Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 27

BYU 100 Hour Board (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ([[S
pecial:Undelete/BYU 100 Hour Board|restore]]|cache|AfD)

Like many other articles, this was subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and protected from recreation. The first version of the article was deleted for the same reason, but the second article provided ample evidence of notability, scope, and significance. The admin appears to have interpreted the 100 Hour Board to be a cork notice board rather than an online service similar to Google Answers. The Board is cited in multiple print media sources and websites, including Wikipedia itself. This open letter to Wikipedia details more articles in print media and online citations. Overturn as improper speedy deletion, or alternatively, list on AfD for proper discussion. - Peter 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why on earth would we want to have an article on a student website? What an utter waste of time and server resources. I guess that if you had edited slightly more widely you may not be quite so keen on an article on a student website, even if it can trace its history right back to an actual noticeboard. It's still not clear what the assertion of notability is supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Criticizing Peter solely on the basis of his editing history is a cheap ad hominem shot. It's illustrative of the high emotions running on both sides of this issue, and that's why we would like a more thorough review of the article's merit by people who might be able to look at the situation a little more dispassionately. -- Soren.harward 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Are all those print media from BYU newspaper itself? If so, that presents an obvious problem in independent media covering it. Why does this deserve a separate article? It should work just fine as a redirect, or a sentence in the BYU article at best.-Wafulz 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment I advise editors commenting here to read the open letter, which says, in part:

The 100 Hour Board has regularly appeared as the focus of news articles since 1999, most frequently in BYU's daily newspaper, the Daily Universe. In 2006, the Daily Universe began to publish a periodic column in its print and online publication with select questions and answers from the 100 Hour Board. A list of articles mentioning the 100 Hour Board is available here. The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT

The 100 Hour Board is frequently cited by third party sources on the Internet. Due to its affiliation with Brigham Young University, the 100 Hour Board often fields questions about the practices and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the university's sponsoring institution, which are not found in other easily-accessible sources. Some sites that refer to the 100 Hour Board include Boxxet.com, QDnow, and ProvoPulse. Wikipedia itself cites the 100 Hour Board as a source in multiple articles related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 100 Hour Board has an established reputation as a unique source for difficult-to-find information on any subject, not just BYU- and LDS-related topics. This makes the inclusion of the 100 Hour Board article on Wikipedia crucial for users who find information from the 100 Hour Board and want to analyze the source of that information.

• • I'm not sure if this is enough to pass an AfD, but i think that perhaps it takes this out of the A7 speedy delete zone. There is more relevant info in the rest of the letter. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The process wonk in me wants this taken to AfD, but that seems like unnecessary processcruft, given the current consensus to either delete articles on student groups or merge them into the articles on the schools with which they are affiliated. If student groups with decades of history don't merit their own articles, I can't imagine a noticeboard (physical or electronic) surviving at AfD, even if it does have (non-independent) sources. No objections to a line or two in the article on the school. Heather 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Notye that fully indpendant sources, both print and online, are claimed above, although not actually cited. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • References are in the original open letter, but weren't transferred when the text was blockquoted above. -- Soren.harward 12:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Restore This article has significant content about a censorship controversy with BYU; as there have been a number of such, and BYU is one of the universities which continues to claim such rights. Discussing university censorship of student opinion is significant. In the latest version, this is unsourced, and it needs to be sourced to show the significance of the controversy.

  the administration of BYUSA began to take issue with some of the content on the Board. They had received a complaint about an answer regarding a faculty member and wanted to moderate all content on the Board. ... a 100 Hour Board writer posted a controversial response regarding homosexuality without approval from the editors. When BYUSA administrators investigated the initial complaint, they discovered the unapproved answer and other content to which they objected. In response, BYUSA had a network administrator take down the whole site.

