Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 11

The Hitler Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Legitimate game played at a number of UK universities. Morevisit 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from the deleting admin: This article was deleted per WP:NFT, WP:WEB, WP:N WP:CSD#A7 and WP:V. There was not a single assertion of notability of this game in the article, there was no indication that it exists in the first place. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Article starts out "a game for several players played mainly by students and people with far too much free time, involving the use of Wikipedia" Come on, this had no chance of surviving an AFD. --W.marsh 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per W.marsh. We don't waste time maundering on about stuff that would be deleted anyway. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse del - Obvious nonsense/OR. Wickethewok 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Even if it doesn't fit a specific CSD, this doesn't deserve our time in a deletion debate. It's clearly a game made up for Wikipedia.--Chaser - T 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Basically "We were bored one day and made up this game in school and here are the rules [blah blah blah]...". Note that it was deleted within 5 minutes of being created, and if undeleted wouldn't last 5 more. Would never in a bazillion trillion years pass an AfD vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability. the wub "?!" 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. None of the comments above address the issue here, and should be weighted as such - we do not speedy games for a number of significant reasons, and the multiple abusive deletions were completely invalid. This is not the forum to decide whether the game is "notable," or "original research," or whether it would be deleted anyway. The deletion was improper, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon? I have no problem with you disagreeing with the deletions, and I have no problem if you believe the article should have gone through AFD. That's all fine with me. But I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't call the deletions abusive, and I would most definitely appreciate it if you were to retract that word. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As it's a blatant abuse of your tools to speedy things that consensus believes should not be, I think the word is entirely proper. Sorry if that offends you, but it is what it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • For the sake of civility and my blood pressure, I will not dignify this with a response. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps that's best. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedying obvious crap is never 'invalid' - and even if it were, we don't punish the admin by re-inserting the crap into the encyclopedia as a response. Deliberately re-inserting known crap into the encyclopedia is by definition disruption for a point, if not downright vandalism, we don't do that to spite ourselves.--Doc^g 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And you, along with anyone else, are perfectly welcome to attempt to change the CSD criterion to include this in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DEViANCE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

• Demo Scene involvement, ranks of contributions, relased games put in perspective 12.151.46.12 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• DEViANCE had next to the cracking section also a demo division, which produced 12 Intros, mostly cracktros.

You can see the list at Poulet.net [1] They released a few however at small and medium demoparties and archieved more than once top 10 results with their contributions. Notable are the following results: 5th place at Evoke 2005 (64KB Intro Competition), 7th at BreakPoint 2006 (64KB Intro Competition) and 7th at Euskal 2006 (Wild Demo Competition).

• Warez/Cracking Division (main part of the group).

I just want to name some of the groups releases. Some were mentioned in the article, some were not. The group released following major titles FIRST (worldwide) and beat the international competion in the cracking and releasing "game": Quake 4 , Sim Sity 3000, Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, Black & White 2, Command & Conquer: Generals Unreal Tournament 2004, Command & Conquer: Generals, Call of Duty 1 and 2, Max Payne 2, Final Fantasy VIII PC, HOMM4, Myst III and V, Grand Theft Auto 3, F.E.A.R.

and that are only examples. The list goes on and on. I am not a big gamer myself and even I am familar with those titles. Major titles are mostly released by leadinging warez group first. Why? Because in order to be the first, you have to have good suppliers that can get a copy of the game prior or as early as possible on the release date, have to get it to a cracker who has to remove the copy protection, pack it up (rar/ace/arj files split up and then zipped, update and add the group NFO file and file_id.diz, add a cracktro (if available) and get it out to the next server on the internet to have then the couriers of the group take over and spread it to the most dominant servers (especially servers of competing groups) to claim the title.

Because of this complexity and sophistication is it rare that a small and unknown group is able to beat the leading groups in this race. Being first for numerous major titles is impossible without being a leader in the space and thus notable in regards to the subject "warez groups".

