Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 1

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

It does exist on the web, and not only that, it logically exists because of the existence of analingus. Finally, it was actually listed on the "requested articles" page. Besides, autofellatio already exists... Lilac Soul 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Meets no speedy criterion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Completely silly, and if you had any reliable sources, you could post them here. The way, the truth, and the light 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't speedy delete due to lack of sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • CSD G1, just like Autosodomy. Given the AfD for that article, and for the one below, it's not hard to know what one on this would get. The way, the truth, and the light 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How is it nonsense? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - no evidence that this could ever be more than a dicdef. Without sources fails WP:V. TerriersFan 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither are speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense, however, is. And that's exactly what this article was. It's an article about an impossible - or at leasy completely undocumented - made-up sex act. Abject nonsense of the most pointless kind. It's also arguably vandalism, since it's plainly trolling. Of course, ina project which runs on principles and intelligence instead of rules, the fact that nuking this festering heap of shit may not meet your extremely strict interpretation of the rules may not actually matter very much; DRV is a debate not a vote, explicitly so now, and "ZOMG! Process!" is probably going to be increasingly unpersuasive as that sinks in. So how about suggesting some reliable sources instead? That's the kind of argument that might be persuasive in a way that "being complete fiction is not a speedy criterion" is not. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If it "exists on the web", do you have references? Of course, from the context, I don't think many would want to check them, however.--Rayc 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: can't we call this an effective recreation of the properly deleted article. Autocunnilingus? I admit that it's not exactly the same, but I think it's pretty darn close. Frankly, I'm having a really hard time deciding whether I'm more upset by the abuse of admin privileges involved in many recent speedies (esp. A7 and BLP) or the policy wanking that goes on to try to overturn even the most absurd instances. I suggest a hearty round of trout-slapping for everyone involved! :) Xtifr _tälk 02:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn (and, if one wants, list at AfD, inasmuch as it's most likely to end up there in any event) per Jeff. We interpret our criteria for speedy deletion strictly, IAR notwithstanding, and it is quite plain that no criterion for speedy deletion obtained here. It may well be that AfD will counsel deletion here in view of the term's being non-notable, etc., but it is at AfD, not at DRV, at which a discussion as to notability/verifiability and an adduction of sources is to be had. Joe 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• ROFLMAO! "It exists on the web" alright - in Urban Dictionary. AfD it if you are seriously intent on wasting everyone's time, but this is clearly a made-up nonsense term for an all-but-impossible concept. 25 unique Googles, some of which are part of the attempt to get this crap on Wikipedia. Not even a protologism, just a piece of abject nonsense. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as complete bollocks unless verifiability is demonstrated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• speedy overturn the merits of the article are secondary. The primary purpose of DR is abuse of process. if there is a good faith dispute over whether a speedy criterion is relevant, speedy is not appropriate. Speedy is for things that no reasonable person could have doubt about it.. The objections here are sufficient to indicate that they can. The above arguments about whether this can or not not take place physically are not only irrelevant here, they would irrelevant at AFd. If people talk about it as a fantasy, it's every bit as much a subject as if it were real. WP includes fiction. WP includes fantasy. To what extent the term is the standard one is a reasonable question, but not relevant here. DGG 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• As with autocunnilingus, this is totally possible and I have seen it happen more than once. You've never seen a cat or dog licking him/herself? (Oh, and keep deleted.) DS 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and the only reason I'm not going out on a limb and speedy-closing this debate is that someone might file an RfAr about it, and this would look really silly on the list of arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. ElinorD (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This may not meet any speedy criterion, but that's why we ignore all rules and delete obvious nonsense like this. Insisting on process for process's sake is ridiculous. Krimpet (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this is lunacy. Jeff, pick your battles. Neil ╦ 17:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion Has no sources and is complete original research. Even if it were sourced it would make more sense at wiktionary than here. JoshuaZ 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Reason: ew. -N 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|2nd|3rd)