Agreed, most student organization websites are not significant, but the few that are should have articles. DGG 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG above about removing the local-interest only content, and sourcing the material on the censorship controversy. I also agree that being a student-run organization does not, in and of itself, mean that a separate article is superfluous. In particular, a site that receives over 70% of its visits (see the open letter) from outside its university's state clearly has a much wider audience than its own students. Disclosure: I am a current writer for the 100 Hour Board. Peppergrower 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD as per DGG. AfD should make sure that proper sourcing is added and verified to establish clear notability, or else opt for deletion. I urge that if this goes to AfD it not be closed early, to allow time for sources to be inserted. Alternatively, don't send to afd and check in two weeks or so -- afd then if not clearly notable based on sources. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• If a deletion is likely to be controversial, it should not be speedy deleted, but rather sent to AfD. I vote that the speedy delete be overturned and that the article be sent to AfD—the speedy deletion is clearly controversial. The Jade Knight 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I quote (from WP:SD):
  • "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum."
• And under deletion #7 for articles:
  • "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. "
• According to Wikipedia policy, the Speedy Deletion is clearly inappropriate, and the article belongs at AfD. The Jade Knight 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Fuck process". It's a student website, coverage is only in student newspapers (which is not a claim to notability). And doubly fuck process in the face of blatant offsite solicitation (by the editor who created the article and has almost no other contributions to the project, of course) plus total lack of independence of the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If I had said "fuck process" in my RfA, it wouldn't have succeeded, and rightly so. DGG 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually it is untrue that "coverage is only in student newspapers": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU, and not student run. DES ^(talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - There comes a point where process and rules become nothing but a hindrance. So what if it's sent to AfD? It'll be deleted, and we'll be right back where we are now, but seven days later. Sean William @ 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per JzG and Sean. The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper. Without more there is no way this would pass AfD. Citation in Wikipedia itself does not establish notability. There may be room for coverage of this in WP, just not in its own article. The "we" who "would like a more thorough review of the article's merit" should, after carefully reviewing WP:COI, may want to pursue this alternative course per WP:GETONWITHIT. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually it is untrue that "The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU. DES ^(talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  I assume you are refering to this: The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT. A single mention in a local newspaper still does not come close to notability. Student newspapers are usually independent of the universities at which they are based and usually cover the organizations on campus. AfDs have not considered such coverage as establishing the notability of the organizations, however.

  But guess what? Even if the "mention" in the Daily Herald is actually several sentences of coverage and even if a second source can somehow be found that the message board members themselves did not know about, and even if, based on these sources, a stub article can be created, it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU. Rather than burning hours on processwankery, it seems better simply to get on with writing that material. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  "mentioned" might mean a single trivial reference, or it might mean multiple, non-trivial stories. I don't know, and it appears from your comment, neither do you. The language of the letter is not precise enough to easily find the citations, if they are there. If this went to an AfD, those supporting it would be able to find such citations and add them to the article, if they exist. Then it would be possible to intelligently discuss if the Board is notable enough for a separate article. You say that "it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU" You may well be right. I have often favored fewer, larger articles over more, smaller ones (note my merge of Aubrey-Maturin series several years ago, which some now want to undo). But that isn't always the best course, and i don't think we can say that it "undoubtedly" is best in this case without the opportunity for all editors to see the articles in question, and to work on them, adding properly sourced content and challenging improper or unforced content. A merge could be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and a consensus formed. Obviously some of those who comment here do doubt that such a merge is the proper course. And "hours" would not be burned on this DRV if those supporting the speedy deletion of this page had simply allowed it to be recreated and put to the test at an AfD, possibly after it had a little time to develop. You assume that such an article could never be anything beyond a stub, but I see no foundation for such an assumption. it might not be, in which case a merge would probably be a good idea, but how can you know in advance. Speedy deletes are supposed to be for uncontroversial cases where it is virtually sure that not even a valid stub will result. They are not supposed to be AfD in advance, with the admin guessing what will or won't happen at an afd that s/he doesn't permit to be held. Neither is DRV supposed to be AfD in advance, with people guessing what might be found and added to an article at a later point, while no one can actually edit the article, and non-admins can't even see what it used to look like. DES ^(talk) 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  The open letter was puffing the board as much as possible. If it had truly been the subject of multiple stories in the Herald, it certainly would have mentioned this. The letter's co-signers included two people who are both members of the board and Wikipedia editors and are thus in a good position to know both the sources that cover the organization and the notability guidelines. Yet even they cannot seem to produce any independent sources on this board. The main reason why this article cannot be more than a stub (or even less) currently is the lack of sources. If the Daily Herald mentioned the board, it did not do so by name. Various Google News archive searches only show reprinted stories from the campus newspaper. When the conclusion is this bleeding obvious, I see no reason to waste hours at an AfD that looks likely to turn into puppet theater. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• List on AfD I read the article a few times, and I may have saw some notability. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. "Fuck process" has no validity once someone objects to the action. Admins are not infallible and their judgment is not beyond question. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Notable Station Seddonism 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In the original deletion discussion , that I was not aware of at the time, the main argument for deletion seemed to be based on the error that the station started in 2001, when it is actually one of the oldest in the country, and that a user believed that no student radio station merited inclusion, and on assumptions by users. While broadcasting on LPFM, this is to a significant geographical area (not the several metres mentioned), as well as online, and on regular citywide broadcasts to a potential audience of a large City. Membership of the station alone is in the region of 50-ish people each year made up of the current students. Many alumni (which include, apparently, Thom Yorke) have gone on to work in media professions (this could be an area for expansion). This NME student guide to Exeter University gives massive prominance to Xpression FM, which reflects its standing as a significant part of campus life. A 360 degree photo of Studio 1 was recently carried out, which should help show this isn't an operation run out of a bedroom. On this Wikipedia entry this is a group of some of the many student radio stations that have not been deleted. I am not arguing that they should - rather that this station seems to have been singled out. In addition there are pages for apparently hundreds of campus radio stations worldwide. Perhaps the article could be tiedied up - but this can't be done if it is deleted. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work as a useful resource - not every article is going to be of interest to every person.