• Also noteworthy, the 39 repository files at defacto2.net had 6,576 downloads [2], which indicates a very substantial interest of people into the activities and releases of the group.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Executive Summary: This article was proposed for deletion in retaliation for editing that I did - articles should not be deleted in retaliation for editing changes - especially when the changes were necessary to adhere to wikipedia policies! I edited a page about a living person, Zen Master Dae Gak, in four ways: (1) I removed controversial material (from both the main article and the discussion page) that I felt was clearly in violation of wikipedia policies with respect to biographies of living persons, (2) I removed a "sourcing" flag that I felt was not applicable to the page, (3) I added a notice to the discussion page that all content must be consistent with wikipedia policies concerning biographies of living persons, and (4) I changed the article so that the subject was consistently referred to by the name under which the article was listed ("Dae Gak"). The fourth change was not only for consistency, but also to show the usual respect for a person with a "religious name" associated with their religious vocation. Wikipedia articles on the current Pope, for example, do not refer to him as "Herr Ratzinger" (nor should they). A message was then sent by user Killerbeez to Administrator Will Beback, asking for Will Beback's advice on how to respond to my editing. Will Beback responded by suggesting that the article be deleted! For two years, the page on Zen Master Dae Gak had been a "free-for-all" where people had posted controversial material on the subject in clear violation of wikipedia policies. As soon as I made it clear that I understood these policies and that I would be monitoring the page to see to it that they were adhered to - their fun was over and so they preferred to delete the page as one last swipe at the page's subject. Reviewing this deletion must take into account the history of the way the page had been used for a prolonged period of time as a means of spreading derogatory controversial material about a living person, and that proposing the article for deletion was a blatant retaliation that occurred as soon as it became obvious that editors of this page would have to start adhering to wikipedia policies. Durruti36 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically on the subject of "notability", mutliple factual innacuracies in this regard were stated both when the article was first proposed for deletion, and during the discussion by people who "voted" for deletion. In particular, it was stated when the article was first proposed for deletion that there were "no third party sources available" - a point that was clearly shown to be false during the discussion. It was also stated in the initial listing that "the subject has [only] written a dissertaion and one book" - another factual innacuracy that was corrected in the discussion. Finally, I contested the the deletion specifically on the basis of the subject's receipt of a "significant recognized award or honor" - the discussion on this showed a lack of understanding concerning the significance of "Dharma Transmission" on the part of those who proposed the deletion and "voted" for it. Durruti36 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion - the alleged motives of the nominator are irrelevant - consensus in the debate was clear.--Doc^g 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I see nothing in your arguments that suggests that the consensus was wrong from a Wikipedia standpoint. Yes, you suggest the deletion was wrong, but only from your own standpoint. The AFD was closed appropriately as far as I can see (with the probable discounting of two single-purpose accounts). Metros 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I tried to rescue the article, and tried to defend it, but I accept the consensus that there were not adequate sources.DGG 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's nice to see that no one is responding to my two very specific points: (1) the three specific reasons given by the Administrator who proposed the deletion were all proven wrong in the discussion, and (2) the proposal for deletion was undeniably in retaliation for simple editing changes that brought the article in line with wikipedia guidelines. Durruti36 02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated by Dog glasgow, the motives of the nominator are irrelevant (so that concern has been addressed). And as for your first concern, that was addressed in the AFD where other people in the debate felt that your disprovals of the nominator's points didn't really disprove his points or they felt that there were more reasons than simply the nominator's listing of reasons to delete it. Metros 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It is nice to see that you are tacitly admitting that the motive was clearly retaliation in response to a conflict over editing. That you and Doc Glasgow believe this to be irrelevant does not make it so. The "other people" in the debate were people with their own axes to grind - or their fans who cast "me too" votes. Durruti36 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Uhh I see nothing in my comment that suggests I was calling this retaliation. Looking at Will Beback's comments to Killerbeez at User_talk:Killerbeez#Dae_Gak it shows that Will Beback nominated this based on notability, not in retaliation to anything at all. Will Beback's alleged motivations have no place in this DRV discussion. Metros 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I made no mention of Will Beback's motivations - however you just did. Ooops - now I just did. However, I have absolutely no way of knowing anything about his motivations. I do know that he was wrong on all three points that he stated in the original proposal for deletion, and that this was quickly shown in the course of the discusssion. I also know that Will Beback's involvement arose directly out of a discussion with Killerbeez over an editing conflict with moi. But those are merely facts, which clearly have no place here. Durruti36 18:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Since there is so much fixation on the fact that one of the votes to keep apparently came from a "single-purpose-account", let's take a look at some of the votes for deletion. One came from a person who openly admitted to being a member of a "rival" religious organization, another came from a person who openly claims to know the subject personally and who obviously has a personal grudge, at least two of the votes were simple "me-too" votes from people who were agreeing with Logrider's completely incorrect characterization of the issue of "Dharma Transmission" - which he confused with "level of ordination". The contribution from the "single-purpose account" made specific factual contributions to the issues being discussed. Durruti36 02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Lack of independent sources was never rebutted. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Factual Correction Independent sources were provided in the discussion. Here are three: Master Dae Gak is in the book "Zen Master Who?" by James Ishmael Ford, he was an invited speaker at a symposim at Emory University commemorating the 800th anniversary of Dogen's birth, and an example was provided of a scholarly source that referenced the book Dae Gak co-authored on the Kent State killings. Do actual facts matter in this discussion, or not? Durruti36 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• No alternatives to deletion were ever considered. Doesn't that bother any of you people? The article was proposed for deletion by someone who is supposed to be an experienced Administrator - and was deleted by another Administrator, but none of the steps that are clearly supposed to be considered prior to deletion, or in the case of a controversial deletion, were ever even mentioned. Durruti36 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, speedy close this discussion, this is not "rerun AfD". All of your objections were met at the AfD, it's obvious that you have a personal axe to grind with this article and are a supporter/student of the Zen master. Your conflict of interest does not let you see that you have no satisfied Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. You have not stated why the AfD was closed improperly, thus there is nothing to be done here. If you want to rewrite the article in your own namespace, and provide sufficient reliable sources proving the Zen master's notability, then please do so, and once that rewrite is done, then come back here for others to see if you have met the reliable sources requirement. But don't just leave the rewrite in your own space without working on it, or it will be liable to deletion as well. Corvus cornix 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that you cannot provide even a single specific statement that I have made to substantiate your ad hominem attack. I have already pointed out, but will do so here again, that the two main people who initially pushed this deletion, Killerbeez, and Knverma, both openly admitted their personal involvements with the subject in question. The Admin who facilitated their personal grudge, Will Beback, showed his lack of knowledge of both the specific person in question (all three of the statements he made in the original proposal for deletion were false) - and also his general lack of knowledge on the subjects of Buddhism and Zen in particular. He also consistently misrepresented wikipedia policies, and completely failed to follow them himself by rushing to list the page for deletion in response to a conflict over editing - without ever considering any of the standard measures that are supposed to be looked at prior to deletion. Durruti36 17:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• What ad hominem attack? I am merely stating what you are doing. Whether there was a personal grudge or not, does not change the merits of the AfD discussion. You need to explain why those who do not have a grudge agreed that the Zen master is not notable (or at least that his notability has not been establsihed). Everybody is not out to get you. Corvus cornix 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not so fast. You said "you have a personal axe to grind" and "your conflict of interest does not let you see that you have no [sic] satisfied Wikipedia's requirement...." This is merely a characterization of what I have said - but you are not able to provide anything that I have actually said to justify this mischaracterization. You seem to be having trouble understanding this, so I'll be even more explicit. It one thing to merely assert that a person's judgment is clouded by a personal conflict - it is another thing to SHOW that this is the case based on things the person in question has actually said. The first is an "ad homimen" attack in the clearest sense, because it merely attacks the person - if you could do the second (which you cannot do in this case) then you would be making a substantive response to something that I have actually said. I hope that helps. Durruti36 17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are not doing your cause any good by this disruptive behavior. If you think what I wrote is an ad hominem attack, when I was really trying to help you to get your article rewritten to meet your needs, then what do you call your repeated attacks on the movitavtions of the people who discussed it and nominated it at the AfD? Corvus cornix 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Knverma stated that he is a member of the Kwan Um School of Zen, which Zen Master Dae Gak left over disagreements with their policies. In fact, one of the issues that I tried to deal with by editing the page were false allegations posted in the article specifically about the circumstances under which Zen Master Dae Gak left the Kwan Um School. Killerbeez, whose editing dispute with me was the cause of the deletion proposal, claims to know Master Dae Gak personally. There are no "attacks" involved in what I am saying - just facts that come from the two people themselves. Of course, if you would like to - you could cite a specific "attack" that I have made on someone. Are you able to do that? Durruti36 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• This arguing back and forth is not furthering your cause of getting this article undeleted. I see no point in continuing it further until you agree to follow the rules of DRV. Corvus cornix 18:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• More vagaries. What rules? Please state one of these rules, and then provide a statement that I have made that "breaks" this "rule". Durruti36 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is