. I also was led to the original AfD through a user on my talk page. But that is because I link Pataphor on my Userpage, where I endorse it as one of the greatest pages in Wikipedia. It seems just nice to notify me, doesn't it? Assume Good Faith? -- ExpImp^talkcon 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem was that the user only alerted the users who voted "keep", which would be alerting only partisan audience. It wouldn't be canvasing if all the users who participated in the AFD were notified Corpx 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. And that's how I found out he was sockpuppering, I noticed that he was carvassing the keep voters, but didn't carvass Drhtl, who for some reason found out about the DRV right after Jchristie placed it in DRV, so I asked Raul654 for a checkuser in IRC, and he confirmed to me as socks. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - no legitimate keep arguments in AFD. ugen64 06:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: Alfred Jarry is cute, but this is the promotion of a neologism to create a "meme" for the purposes of promoting a single writer (probably). This is not an established trope, and the matter is covered well in WP:NOT. (Once locked into dualities of figurative/non-figurative, there can be no extension. The farthest thing from a metaphor is catechresis (the "dead metaphor") that becomes a 'literal' part of denotative speech.) Geogre 13:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I opined delete in the AFD, and feel Jaranda's close was acceptable. As I said there, a look at the uses of the word on various pages seems to indicate many of them tracked right back to this article ("Wikipedia says a pataphor is...", etc.) As Geogre says above, WP:NOT comes into play here. If there was sockpuppetry involved on the 'keep' side, then good job to Jaranda for sniffing it out as well. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep was my original opinion and it is it now. Read the AFD. There was a majority for delete, but there was no consensus. That was and still is my impression.-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Also, it is one of the greatest pages in wikipedia, at least in my opinion." from the AFD isn't a valid reason for keeping an article. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, majority does not always rule. No new arguments presented. Corvus cornix 23:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Keep would probably have been a reasonable evaluation of the afd; certainly no consensus would also have been. But not delete. Majority does not rule, but consensus of the policy based arguments does. DGG (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a valid delete, four or five of the keeps were socks of each others, there was one that only said weak keep but needs better sourcing and AFD isn't a vote, another one was per the sock, and that sock said that he heard of the term, which isn't a valid reason for keeping, and then there was the one of the greatest pages in wikipedia vote and that obviously isn't a valid reason nither. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Jaranda, did you happen to read my comments on the AfD? Because I don't see any indication in your comment just above that you did. I'm not a sock, I didn't say it was one of the greatest pages, I didn't say "weak keep" - I did say it needs better sourcing, but that is not a reason to delete it. Many pages need better sourcing - they get a tag and a request that more sources be provided. This was not a case of no sources - and even those survive as stubs until more sources are found. Did you even look at the sources? Also, as I've said, "merge" was an option too. Apparently none of these options were considered by you in your rush to delete. Just wondering - did you miss my comments or did you just ignore them? Maybe you need to re-evaluate your incorrect close. Tvoz |talk 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not talking about yours, I never said that you were any of them, your is the only one with merit as far as I could see, Assume Good Faith, there was no other better sources other than trivial mentions, and Tony Fox mentioned that, I did check on google as well, all trivial mentions, nothing else WP:V is a major policy, and none of the keep voters issued that concern and if the article doesn't meet WP:V than there is no reason to merge. Policy trumps concensus Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that, but you didn't say that in your comment immediately above mine. Tvoz |talk 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So if Tvoz is the only valid Keep, I am a Sockpuppet? What the fuck?-- ExpImp^talkcon 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