• Comment. Whether or not other articles are deleted isn't relevant- you can't expect a group of editors to find them all and immediately list them all for deletion.-Wafulz 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close discussion, no arguments presented for overturn. Corvus cornix 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, My arguument is that the basis for deleting this page was on incorrect assumptions (station broadcasts only within a few metres, is was only founded in 2001), and seems to have been singled out for deletion by someone with no knowledge of the subject, on the basis that as a student radio station it can't be important, when there are apparently hundreds of other, probably less notable, student radio stations with their own pages.

Seddonism 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, no problems with process asserted. Consensus is that student radio stations (like other student groups) do not merit their own articles. Heather 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong--about that statement: The standard was and is that student organizations and radio stations are usually NN; some few will be, but the article has to demonstrate it. There is no overall class of object about which it can be safely said that none of them can possibly be notable.

Right--about the article. But they did not show significance in the article, saying only that it was now on the regular broadcast MWBand., so

• Endorse close, but not speedy--once a discussion has started, it should continue according to the rules & to avoid further arguments after the fact.DGG 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In principal DGG is right. But the smart-aleck in me reacts bady to absolutes, like "There is no overall class of object about which it can be safely said that none of them can possibly be notable." I defy anyone to suggest how an article about a particular shoelace (not sheelaces as a class) could ever be notable. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hoped for a challenge. Good choice, let me think. If I can come up with something, it'll be on your talk page. DGG 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You're right, of course; I should have said that "Consensus is that student radio stations (like other student groups) do not merit their own articles unless independantly notable"--which this has no indication of being. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Radio for similar discussion. Heather 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see not a single !vote in the AfD for keep. You can't complain that the staton was "singled out" when not a single person who discussed it at the AfD felt it was notable. Corvus cornix 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse No one seems to be plausibly defending actual notability in this case. However, allow recreation if someone later finds evidence indicating specific individual notability of this particular station. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notability

• The station is one of the oldest campus stations in the UK, celebtating it's 30th birthday in 2006. Unfortunately much of that history is in pre web days so i can't bombard you with links.
• Local station Gemini FM has such high regard for Xpression that they give some of their own air time for Xpression produced programmes.
• They are partnered by prestigious station, XFM
• Xpression have in the past produced segments for Radio 1, the UKs biggest radio station for young people.
• They have one numerous awards, including Guardian Media awards.
• Alumni Include Radiohead's Thom Yorke, Formula 1 cmommentator Ted Kravitz, BBC presenter Daniel Lawrence, Radio 1 presenter Emma B , Metro Radio's Tony Horne just off the top of my head.