my last post on this topic, as it is obvious that you are not interested in hearing from anyone who disagrees with you. Did you read the WP:DRV page? The part which says, This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.? Corvus cornix 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• What part of "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page" (from the Deletion policy page) are you having trouble understanding? Durruti36 01:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per DGG. Consensus of the AfD was to Delete. Eluchil404 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Consensus??? Most of the "votes" to delete were substance free "me too" votes that provided no justification for their votes whatsoever. All of the substantive comments came from two people who have been shown to be personally involved with the individual in question - except, of course, for the comments from Will Beback, whose participation was inappropriate from the start. He was asked for advice concerning a dispute over editing - it was completely inappropriate to insert himself into an editing dispute by rushing to delete the page without considering any of the alternatives that are supposed to be looked at prior to deletion (in addition to the fact that all of the factual statements made in his deletion proposal were quickly shown to be false - which he could have easily determined himself had he made any effort). Two of the "votes" to delete were from people who simply said that they agreed with Logrider, who demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the issues involved when he confused Dharma Transmission with "level of ordination". Durruti36 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• People who are relatively unkown "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." I thought some of you might be interested in what is actually said in the Biographies of living persons page that contains wikipedia's official policies. Durruti36 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Summary of sources, etc:
• Master Dae Gak is included in James Ishmael Ford's "Zen Master Who? : A Guide to People and Stories of Zen".
• His book "Going Beyond Buddha" has been translated by major publishers into German and Czech.
• The book he co-authored on the Kent State killing has been cited as a scholarly source (see here, for an example.)
• He was an invited speaker at a conference at Emory University commemorating the 800th anniversary of Dogen's birth (see the article in the Emory Department of Religion newsletter.) He has also been an invited speaker at other importan events, including a conference on the Unification of North and South Korea, a recent conference at the Galveston Medical Center, and the international Christian-Buddhist dialog held at the Abbey of Gethsemane in 1996.
• Master Dae Gak's head temple, Furnace Mountain, has hosted well known Buddhist leaders from around the world, including Maha Gosananda, who attended the Temple's opening ceremony in 1992; and Kaz Tanahashi, who recently led a retreat/workshop at Furnace Mountain as a fundraiser for the Temple.
• Furnace Mountain is also featured in the CD "Compassion" which was a joint project that included the Dalai Lama, the Abbey of Gethsemane, and Millenium Music.
• Furnace Mountain is also featured in the guidebook "Kentucky: Off the Beaten Path".
• Master Dae Gak has also been the subject of newspaper articles in the Galveston Daily News, the Indianapolis Star and the Lexington Herald.
• Durruti36 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• I am still working on more sources and also on improving the above sources. I was in the process of trying to do this when the page was suddenly proposed for deletion as a direct result of a dispute over editing. Durruti36 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Simpsons writing team.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image had a fair use rationale and the source was given. I can't see why it should be deleted a since the sysop who did it won't reply, I turn to this process. Maitch 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• The image was tagged as failing point 1 for the fair use criteria 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose'. The so called replaceable fair use criteria. It was tagged for this for the requisite time and it appears no one responded and hence the deletion. --pgk 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is not possible to get a free picture of writing staff of The Simpsons and it can't be done in the future. --Maitch 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't it? remembering it just has to be one that would "serve the same encyclopedic purpose", though I personally wouldn't be convinced of a great encyclopedic purpose of such a group shot in the first place... --pgk 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't get into their offices and round everybody in order to take a picture. It is just not possible. The image serves a purpose in List of writers of The Simpsons. --Maitch 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The criteria isn't that you personally have to be able to create a free image. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? --pgk 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Simpson's writing team? If they're all still alive, endorse. If there isn't a need to show what they look like, endorse. If these people don't already have articles of their own, endorse. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it was a replaceable fair use image. the wub "?!" 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse, recommend as a next step try Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission process. -N 11:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, this was a replacable fair use image, and also a discardable one. Remember, fair use is a defense we use while violating copyrights, and I really don't think this use is one worth defending. Mangojuice^talk 15:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, it is my opinion that, as a general rule, we should never accept a non-free image where an editor has not contacted the copyright holder to ask if they would release the image under a free license. That said, the image was indeed replaceable, but it will require work to replace it. --Iamunknown 05:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