comment requirements for info within an article are not as stringent as that for an entire article, isnt this true? a single citation, as i understand it, is enough to include an addition to an article. therefore the pataphore would be sufficiently cited if the info was merged into pataphysics, for instance. A newspaper citation has never in my experience been a questionable source for a particular info within an article. Some thing 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Including those in Spanish - which can be read, surely, by some here. No reply on merging option, though it has been repeatedly suggested, and was in the original AfD. It appears the need to delete was stronger than the need to conserve information and expand the encyclopedia, and this is a dangerous trend. And I would not be so sure about policy trumping consensus - that would depend on which policy we're talking about and how it is being applied, wouldn't it. And of course I'm sure everyone remembers IAR, which I seem to recall is policy. Tvoz |talk 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn & Merge, due to a majority presence of KEEP comments on the AFD discussion page it would have been assumed the article be kept. However the article was deleted on beliefs by the admin that many were sock puppets and his own opinion of insufficient citation. this makes sense to some extent but it does not make for good judgment. if the participants had known the article was likely to be deleted there would have been opportunity to request a merge into pataphysics or other. the deletion came as a surprise since the article had citation and majority support. The admin should have given the discussion more opportunity by letting his opinions be known, for decency's sake IMO. Some thing 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Although it looks like to me like the consensus was "keep", I could see a finding of no consensus. But delete? No way. This is simply one admin imposing his view and not respecting consensus. In the absence of a strong policy argument that trumps consensus (and none is present here), the job of the closer is to determine consensus. This closer did not do that here. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn closure - in case it wasn't clear, I agree with the previous two comments and DGG's as well - there was certainly no consensus to delete - if the closer couldn't bring himself to keep, then at least "no consensus" would have been reasonable. And merge was suggested and then ignored. Tvoz |talk 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Pataphysics now includes a section on the pataphor. i realized this was a reasonable action to take as it seems this argument is not making headway, and rather than keep mentioning the pataphysics merge several times i should just "be bold" and do it myself. as to whether pataphore deserves existence on the 'pataphysics page, ive started a discussion on its talk page. all are invited to join in. i personally will not be making any further actions for sake of pataphor preservation on wikipedia. Some thing 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