The autoanalingus page was requested on the "requested articles" page, and this is a natural follow-up. Besides, autofellatio already exists. Lilac Soul 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Apparently, a lot of it had to do with the belief that it wasn't real. That may not be true. A number of foriegn language sources come up as well, so I think there's plenty of information to give this a better look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Completely silly, and if you had any reliable sources, you could post them here. The way, the truth, and the light 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Already did. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's only an anecdote. Anyway, this article was deleted pursuant to an AfD that resulted in delete. The way, the truth, and the light 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - no evidence that this could ever be more than a dicdef. Without sources fails WP:V. TerriersFan 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: I see no procedural problems with the AfD, nor has any compelling new evidence been offered. This is not AfD round two! Xtifr _tälk 01:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Pace Jeff, I don't see any new information the presence of which would affect the disposition of the AfD, and I certainly see no procedural failure in the closure of the AfD. Should foreign language sources prove more fruitful, restoration would surely be in order, and I expect that this should quite properly be userfied for anyone interested in producing an article that might address some of the concerns raised at AfD. Joe 04:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no way this could be more than a dicdef even with the link given by Jeff, which doesn't help much if at all, as it doesn't do anything for verifiability. --Coredesat 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, albeit reluctantly. As an editor on the article after a prior AFD I restructured it and did my best to source it as a debunking, or at least as a bunking of the fact that nobody has produced photographic or professionally attested evidence it exists (hey, we have Loch Ness Monster ...). Unfortunately, the only really reliable source for that was a single series of brief coverage by a Time Out New York sex columnist, not really enough for an article. On the next AFD I believe I plead no contest. If something existed to properly source this article, believe me, as an editor I would have found and included it, but after several months there's nothing. Again, I wish we could have a debunking, but there isn't even material enough for that. Unless something more substantial shows up, I don't see how this can be encyclopedic (or at least, encyclopedic enough to survive the repeated AFDs thrown at it). I have neither a procedural objection to the deletion, nor "new information". --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It is only to be wished that closing admins would always address the discussion and articulate their reasonment as clearly as in this case. Stammer 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Arooj Aftab is the pioneer of music education in Pakistan.she has won Berklee College of Music's first Steve Vai online scholarship.she has set up the revolutionary idea of acquire music education in a backward country like pakistan.fighting all hurdles of the closed up society,she became the first female musician from Pakistan to pursue formal education in music.she holds great importance in this regard.i therefore request to have the page undeleted. Maaz.pk 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - trainee musician and the article fails to assert any real notability. Nominator has not provided additional sources. If she goes on to make a name for herself then I should be delighted to support an article. TerriersFan 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• ok i'm fine with that. Can it atleast be unrestricted? Please! I beg you! I will not attempt to re-publish it I promise. If I do,you certainly can restrict it again. But please unrestrict it.Maaz.pk 10:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no restriction on recreation once she meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. TerriersFan 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow! Thankyou guys. Thankyou so much. For unrestricting it. You have no idea what that means to me. Thanks alot.Maaz.pk 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|2nd|3rd)

I strongly disagree that this is a WP:BLP violation, even if the subject thinks it is. Almost all sources are either WP:RS or clearly from the subject of the article, except his real identity. If we excise all information about the person himself, it's a notable Internet meme, which would make it an acceptable article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and list at AfD. In fact, the AfD is possibly running right now, so undelete it, speedy close this, and hash it out there so we can be done with it. I saw the article - it wasn't unsourced, it wasn't poorly sourced, but it may not have been appropriate. That's not for one person to decide, or another to wheel war over, for that matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree this does not come under BLP. This is another example of people who deliberate campaign in the most effective ways to make themselves publicly known within a certain circle, and then object to an objective article describing what they have done--conceivably as a way to increase the publicity. A highly visible fight with WP over the article has that effect--it amounts to gaming. As an editing concern, the details of his personal life are not necessary, and soime other sections may be over-detailed. There are true BLP problems in WP, but this is not one of them. DGG 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Before people go too far overboard here, there actually is an AfD in progress: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination). I suggest that we simply let that AfD run without the article being restored, because this is effectively what would happen if the matter gets settled in DRV, as has been happening lately. Mangojuice^talk 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's