At the very least consider unprotecting the page,there was never a normal AFD, and page did not qualify for speedy deletion.Page does not violate WP:BLP and meets Wikipedia:Notability because he was the first man qurantined by the United States since 1963, and has a rare form of extensively drug resistent tuberculosis.Not just about him being in the news. Rodrigue 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse current redirect. Your statement seems to indicate the events are notable, the page redirects to an article discussing those events. I can't see how being unlucky enough to catch tuberculosis makes the person in and of themselves notable, nor how a worthwhile biographical article about the person can be written off the back of that. --pgk 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am saying that he is notable as well, not just the event.Him having a rare form tuberculosis, and also being the first man quarantined since 1963 is seperate from the story of him being on the plane possibly infecting other people, it establishes his notability. --pgk 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't sign comments as if they are from me please. And I disagree, you don't become notable for catching TB. Any notability is in the events, not the person. --pgk 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with current redirect. This is worth mentioning in another article but does not meet Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons, and our notability/bio guidelines. Being in the news because of a single unfortunate event like this does not mean someone merits a full article. FloNight 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect and maintain full protection for as long as the tuberculosis event is current. You say he's notable for being sick. I say that's nonsense.--Atlan (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, of course this was correct. I endorse it wholeheartedly. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Does anyone object to leaving this as a redirect and closing this review early? Speak now or forever hold your BLP violation. --W.marsh 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse current redirect as a practical solution, but people become notable both for what they themselves o and for what happens to them. DGG 00:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo, redirect gives more context. Guy (Help!) 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect, his notability stems entirely from the events described in 2007 tuberculosis scare, no need for him to have a separate article. the wub "?!" 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and unprotect. Redirect is foolish, comments above misunderstand our policies and guidelines concerning these issues. A7 was improper, protection even moreso. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse sensible, pragmatic and fair. Information kept, spurious pseudo-biography avoided.--Doc^g 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect Borderline A7 since he has been in the news but an article covering the notable event (rather than the not really notable carrier) is by far the best compromise. Eluchil404 21:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Deleting this was completely contradictory to our guidelines not to mention A7 was improperly used. --Oakshade 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect - it is currently impossible to write a biography of this person, as opposed to an article that does nothing but talk about his being sick with tuberculosis. So, we write an article about the incident. FCYTravis 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - from the person who speedied the article and protected the redirect. As far as I'm concerned, this is Crystal Gail Mangum all over again, and WP:BLP is quite clear. Mr. Speaker has done nothing notable to warrant a separate encyclopedia article; everything anyone needs to know about him is at 2007 tuberculosis scare or can be added there. —Angr 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse This seems a sensible compromise addressing verifiability and BLP (undue weight) concerns. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per not a newspaper. He's only notable for that, and anything outside that event for him is not notable, unless someone can find a case that he did that was. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was nominated for speedy deletion by ExtraDry using the db-bio criterion. The subject of the article has been dean of two medical schools, and is currently vice-chancellor of a major Australian university. Both the original writer of the article and I believe that this alone constitutes an assertion of notability. Beyond that in the article there were listings of positions held in Australian research councils and a note that the subject of the article was awarded the Centenary Medal in 2001. The criteria for awarding the centenary medal include "…those whose achievements in science, research or the arts made a notable impact at a national or international level." That means the Australian government seems to find him notable. David Newton 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy restored after reconsideration. --Tone 12:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This article was speedy deleted citing [G11], however as a minor contributor to the article (by uploading a image), according to a google search (minus wikipedia/forum links) this company is somewhat notable by being at least one of the major bus builders in Australia. I believe this article should've not been speedied (or at least contact the contributors of the article first!), but at worst should have at least been going through the WP:PROD, or even sent straight to AfD if one of the contributors felt that this subject was not notable --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the company meets some notability criteria, however, a great part of the article read like an advertisment. A rewriting would help. At the moment, the article is redirected to Surfside Buslines but I don't think it's a good idea sonce they are not the only user. --Tone 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• support recreation under original title This is an example of a redirect that destroys the original article. They are clearly a notable manufacturer and to redirect to one of their many customers is absurd. The cure for spammy articles is rewriting, not deletion or redirection. 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NWA Hawaii (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)}}