SEE WP:MUSIC #6

• Overturn/Undelete I believe JChristie7 said this best on the discussion page, that this is 100% in line with WP:music.Drhtl 00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: On his talk page, Jaranda defends his deletion of this page by saying that: "well, the article has to meet two guidelines from WP:MUSIC". Not so, Jaranda; it has to meet one. Jaranda does not know WP:Music! WP:Music says: "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria: #6 Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"; you can see the membership of this band is comprised of Korel Tunador, current member of The Goo Goo Dolls, Nick Lucero, a member of Queens of the Stone Age, and Tanya Haden, formerly of the Silversun Pickups. The albums were produced by Ben Mumphrey, producer of Frank Black of The Pixies' album, "Devil's Workshop," and Scott Benzel of Machines of Loving Grace. The editors here who said: "No notability," "Fails WP:Music," "his albums are self-produced," do not know WP:Music, and what's worse, do not seem to have read the article. Jchristie7 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I asked for a private checkuser from User:Raul654 after i caught a edit that crossed my mind and the two users above were confirmed as sockpuppets. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• • And that would excuse your ignorance of WP:Music somehow? You didn't even know what it said, by your own admission, yet you decide these things? I hope other admins will take note. 75.50.173.75 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The policy is still the same in that it requires one of the guidelines to be met for notability. It doesn't say if the requirements are met but a sockpuppet participates the article fails on notability grounds. Terrymr 22:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - obvious consensus to delete on AFD (notwithstanding sockpuppets). ugen64 06:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentWho (besides you) decides who a sockpuppet is? I don't care about the Avion article that much, but the same argument is used above in "Pataphor". Why do legitimate user have to defend themselves, why do they have to explain that they are not a fiction, but a real person? I don't see your "obvious" consensus, unless you _assume_ that everybody on the "keep" side is a sockpuppet, including JChristie and me.-- ExpImp^talkcon 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen King's inspiration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe the AfD discussion was misinterpreted. Consensus in the discussion was to keep or merge, not for delete. When asked for clarification on reason for delete, Admin referred to deletion summary which stated "odd and not really needed," which I believe to be an improper rationale for deletion as per Wikipedia official policy. Attempted to resolve/discuss with admin, who would not engage in discussion and recommended WPDRV. LACameraman 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted; copyvio of this. (Not endorsing the deletion as I feel it should have been speedied as copyvio.) We can't restore copyvios under any circumstances, so far as I'm aware. Heather 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I should have made the copyvio thing more clear... I myself forgot it and userfied this. I will delete it now, pending clarification. --W.marsh 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• As for the deletion, AFD isn't a vote... we don't do articles like this in general as it falls under an indescriminate collection of information. There's no reason why this can't just be covered on the book articles... we wouldn't have articles like Reasons Each State ratified the constitution or Opinions of Various Hollywood Actors on War. --W.marsh 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I do agree there is copyright violation material in the existing article that needs to be cleaned up, absolutely. There were a lot of people who added to the article since I was last there and added stolen quotes from Stephen King's official site. The three opening sections to the article should stand as a template for what the full article should be, well written, well cited information that provides a detailed examination into one man's work that does not fit into the scope of his biographical article and is less useful in uncollected form. However, as DRV is NOT a review of the content, but rather a review of the deletion "PROCESS not CONTENT" (as per official Wiki Policy), I will attempt to refrain from discussing the content of the article further. The PROCESS of the deletion is what is being called into question here. The consensus reached on the page was to keep or merge - not outright delete. Even the majority of those who voted for delete said that the information should be merged. When I asked W.marsh why the article was deleted, he succinctly referred me to his summary which noted the article was deleted because it was "odd and not really needed" - the deletion reason was NOT for copyvio (which should have been corrected, of course. Please note that the three major sections of the article that were fully cited and referenced were NOT copyright violations in any way shape or form, the rest of the article was still very much a work in progress) nor was the deletion reason for "we don't do articles like this." Perhaps, W.marsh, if you would have engaged in a discussion with me and explained this concept when I tried to discuss this with you, I might have accepted that. I can see, perhaps, after researching further that this article is outside the scope of Wikipedia. However, you refused to engage in any kind of discussion or explanation and recommended instead that I start this process. I feel the deletion discussion was misinterpreted and the article was deleted for the wrong reason. It is for that reason alone that I ask the Wiki editors and administrators to re-evaluate the AfD process for this article. LACameraman 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, of course, that the article probably should have been deleted by Wikipedia:Copyright Problems rather than AfD. But, since it has been deleted, I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Do you want the AfD deleted so that the article can be recreated without being subject to CSD G8? Even if that were possible, I find it hard to imagine that any article with the title Stephen King's inspiration would be acceptable under our guidelines. Also, odd and not really needed was not the entire deletion summary--the closing admin said (quite accurately) that the material was more appropriate for the articles on the books. If the material were not copyvio'd, the closing would have been completely appropriate. We can't restore it for copyright reasons, so I'm not sure what else could be possible at this point. Heather 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There was a considerable portion of the article (much of which I supplied) that was NOT a copyright violation, it is well sourced, encyclopedic information. Why does the whole article have to be deleted? The entire article was NOT lifted from some other source - only portions of it that can be easily removed (as the article, by nature, is modular). Why can't we omit the copyvio sections and retain the rest? My reason for bringing the article here is to evaluate the deletion process - which is what I understand this is about. The article was NOT deleted for copyvio, it was NOT deleted because it was outside the scope of Wikipedia. The consensus in the discussion was to keep or merge, yet the article was deleted anyway. I am bring it here because the admin who deleted it refused to discuss any of this, even though I tried. The specific process of HOW and WHY the article was deleted was wrong. I am asking for the article to be undeleted, a new AfD discussion opened - if necessary - and I (and other editors) be given a chance to repair the issues that are in question. I believe this to be relevant information about one of the most notable literary figures of the 20th century and one of the most oft asked questions about his work. If this information is outside the scope of Wikipedia, then each and every LIST on Wikipedia should be deleted. If I am wrong about a stand-alone article, I will certainly accept that and, as I said to W.marsh, I will do the work to merge the legitimate (non copyvio) information into the appropriate articles on the individual books, but the temporary article has been re-deleted as he stated above, one again, prematurely in my opinion and without discussion. This is not a case of my not liking the deletion decision - it is a case of receiving no discussion about the deletion decision and the fact that the AfD discussion was misinterpreted. Consensus was not for delete. If the consensus here is for delete, I understand - but as the "rules" for this process clearly state, this review process is not a CONTENT review - it is a review of the deletion PROCESS. Again, the article was NOT deleted for copyvio, so I am asking the decision to be re-evaluated. It may be semantics, gentlemen, but that is exactly the definition of this review process, as I understand it. Very respectfully, LACameraman 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore A discussion of copyvio is possibly relevant,for if it is undeleted here, there's no point if it'll be immediately speedied as A11.I do not think it is copyvio. it contains a number of quotations. an article about a writer that contains a number of quotations from different places for the purpose of criticism is reasonable and appropriate.