Correction to the above: "now on the regular broadcast MWBand" - this is how it started out, but is now on permanent LPFM.

In my opinion there seemed to be only a couple of informed comments in the original AFD, such as from "tdg1986", the rest were mostly blanket statement against student radio, or errors about how old it is, how far it broadcasts etc etc.

Anyway, I can't see myself winning you over - if anyone can provide me with the text from the page before it was deleted then that would be appreciated.

(Seddonism 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

• Endorse closure I'll move the content to User:Seddonism/Xpression FM to be worked on... — Scientizzle 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It doesn't really matter what any admin thinks or where it is, T1 does not apply to userspace. End of argument. It just doesn't. Also nominating:

• User:Blast san/userboxes/User Anti-Zionist
• User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The argument that T1 is for template space and not user space when dealing with items that are very clearly templates is applying far too legalistic an interpretation of "template space". ^demon elaborates on this in the closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy and I agree 100%. Userboxes are templates, used as templates, and should be subjected to the same scrutiny as templates in template space. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That speedy closure was utterly inappropriate, as there was not likely to be consensus on the issue. In addition, the consensus built around WP:UBM as well as what Jimbo has said implies that yes, a template in user space is actually quite different to an "officially sanctioned" template in template space, and WP:USER, not T1, applies. —Ashley Y 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think you are applying double standards here - Templatespace templates are intended to be used in Wikipedia and Article mainspace - thus they have to be NPOV and all that. Userboxes in userspace are solely intended to be used in userspace and rules there are much more relaxed. Basically you are applying the hard non-userspace rules on userspace, which is quite counter-intuitive, so say the least. 84.145.213.91 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at MfD Speedying an userspace userbox once again with T1, even though that one is already listed at MfD. No, that's not how the thing works. Let the MfD run and see what the community says. If they agree it should be deleted, ok, if not, then don't delete it. Last time I saw something very interesting on the top of the page for WP:CSD: "...In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule keep votes that might otherwise occur in AfD..." I think attempting to extend T1 to userspace is just that. And the community does not agree - see the results of the attempted widening of T1, the failed U4, and the DRVs which again and again overturn those speedy deletions. On a personal note, I find this usage of T1 on userspace distruptive. 84.145.213.91 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — 84.145.213.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• It's hard to tell if it was truely divisive and inflammatory without acutally seeing the template. --Android Mouse 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Try clicking on the cache. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, in that case, I think it should be restored. I don't think stating one's opinion is inflammatory. Assuming good faith, the burning flag was probably added as a political statement, not necessarily an insult. --Android Mouse 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Classic T1. Endorse deletion. It even has a little picture of a flag on fire. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn T1 by its terms applies to tmeplate space only, and Jimbo has endorsed thsi restriction on it. This is soemwhat legalistic, but IMO any restriction on the use of T1 is a Good Thing. (Abolishing T1 would be better.) Recent discussion at WT:CSD show strong opposition to extending T1 to userspace, or anyhting like T1. DES ^(talk) 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Templates in user space still have to conform to template standards, and the title alone is divisive & has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. -- Kesh 07:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Same could really be said with most all userboxes. --Android Mouse 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't shed a tear if those were deleted too. I used to enjoy them, but after working here I while I've found there's no point to 90% of userboxes and deleted most of them from my page. --- Kesh 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - clearly divisive and inflammatory. If it looks like a template and functions like a template then it is a template. Polemic doesn't belong in an encyclopedia that strives for neutrality. MER-C 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions, divisive, inflammatory, and polemic. These are essentially templates even though they are not in the template space. Just because something is in userspace doesn't mean it can ignore policies and guidelines. --Coredesat 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. To quote IronGargoyle's closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination), "Expansions of CSD T1 to include userspace transclusions have, however, been clearly rejected by the community and I must take this into account when considering the arguments for speedy deletion per CSD T1." See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist. —Ashley Y 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

User:Kurykh closed AfD2 as delete, but I believe there was no consensus and that every delete argument was sufficiently refuted. The closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means (there are concurrent discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT). It's therefore important to explain exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I interpret the entire discussion as being based on personal judgment calls, resulting in a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines. More people holding one opinion in this case is not indicative of consensus; consider that AfD2 is merely an extended rehash of AfD1 (no consensus) with a different sample of editors.