extremely difficult to run an AfD without knowing what people are working with, and without the ability to fix any problems that might come up. Thus the need for it to be undeleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I can see your point. But surely (1) the debate shouldn't be taking place in two separate locations, (2) there are also some non-dismissable reasons for the article to be deleted during the debate, and (3) at least at AfD people will focus on the product and not the process. Mangojuice^talk 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No, it shouldn't take place in two forums. And, really, the deleted state is due to wheel-warring - even the original deleting administrator brought it to AfD. And really, at the AfD, it's hard to focus on the product if the product is nonexistent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. There's already an AfD going on, and although I have always thought this article should be deleted, it's clear that others don't given that it survived two AfD's already. The way, the truth, and the light 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This man is completely non-notable and the entry was utterly non-encyclopaedic. If anybody bothers to ask themselves what he is supposed to be notable for, the case could not be clearer. According to the opening of the entry itself, he was a guy who made some posts to the internet and said that the universe is a single plutonium atom. This does not establish notability, and there is absolutely nothing else he is notable for. His supposed "theories" had no adherents, nor any publications. The entry existed only for those who thought it amusing to discuss the life and ideas of a person who to all appearances simply suffered from a mental illness. Furthermore, the subject on more than one occasion stated he wished to have the entry deleted. When he edited the entry or commented on the talk page, he was mocked if not abused. None of this was necessary, because there is no reason for this article to exist. It, and the talk page, should be consigned to the wastebin for the good of everybody and Wikipedia. FNMF 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Your characterization of the talk page discussions is not entirely accurate. AP posted many times on the talk page, primarily to insult WP editors and lambast them for "violating WP policies", specifically a non-existent policy about nicknames. All of the responses to AP made by WP editors were fairly cordial. If you consult the actual discussions, you'll see that AP's only reason for deletion of the article was because he objected to the nickname "Arky", which itself was well cited in a published source. — Loadmaster 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• I suggested a couple of ways forward with this, one is to run an AfD with the article deleted (i.e. discuss the sources), another is to have the history behind an AfD notice and a very short stub, another is to userfy and rework. But a biography, identifying by name and date of birth a man of questionable mental state who is known exclusively for being derided on Usenet, sourced from student newspapers and Usenet posts, is such an absurdly bad idea that leaving the whole gory thing there while we stare intently at our navels for a week did not seem terribly sensible to me. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your first instinct was correct: summarily delete. I don't see anybody attempting to actually establish notability and encyclopaedic-ness for the article. There is a reason for that: there is none. Including a stubbed version is simply an invitation to further problems later on, and, as has been said, there is nothing to say in a stubbed version. Furthermore, the equally dire talk page would remain. FNMF 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Its at AFD What's the point of this discussion then? If there are questions about the outcome, then that is the right time to bring this back here. forked discussions are unhelpful. Go argue at the AFD please folks.Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment'. I thought that the proper response to an out-of-process (and, IMHO, improper) deletion was DRV, rather than a new AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The trouble with that is that we could end up with different outcomes at different fora and then we have to have an argument about which one to apply. Alternatively, the AFD gets suspended because of the DRV and the DRV decided to relist at AFD. Better to keep to one at a time and save on the time and energy - its not like we don't already have other concerns right now. I'm really not sure what is correct but we stand a risk of making complete fools of ourselves over a process. Lets close this and revisit once the AFD has been completed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Wikipedia (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does not want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Wikipedia should be proud of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ElinorD (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh ... Daniel Brandt? The way, the truth, and the light 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per ElinorD. I'm afraid this process wonking is at the point of being disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - this horrific stuff is long past its sell-by-date. --Doc^g 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is "let consensus form on an article that has been here for years" process wonking? An AfD is now in progress. It has less than 5 dfays to run. Let it run. If the consensus is to delete, and nothing unusual is done in the AfD, I may disagree, but i won't try to overturn it, and I rather doubt that anyoen else will either. Why the huge rush here? What is to fear from a normal AfD process, one that is already ongoing, where you and thsoe who agree with you are in a better position to make your