The article was speedy deleted citing WP:COI. At the time I was working to correct that and I requested this deletion review. Both the deleting and reviewing admin stated "no prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation that avoids WP:COI issues." I have no COI in the subject, and when I recreated the article as a short NPOV stub (pasted below) it was deleted and the page was protected.

The deleting editor also made an argument for notability in the prior review as a reason for deleting. This may be the case and I think the article should go through the regular AfD process, especially since NWA_Hawaii_United_States_Championship (an event conducted by NWA Hawaii) and Hawai'i Championship Wrestling (a competitor of similar stature) are currently WP articles. I left a talk page note for the deleting admin, User:JzG, 2 days ago requesting further information and have not received a rationale for deleting the stub and protecting the page.

The stub I added that is the subject of this review:

NWA Hawaii is an independent Pro Wrestling Promotion in the State of Hawaii sanctioned by the NWA.

(Header) Beginnings

The NWA's first Hawaii event, the original Mid Pacific Promotions, started in 1936. Collectively, the NWA affiliates in the State of Hawaii produced over 300 television episodes broadcast on local television during the 60s, 70s and early 80s.

(Footer is: Link to the site; professional wrestling stub) Antonrojo 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Simply being sanctioned is not a claim of notability. Where are the sources? Guy (Help!) 06:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that if the notability of an article is open to debate and the article does not fall under a WP:SPEEDY category, it should go through the AfD process. That would give editors enough time to judge whether there are references supporting notability. Antonrojo 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That would apply if it had been deleted. It wasn't. It was redirected. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Send to AfD for discussion any claim to notability defeats the purpose of a speedy. if a speedy for nn is honestly contested, it clearly is not unquestionably non-notable. Quibbling about the wording is an abuse of process, and defending a speedy in these circumstances is a waste of time.The place for the discussion is not here but at AfD. DGG 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)