the arguments being given at discussions on Afd about the plot of articles is that it needs to be accompanied by iriticism and comment. Well, here is some. DGG (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restore Not sure if I missed weighing in my my official vote here - or if I'm supposed to do that? In any case, trying to keep this discussion alive. Many thanks. All the best LACameraman 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion For those portions which were copyvio, the reasoning is obvious and indisputable. Any other material is better merged to King's article, or individual books. A compilation of this sort is likely to violate WP:OR, and is unencyclopedic in any event. Xoloz 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The significant portions of the article, for which I am lobbying, were NOT original research, but well-cited information. None of the article was supposition, all was from published sources. The potential copyright violation material were full paragraphs lifted from Stephen King's own website (which should have been utilized as a source, not copy-and-paste, of course) that other editors had added to the article. It should be noted that this was not a stub and many editors contributed to what they felt was a significant contribution to Wikipedia. The differentiation between what was "copyvio" and what was not is extremely simple as the article was completely modular. All that needs to be done is to eliminate the sections that were direct lifts from King's website and the rest of the article is in full compliance with Wikipedia official policy. There was no commingling of copyvio and non-copyvio material. I would argue that unencyclopedic is open for interpretation. As I mentioned before any and every list on Wikipedia is unencyclopedic, yet there are MANY (even, as the guidelines admit, lists of lists) of considerable merit (a few that I have contributed to) which makes Wikipedia a source of unique information unavailable anywhere else. I do not believe this article violates the scope of Wikipedia (it is certainly NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, which is the only semi-close argument against it), but I do understand that this is my opinion and I will - of course - agree with Wiki project consensus on this issue and happily do the merging work of non-copyvio material into the individual book articles if this review is to be decided to keep the article deleted (although the userfied article has been re-deleted by the original admin at this time, so that would need be restored for editing). All the best LACameraman 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per copyvio, OR concerns. Significant info can be adequately mentioned elsewhere. LACameraman, please cease the lengthy responses and let others consider the issue as stated in the review rationale. We know you want the article to be restored. Deiz talk 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Restore We are talking about process here right? Not rehashing the AfD. I voted on the AfD and was a bit surprised to see a delete result - I thought it was too close to call and would be a 'no consensus' close. I make it 13 comments altogether, not including the nom, with a good spread of different opinions in roughly similar proportions. Good comments were made by all sides. I see 4 vanilla 'deletes', 3 vanilla 'keeps' and 6 mixed flavours of keep/delete/merge/redirect. Frankly, there was no consensus here. Thanks LACameraman for letting me know about the DRV. Cheers, Paxse 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Per my commentary in the AfD, the content in this article does better in each novel's article - there is no need to catalog it in one article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I believe that notability was established through the four sources provided (4th source was a print article from The Hindu, but isn't linked to in the AFD page). Would also like to say that the cache doesn't reflect the article after I trimmed it down to be a stub Corpx 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn claimed notabilty, AFD should have been relisted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sorry, but as the closing admin, where are these 4 references? There were 2 references in the article. One was an advertising-style filler article about the club, and the other was about about one of their rallies. What is it that makes this club notable, and just not another bike club that has rallies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talk • contribs)

• Yes, but Article1, Article2 and the 2 instances of CNN India coverage (links on AFD page) puts them above the threshold of notability in WP:NOTE Corpx 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Relist Non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources satisfy the minimal notability requirements. There was no clear consensus in the discussion with only four contributions (five if you include the nominator), so a relist may have been more appropriate here. Caknuck 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• relist per Caknuck. JoshuaZ 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• relist since there seem to be sources that were not adequately considered.DGG (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bone Thugs.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

  1. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
  2. The image is of a low resolution.
  3. Since one members of the band are now incarcerated, it is not possible to replace the image with a new free alternative.
  4. Use of this promotional image does not detract from the financial viability of it.