arguments on why this should he deleted? DES ^(talk) 00:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I, too, think think the article in it's form is not enough to survive AfD. However, letting an AfD run without the article in question keeps the editors from actively improving the article to the point of satisfying actional concerns. In fact, it survived it's last AfD in just such a manner. Holding a AfD without the article (minus liable concerns, of course) is a bad thing. Plus, it just gives some people a valid argument as to why "another" DRV on this article should be held. --Rayc 01:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Temporarily undelete with the content in the history (which google doesn't search) so that people discussing at the ongoing AfD can see what they are discussing, and then close this DRV, to allow consensus to form at the AfD. If that decides to delete, so be it. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Do people voting in AfDs normally read various different versions from the history? Surely a single cache (as long as it didn't cache a badly-vandalised version) should be sufficient to help people make up their mindes? ElinorD (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Temporarily undelete so that the people at the AfD can actually see what they are debating. You think they're would be a rule that you can't have both the AfD and the DRV open at the same time.... Or have an AfD while the article is deleted. And whats up with all these inappropriate bio-speedies lately? If something is crud, AfD will take care of it.--Rayc 00:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion and stop with the process wonking. The speedy delete was correct. This was a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are usually wrong. Could be not this time I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The errors in the above statement, which was duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination), have been pointed out there. Uncle G 05:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete this page and get rid of BLP before it destroys Wikipedia. Enough. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, because it's not like that policy was introduced by Jimbo in response to the biggest IRL shitstorm ever to hit Wikipedia, is it? Guy (Help!) 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - So let me get this straight: This guy sent letters to the editor, posted on Usenet and received a one-sentence mention in a Discover magazine article. Would someone like to let me know how this person meets WP:BIO, let alone WP:BLP? FCYTravis 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You appear to have entirely skipped over one source, despite it being the very first listed and the one that is cross-linked to the article the most. Uncle G 05:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, so he was (briefly and falsely) considered a suspect in a murder case. And...? FCYTravis 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Temporarily undelete per DES. Don't get me wrong, I think this article should be deleted, but you can't debate an AfD in the dark. so the current AfD can be completed. TerriersFan 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • With a recently-deleted article which had existed for some time, it's always possible to get a cache of it with google.[1] ElinorD (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and stub. Cancel the AfD. Merge to new article (Notable) Usenet personalities as suggested elsewhere. Such an article being a more encyclopedia version perhaps of material already touched on at Alt.usenet.kooks (14:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) See if it can be built in a fashion that does not violate WP:BLP. Personally I am a deletionist when it comes to this sort of article (hence my 4th AfD on Barbara Schwarz) but I know that others think differently. Stub it and see if anything can be done with it. I do think that the fellow, to a much greater degree than Schwarz, was looking for internet "fame" or what-have-you. He seems to have been looking to get noticed so should not object so hard to having been noticed by the community he addressed, a community that is well-represented on Wikipedia. --Justanother 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per ElinorD and Lar. There's no need to keep this around, it violates WP:BLP, and continuing the AFD is process-wonking. --Coredesat 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• As explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination), the people handling the e-mail complaints system have failed in this instance. Uncle G 05:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (copied from the AfD):

The book that was used as the source is The Dartmouth Murders by Eric Francis (St. Martin's True Crime Library, April 2005, ISBN 0312982313). You can use Amazon.com's "Search Inside" feature to read the relevant pages. The book is about the Dartmouth Murders. It has one short chapter about Archimedes Plutonium, with no other mentions. I think the following extracts from the its first, fourth and last paragraphs give an accurate impression:

The rumor mill surrounding the Zantop case was now in full swing ... Then, a week into February, the X-Files angle materialized in the form of a man named Archimedes Plutonium. ... The police saw it as an irritating but necessary detour, and turned their attention back to the [other] tips from the public."

I see only a few pages of light relief in a True Crime book. Does this count as a Reliable Source at BLP level? (That's a non-rhetorical question.) CWC 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Unless someone finds much better sources than the Francis book or USENET posts, we simply cannot have an acceptable biographical article about this guy. "With great power high Google rank comes great responsibility." Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for cruelty.