Kurykh told me that some of the keep arguments border on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was referring to a fundamental property common among all encyclopedia articles, and I used as basic examples lists that are not even in popular culture articles. If there's any legitimate application of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is it. See my final paragraph below for an illegitimate application.

The article certainly looks like a laundry list, but the format of the article is not an inherent fault: it can be converted to prose, and any "trivial" mentions can easily be removed. Throughout the debate, I repeatedly encouraged other editors who take issue with this to remove any unsourced items, which should take one minute at most (I did not do so because I was continually working to source those items, and removing them myself then adding them back later would defeat any chance of collaboration). No one did remove the "junk", but still a brief glance will allow anyone to see that a decently-sized portion of text would remain even if they are removed, a good size for an article that has no need for merging.

Some editors advocated such a selective merge, which would require a redirect and does not constitute a bolded delete. The closing statement also implies that a merge is possible. However, as pointed out in the AfD, merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary given many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with WP:SUMMARY.

Note: The following paragraph is obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it to argue for restoration, merely pointing out a relevant practical consequence.
If consensus here is to endorse closure, I urge there to be a community decision on whether to delete most if not all of the hundreds upon hundreds of in popular culture articles, because most if not all of them (including the featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc) take a format similar to this article. While previous attempts have been shot down, it's seriously inefficient and creepy to systematically an AfD on each and everyone of them, as the same arguments are repeated each time with no regard for the specifics of each article. This will also prevent people from nominating an article until it gets deleted. For instance, there's no essential difference between the nomination statements of AfD1 and AfD2 by the same user. –Pomte 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse of this closure, but I agree with Pomte in saying that there wasn't much consensus and there is need for a broader solution on this issue. X in popular culture articles, or variants thereof, have been populating AfD quite heavily for some time now and every time virtually the same arguments get recycled. Efforts to come up with a broader solution may have failed in the past but it might be time to approach the issue again and seek a more definitive answer on how to deal with these kinds of articles. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse closure - as nominator. Closing admin correctly interpreted the arguments in favor of deletion, which enjoyed a more than 2-1 margin over the keeps (and yes I know AFD is not a vote, thanks) as being superior to the arguments for keeping. Pomte assumes that anyone citing NOT#IINFO is misinterpreting it, which frankly I find a little insulting. IINFO is a policy subject to consensus just like any other, and if the consensus is that it applies to "...in popular culture" articles as it has been applied for any number of AFDs over the last several months then Pomte, with all due respect, needs to find a way to live with that. But, even if we assume that everyone who's argued IINFO is wrong, neither the AFD nor this DRV overcome the NOT#DIR objections raised to the article as well. The community seems to be speaking pertty clearly in saying that articles that consist in whole or in large measure of lists of every time a subject is mentioned or every time a line from the subject is quoted or parodied or every time something reminds any random editor of the subject constitute a repository of loosely associated items and are not encyclopedic. Otto4711 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I argued against the NOT#DIR claim in the AfD, and won't repeat it here. But IINFO has been deeply misinterpreted and there is current consensus on this fact at WT:NOT. The first phrase of your nomination has nothing to do with IINFO, and yet you linked it to strengthen your point. The comments that only say "Delete per IINFO" should be discredited unless the person comes back to explain why the article violates IINFO. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsourced popular culture articles, the community feels that not all articles of this nature should be deleted. If you believe there is community consensus that in popular culture articles can never be encyclopedic, then don't waste everyone's time with these AfDs and push for mass deletion at village pump (proposals) or somewhere appropriate. Also, please focus on issues specific to this article; it does not contain instances of "every time something reminds any random editor of the subject". –Pomte 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• First, the mass AFD nom you linked to hardly says what you claim it does. Many of the keep !votes were based on the mass nature of the nomination and many others were based on fallacious arguments like WP:USEFUL. Given that a number of the articles nominated there have now been deleted, I don't know that I'd be pointing to it to support your hypothesis. Second, I never said that "...in popular culture" articles can never under any circumstances be encyclopedic so I have no particular interest in pushing for a mass deletion. Finally, one of the items on this deleted list was an episode of Ugly Betty, included because one character said "I want you to hit me as hard as you can" and a completely different character dated someone named "Marla." Yeah, I'd put that under the "reminds any random editor" column. Otto4711 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Only 2 articles in the mass AfD have been deleted so far, so I don't know what that supports other than that they will continue to be nominated while voting trends arbitrarily favor deletion. The majority of comments there note that at least some of the articles are worthy and just require cleanup; their rationale is not in any way solely against the mass nature of the AfD.