Blackdragon6 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse it has been deleted nine times in less than a year. ^{(Return Fire)} 20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn its been deleted without a real given reason,not only that but it was constantly being vandalized.--Blackdragon6
  • I checked and most of the images that were uploaded was the same one by you. I suggest to find another photo to use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at IFD - the part about them being incarcerated is important. This isn't such an obvious case of replaceable fair use - not to mention that it is a promotional photo, and far less likely to raise copyright hackles. Yes, this image was listed at IFD once, but it didn't receive any comments. The Evil Spartan 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list per The Evil Spartan. Will ^(talk) 12:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs featuring a theremin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD was closed as no consensus, but the arguments in favor of deletion appear to have outweighed those in favor of keeping not just in number but in cogency and reference to guidelines. The close was certainly a possible reading of the discussion; nevertheless, it seems to me to have been a mistaken reading. Deor 13:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Um. Seven members of the list, the theremin is pretty unusual so it's never going to be hugely more (incidentally, Bill Bailey's exceptional Kraftwerk spoof is missing), and 30% of the entries are in there because they don't feature a theremin. Add to that the vexed question of what constitutes "featuring" as opposed to simply including, and I think you have a compelling case to merge this to theremin. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't get it: why not just merge it into the theremin article? That could be done as an editorial action, and I doubt it would upset anyone. This doesn't seem worth making a fuss over either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Theremin already mentions a representative (and rather extensive) set of bands who have used a theremin. I don't see what useful information would be added by merging references to these specific recordings. In addition, some of the comments in the AfD lead me to believe that a proposal to merge would meet with resistance on the part of editors who have worked on the list. Deor 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete - while AFD is not a vote count, deletes outweigh keeps and the keeps do not overcome the arguments offered for deletion. The rarity or commonality of the use of the instrument is not the issue and arguments relying on how rarely or commonly it is used should have been discounted. Otto4711 19:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete Delete arguments were based on the rarity of the instrument and thus it warranted a list of songs that used it (or didn't use it). I personally think that's a weak argument because I dont want an encyclopedia to list all the songs that may or may not have been conceived by an instrument. Corpx 20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - even a rough headcount says to me "delete". Will ^(talk) 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• I didn't see no good agruements between the keep and delete votes, so I closed it as no consensus, reading it closer, while the delete votes are rather weak, the keep votes were worse, and rather invalid. My mistake Overturm my close and Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete: Is there a justification for a "list" (is the inclusion criterion itself significant)? I don't see it. Is there a sufficient population to break away from a master article? I don't think so. Is there an explicit include/exclude criterion? I don't quite see that ("featuring," above). Is there a benefit to side-by-side layout that cannot be achieved with a category? No, not that, either. Therefore, the arguments are strongest for deletion, without prejudice to the infamous "in pop culture" section on the theremin article. Geogre 14:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I would have endorsed the closure as a no-consensus is within the closer's discretion here, but since they have since called for overturning their own decision, I suppose overturn and delete is the best way to go now. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and delete I'd pretty close to never argue for overturning an admin's no consensus close to become a delete, but if the admin in question explicitly says the decision was a mistake that should be overturned that makes it an easy decision.JoshuaZ 19:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