  On the other hand, it might be possible to cover {Archimedes Plutonium the USENET phenomenon}, as distinct from {Archimedes Plutonium the real person} in a longer article about famous USENET personalities and have Archimedes Plutonium redirect there. CWC 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. Place him in context in a USENET personalities article and redirect. We should not and cannot have a biography of him, but we can describe his activities on USENET. FCYTravis 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is a splendid idea. There have already been a few deletions from USENET#Usenet personalities, and this would be one way to handle it, given the new de-emphasis of biography as a way to handle certain types of temporary or limited notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I too love this idea. Let's start an article on (Notable) Usenet personalities and let's put poor Barbara Schwarz there too, a woman that has many time begged to have her article removed and feels that it harms her. She is kept captive here mainly by the efforts of our embedded "anti-Scientology" haters club. --Justanother 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Excellent idea. Can we copy information about the persona from this article without violating the GFDL? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, we can, as long as there's a redirect. FCYTravis 17:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agreee that this is a fine solution. Herostratus 16:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. An article that survived three AfDs is deleted out-of-process and then sent to AfD, before ending up here. This is a farce. Janitor, mind your keys. Stammer 09:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete, and let the Afd discussion take its course. Catchpole 10:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: AfD speedy closed, suggests discussion here --h2g2bob (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist at AfD. Aren't BLP violations normally stubbed rather than deleted? It looked fairly well referenced. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• I added this to AfD shortly before the AfD was closed: "I am in two minds about this one. I have known about AP for far longer than I have known about Daniel Brandt and as a result he seems more notable to me. However I have not looked at the article for a long time but I can not do so now as it was deleted before this AfD was opened. I do not think that arguments for speedy deletion have been satisfactory argued, so I think this article should be restored so we can debate it properly". I continue to support that view. I have seen the Google cache, but it should be easily available to all on WP to decide. AP is a notable Usenet personality with hundreds if not thousands of posts. He is certainly odd and maybe he is mentally unstable, but his impact on Usenet is significant. I think we should talk about him somehow. --Bduke 11:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I am unsure about the reliability of the sources, and considering they throw someone into a negative light I don't believe that this article in its current state is necessary on WP. Viridae^Talk 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note. I've done a protected history delete under the AfD notice. If anyone objects.... Well, I'm going to be off for a few hours, anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Justanother's idea of a new Usenet personalities article being created to hold a few sentences for each "notable" Internet user. It also keeps the door open for expanding any particular one into its own article (which may or may not be the case for AP). — Loadmaster 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete to say that USENET posts of a person are an unreliable source, who is famous FOR his usenet posting, is laughable. Furthermore the implications of Dartmouth firing this guy for free speech reasons are more than enough notability to allow for an article. Closing the AFD and sending this to DRV was horrible process-tinkering. -N 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete The deletion occurred without appropriate discussion after two previous AfDs failed. After deletion, a new AfD was created, but the result was speedy delete. The whole thing seems rather ad hoc to me and the fact that AP doesn't want the page seems utterly irrelevant. Phiwum 16:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the AfD was closed out of process. In my view it should be reopened but I don't immediately see how to do it. :-( TerriersFan 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per nominator. A large proportion of the material in the article is sourced to the subject of the article himself. Autobiographical publications are considered reliable sources by WP:V, whatever the means of publication (even if posted to Usenet). If some other material in the article is sourced to non-reliable sources, that material should be deleted, not the entire article. I personally believe that the material in The Dartmouth should be considered reliable for the purposes of this article, although I will acknowledge that this is debatable and therefore it may be best to delete material that references this source. JulesH 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: So the AfD ended with restore history behind tag and send to DRV? Anyone else think it's strange that the roles of DRV and AfD on this got switched? Oh, and I support the emerging consensus of merge to Usenet personalities on this one.--Rayc 19:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• restore and discuss at AfD The afd was closed out of process on the basis that "discussion should take place at the open deletion review and continue here only if we have an article to discuss." That was about as wrong a closure as you can have--it was backwards, as Rayc observed. Rather, the Del Rev discussion should have been closed until the AfD had finished so we would at least know what decision was being appealed. As I said there, there is no BLP concern: this is a person who has devoted his life to being noticed for his absurdity, the outside world has therefore noticed him. He has deliberately put himself in the public sphere, and if he is trying to get us to discuss it further, that may be a part of his campaign as well. He may be as absurd as he likes, but we should be objective. DGG 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment DGG, I apologize for being bold and choosing between trainwrecks. It was six one and half a dozen the other which one to close. Primarily, I felt it was absurd to have an open AFD when the article was not viewable, whereas the DRV could still procedurally move forward. (Also, as a non-administrator, I don't know whether I have any right to declaratively close a DRV.) I expected my closure might be reverted, but I certainly didn't mean to preclude any discussion. Believe me when I say that AFD is where this should have been discussed in the first place.--Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I just reverted your close as the article has been restored (as history), so we can properly look at it now. The way, the truth, and the light 05:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Call for speedy close of the DRV, in that case. Even if this one is temporary. I see no value in simultaneous competing procedures. --Dhartung | Talk 07:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wireless Zero Configuration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A combination of admin negligence and copyvio abuse killed this page.