• I had not noticed that Ugly Betty item, and the fault is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because you made no attempt to remove such material, which implies you would support deletion even if the article contained no such content.
• Perhaps you'd like to divulge in what circumstances can an in popular culture article be encyclopedic, and whether the current ones need to be deleted without even attempting to achieve this ideal. What is so fundamentally wrong with this one that it cannot be rectified? Does it have anything to do with Fight Club as works, or merely the style or format of the article? It cannot be the former, because there were no arguments specific to Fight Club; you could replace "Fight Club" with the name of any other equally notable work, and the argument would sound equally convincing. So it must be the latter, but the style or formatting of the article can always be improved, so make suggestions.
• You said on my talk page that there may be an article on real world fight clubs. Well, what you could have easily done was remove everything down from "General references in popular culture works". Then optionally do a move, and that's the article right there.
• Again, if I may emphasize because I don't see how this is hard to understand: If it is a content issue, eliminate that content. If it is a style issue, propose a new style. –Pomte 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Other articles from that mass nom are on their way out and at least one has been redirected to its source article because the standalone was filled with crap but people thought that someone might search for the in pop culture article. Regardless, the fact that dozens of pop culture articles that consisted of nothing more than "I spotted it" trivial references have been deleted indicates that the community is not in favor of "spot the reference" crap articles. The point still stands that this article, which is the only article directly under discussion, was correctly deleted following the outcome of the AFD and what you're doing here is trying to take a second bite at the apple. I am not going to be drawn any further into a philosophical debate on the general merit of IPC articles because any such debate is irrelevant to whether this article was properly deleted. The AFD for this article was correctly interpreted and implemented by the closing admin and nothing that you've offered up here, either specifically about the article in question or about the broader aspects of the article class in general, demonstrate that this AFD was improperly closed. Otto4711 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and either selective merge or keep and edit down. While the laundry list of trivial, passing references in popular culture certainly isn't encyclopedia worthy, the larger cultural influnces are and are not found in as much detail on any other Fight Club page. I think this would clearly include the real world events/fight clubs, but also the few artists who were significantly influenced by the film, such as Taking Back Sunday. (Sorry that I don't know enough to quote the Wikipedia cannon to back this up btw.) Thepopularloser 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus has moved towards getting rid of these egregious violations of WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Corvus cornix 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per clear consensus against such articles and a correctly closed AfD; WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR both apply, and I'll also cite WP:HTRIV, which says that trivia articles should be avoided. Heather 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:TRIVIA is about presentation, not inclusion. What are the WP:OR violations, and are they unsalvageable? There is no need to add your own argument here: whether this is a trivia article is up to debate, and whether WP:HTRIV is a valid essay is up to debate (no one in AfD2 cited HTRIV that I can see). –Pomte 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Zero sources = OR. Corvus cornix 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorese deletion there was a visible consensus on the AfD & I see nothing wrong with the close. — Scientizzle 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion because there is a trend to get rid of lists of topics loosely associated by a brief mention of the topic. Even if there is prose written about a certain entity in popular culture, this does not warrant a list of editors' own examples to back this, especially when the mentions are only in passing. The article failed notability standards by not presenting any independent, secondary sources that had significant coverage about Fight Club's impact in popular culture -- films, TV shows, et cetera. We don't need to synthesize an argument toward the prominence of that topic by personally listing firsthand observations of Fight Club mentioned in passing. This is also not comparable to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc because you cannot culturally depict Fight Club beyond a passing mention, as it is copyrighted and still fairly recent compared to entities long in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion "In popular culture" is just not a type of article that we should have because they will hardly ever be of an encyclopedic quality, and unlike good article types they have a tendency to get worse over time, as people toss in more and more trivia. Haddiscoe 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