• Consensus was to keep the page. The article was properly sourced and contained valid content for inclusion in Wikipedia. The administrator left no rationale for his deletion or ignoring the consensus to keep the page. Bsregistration 08:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, sock/SPA-plagued AFD closed correctly. There was a consensus to delete among established editors. --Coredesat 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I "voted" to delete in the AFD - SPAs providing examples of this term, but no source as to the meaning of the term Corpx 08:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Clear AfD consensus, even though it was plagued bu all sorts of socks/SPAs, multiple votes from Bsregistration, and other misbehaviour. That sort of thing not only never works, but it's actually a detriment to an article getting kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Was there ever any reason for this page other than pursuing ludicrous fantasies over 9/11 ? Guy (Help!) 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• • ludicrous fantasies "plagued bu all sorts of socks/SPAs, multiple votes from Bsregistration, and other misbehaviour." Again, none of this sort of junior-high name-calling is backed up by any evidence at all and it's clear that the original article hasn't even been read by the people here, nor have the sources or links been verified. If you're going to hold a Starblind Popularity Contest then there's no procedure here at all.Bsregistration 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Guy, if you read the page you would have seen it had nothing to do with conspiracy theories

The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.

• Ramsay Busted for More TV Fakery -- New York Magazine
• TV fakery revealed in show on opening of Titanic's safe -- Chicago Sun Times
• Double take -- Guardian UK "In an age of TV fakery, when even the real people are suspect..."

It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism.Bsregistration 20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's note. Consensus was established, disregarding the socks/SPAs. Sr13 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I ran across this page in its infancy and was worried about the 9/11 conspiracy tone of the article at that time. I contacted User:MONGO about it because of his long involvement in 9/11 conspiracy articles, and he deleted the 9/11 part. But there is still no proof that this is a widely-used term to describe a particular idea. I didn't go back to look at the page (bad on me), was the 9/11 conspiracy stuff re-added, as Guy is indicating above? If so, then it should be salted. Corvus cornix 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no rationale was provided for the deletion and the discussion page was flooded with multiple comments from Dennis the Tiger sockpuppets like Starblind who seem to be fascinated with conspiracy theories. The article was properly sourced with articles and papers. Again the content of the pro-deletion crowd is little more than politically-motivated and there has not been a single refutation of any specific item on the page or any source used. The open admission that the page wasn't even read and that conspiracy theorists like Mongo were brought in to shut it down even though it is firm argument for reinstating the page.Bsregistration 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you should be making accusations of sockpuppetry when the evidence is exceedingly against you. Corpx 20:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Amazing, I've been editing all the time and never even realised I was a sockpuppet at all, much less a sockpuppet of an editor who joined 2 years after me. Astounding. I need to sit back a bit and take this all in, I'm getting the vapours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice that wikipedia isn't an advertising service, either.

• There's no evidence of sockpuppetry against me and there never will be unless you make some up.Bsregistration 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's open admission that the page was deleted without even being read and that other editors were brought to the page for strictly political reasons. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to be edited?

• Endorse deletion I didn't go back to look at the page (bad on me)
• Endorse deletion I contacted User:MONGO about it because of his long involvement in 9/11 conspiracy articles, and he deleted the 9/11 part.

But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html

TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html

More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm

Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465

Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml

And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448

A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518

• I dont think you're getting the reasoning here. Per WP:NEO, to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. Corpx 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Too bad this article got deleted because of knee-jerk reactions of some who even admitted they didn't even read the sources that confirmed the validity of the subject of TV fakery. Babya 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - AFD closed properly. Will ^(talk) 11:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, and the usual arguments about neologisms and memes. Plus ca change... I found a usage of "butterscotch boot," so it's obviously a major meme and not the coincidental combination of words! On Myspace, I found "fascist strawberry," so that's got to be a meme now. Loads of pages use "moon creature," so those have all got to be exactly the same thing and simply can't be separate pages talking about separate things without any knowledge of one another! "TV fakery" is no doubt something that occurs in print, no doubt something that occurs on the web, something that no doubt has no singular meaning behind it nor consistent and coherent intellectual and cultural identity that can be discussed in an encyclopedia article. Endorse the deletion because it is not possible to have an article on an innocent combination of words that fails to reflect a single concept. Geogre 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist if it was too infested by socks to judge, do it over.DGG (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)