• Note The user who marked the page as copyvio has been contacted. Sr13 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question What exactly are we being asked to do here? If it was a copyvio its not really open to debate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - The Answers.com mirror does not show a copyvio. It has seems to have been erroneously deleted as nominator suggests. - hahnchen 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Afraid of Monsters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted because it failed notability, however after some research I think it might be notable enough. See User:Pizzahut2/Afraid of Monsters. Pizzahut2 10:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If notability can be established with mutliple, independent and non-trivial mentions from reliable sources, there should be no problem with the article. You could create the article in your user space (e.g. User:Pizzahut2/Afraid of Monsters) and ask for comments - Tiswas^(t) 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Article created. --Pizzahut2 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to reopen the discussion to delete this. Sorry if this is the wrong place. The last discussion was about a year ago and ended with the point that the article has nothing in it but stuff would be added. It's been a year, the article is still empty, the external link goes to a 404 error. I would recommend it be deleted and replaced with a redirect page to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi Fanra 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• A redirect sounds fine to me, but you don't need a deletion review to do that. Just a simple note on the talk page would be all you need. Wickethewok 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as merge (the link) and redirect - I don't see any point in ruminating about this one. BTW there are three or four other articles on this guy's works that should have the same action. TerriersFan 03:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I only noticed this now. I lack JStor access, but this refers to the book as a "representative work" of one of the concepts, I've tracked down an academic review of the book but I have some more research to do on it before I can really rely on it, and it is cited a lot. I don't think a merge is a good idea, but this isn't the forum for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

He is VERY notable, as he has garnered many fans, performed at shows nationwide and internationally, and gained many rivals nationwide. He is even signed to ColliPark Music, the label run by super-producer Mr. ColliPark, best known for his work with the Ying Yang Twins. *Undelete, or at least Unprotect Tom Danson 07:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Question Can you point us to some Independant reliable sources to help us assess his notability as a musician? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete/Unprotect - allow an AFD. Appears to have notability, at least by quick ghits method. If something's been deleted this many times, it's quite possible that consensus is to allow such an article. At least give people a chance to review it at AFD. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Picaroon (Talk) 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is demonstrated. No, being persistent about recreating your vanity bio does not mean it merits an AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk)
• List at AfD. Enoguh notability being asserted by the nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the last recreation was a joke bio on one Kadeem Roper and other than the guy being a 16 year old rapper I can glean nothing encyclopaedic from the other recreations. It is the responsibility of the creator to source notability and he/she hasn't. I have found nothing in the Ghits to indicate compliance with WP:MUSIC. The deleting admin acted properly and if the appellant wants the article undeleted then he must provide sources. I am against listing at AfD as a fishing trip. TerriersFan 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the nom asserts notability, but this is DRV: he will need to prove it with reliable sources. --Coredesat 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No assertion of notability in any of the 5 most recent version that I could see. If the nom would like to create an article on the subject, do it in your userspace and then ask a friendly admin to move it pover for you when you think it is ready - I will do it if you want (If I am happy with it - referenced etc) Viridae^Talk 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no sources offered. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse No sign of the sources I asked for. Article can't therefore pass WP:V. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question, under current notability guidelines, is it the act of signing with a major label or recording a song with a major label that asserts notability? Rayc 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - no; under the standards of WP:MUSIC you need, for example, to release two CDs on a major label or have a charted hit. TerriersFan 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)