^demon deleted it on June 25 because he/she thought it was unused, apparently unaware of the fact the image was being used on Lemony Snicket since June 21st. CyberGhostface 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete per nom, does appear that this image was being used and thus not an I5 candidate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Belew Trio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 "Biographical article that does not assert significance". But the article (as it was when deleted) says that the group has twice "toured throughout the East, South, & Western United States". if sourced, that alone is enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and even if not sourced should be enough of an "assertion of significance" to avoid an A7 speedy delete. Overturn and list on AfD for a proper assesment of notability by consensus. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• overturn per nom. JoshuaZ 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn Adrian Belew is notable, so the Trio meets MUSIC 6. I'd like to see Julie and Eric Slick merged into this article and then deleted. Hoof Hearted 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and redirect/merge Julie and Eric Slick to here. Haha, I'm just trying to get King Crimson to featured article status and I encounter this when considering the possible deletion review of Fields (1970s band).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & redirect Julie Slick (now deleted?!) and Eric Slick to Adrian Belew Trio. AfD is a valid course if no sources are provided, but there's no reason this should have been speedied. — Scientizzle 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom; clearly notable. Anything connected to Belew isn't close to A7. Chubbles 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn one of a set of similarly incorrect AfDs. Could have been simply undeleted by another admin if the original one didn't respond.DGG 14:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't know just how notable Below was -- popular music is not a field I know much about. And the last time I tried that (see The Lying Game also now on DRV) I got some significant negative feedback. So if there is and possible grounds for debate, i tend to bring things to DRV rather than simply undelete on my own authority. Perhaps that is a mistake. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, although a merger to the article about Belew might be an appropriate final outcome. Belew himself is obviously very notable (and a personal favorite of mine), but I'm not sure how notable this particular band is (I hadn't heard of it, which should say something). Xtifr _tälk 10:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Was not eligible for speedy deletion. Haddiscoe 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. While IMO this article would need improvement and better sourcing to pass an AfD, i think that "He anchors Eyewitness News at 5, 6 and 11 p.m., the top-rated newscast in Indainapolis" is at least a claim of significance. Overturn as an improper speedy, and optionally list on AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn for the reasons given, and tag " unreferenced" or "prod." DGG 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• List on AfD not a clear cut A7, but could use the debate. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Extremely useful and significant website Sm8900 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Was deleted with the note that it did not assert significance. However, there was an onoing discussion at the talk page, where I indicated I would provide more material. I did indicate that the deletion was contested. clearly, there is reason to include it. it is very significant and unique among websites of thst type. with more time, more facts and soruces can be added, as I indicated at the article talk page. i feel this deletion was very unwarranted. thanks. --Sm8900 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Gather the facts and materials first, then recreate it. Note that it may still be listed for deletion at Articles for deletion if it doesn't meet notability criteria for web content.-Wafulz 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article was already useful and informative, and well-presented, in the form it was originnally written. --Sm8900 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. The only assertion it made was "It is highly significant and unique, in that it is the first blog-driven website to integrate networking, tags, blogs and groups". It doesn't provide any external sources or state why this is important. It was five sentences long and sounded like an "About Us" section of a website. If you'd like, I can move the content to your userspace for you to work on it until it meets notability criteria. However, in its current form, it will be deleted again and again by other administrators.-Wafulz 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn "First... to combine" is an assertion of importance. It doesn't have to use the word "impotant" or "notable". It may not be a sufficient degree of importance , but that's for AfD. DGG 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have to respectfully disagree. I can create a product that is the first to combine nuts and gum, or the first band to combine Mozart with gangster rap with The Beatles, but that's not a claim of importance in and of itself.-Wafulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed; as far as I know, I am the first human to combine my particular DNA sequence into a living being, but that doesn't make me notable. Or does it? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the very definition of indiscriminate inclusion. You will need something more, like combining 3 or 4 specific relevant technologies, and similarly for some of the proposed products. DGG 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Sm8900 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Four Reigns was deleted with the logged reason "see WP:OR". But Original research is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I agree that this would need sourcing and cleanup to remain for long, it appears that parts of it, at least, are OR. Parts appear to be a factual description of a book. While the book might not be notable, a google search on "Four Reigns" Kukrit Pramoj gets several hundred hits. Also, as the author Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand, he is clearly notable and his novels are likely to be so. This is the sort of thing that can be discovered more easily if possibly non-notable articles are not speedy deleted (when they do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria) but are given a little bit of time, Rather than having new speedy criteria made up to get them deleted quickly. Such speedy deletions prevent debate and the prime virtue of wikipedia: "More eyes". Overturn and cleanup. The deleting admin has been requested to undelete, but has not chosen to respond. DES ^(talk) 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed I might add the mere fact that a novel first published in 1981, originally written in a non-english language, is still widely on sale in english translation alone sugggests a degree of notability, although that alone does not prove notability. DES ^(talk) 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete OR is not a criterion for speedy, and that is the end of that. I ask for a Speedy Undelete. As for the article itself, although this isn't strictly relevant to the undelete, it needs an outside reference or two-- including reviews--but if the subject is notable it might well survive AfD. DGG 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm with DGG on this one - WP:OR is not and should not be a criterion for speedy deletion. Just because one person believes it is irreparable does not mean that sources do not exist and the article can be written to standards, and discretionary closures without any discussion are a bad precedent when they don't meet any of the CSD criteria. Put it on an AfD if it seems unworthy, if the results there start looking like a snowball, then delete it. Unilaterally deciding to do so ahead of time is not good. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• óverturn per nom, DGG and Arkyan. JoshuaZ 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:SNOW. Since when has OR been a CSD? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Myg0t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has been deleted before for being composed of OR and being non-notable. As of this writing, this group is now notable and verifiable. It has been featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, PC Format Magazine, PC Zone Magazine, and Computer Games Magazine. Please keep a clear mind, don't let your opinion of this group or the number of times it has been deleted cloud your thoughts on this. Android Mouse 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to the last discussion on this? What I had read, it was closed because of OR and being non-notable, neither of these are applicable now, so I'm wondering what I've missed. --Android Mouse 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd DR seems to have been a year ago, May 2006. Closed mainly on the basis of the DRV vote count, 17 to 14. [1] The previous history is complicated--a DR one month earlier had ended up by keeping the article, and there seems to have been a string of less-than-obvious decisions in various directions. I think rapid closing in these circumstances might perhaps be reconsidered, or is the proper course to bring another DRV. There has to be some way to get a hearing. DGG 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The presentation of new sourcing seems to be worth it, and consensus can change in a year. If no one objects, I'm going to reopen the DRV. JoshuaZ 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like we've been a year since this last had a full hearing, and if there's new sources we may change our conclusion. It worked for Jeffree Star Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the evidence / sources advanced are any different from that seen in July, August and September last year or March 7, March 25, April 25 of this year. I believe some other requests were speedily reverted before the {{drt}} template came into use. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the sources provided are much more than many other articles here would ever hope to obtain. If all other articles were put to this rigor, I'd estimate Wikipedia would have less than a fifth of the articles we have now. I don't see the harm in having a small stub about this group, since they are definately notable in the field of game raging. I also think it is a double standard that other DRs get by with much less evidence of notability. --Android Mouse 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I have new information regarding this AfD process.

1. The Wikipedia article was linked to from Something Awful, complete with the AfD tag, on the day that the page was nominated for deletion. This likely caused a large influx of SA readers interested in the topic. Since Something Awful coined the term Wikigroaning, this created a imbalance in contributions to the discussion, weighted heavily towards editors would be sympathetic to Keep votes. While I think we can assume good faith on the part of the Something Awful editors, this action amounts to inadvertent votestacking. This was not addressed during the discussion.
2. The AfD discussion was directly linked to in the Something Awful forums, as well. This was not addressed during the discussion.
3. User:Night Gyr, the administrator who closed the debate, is a longtime and active member of the Something Awful forums, who apparently (based on the linked forum post) has a vested interest in this topic. Again, while I believe NightGyr acted in good faith, there is a conflict of interest here that possibly tainted his interpretation of the results.
   

Overturn and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close The AfD seems perfectly in order. Sources in multiple independant major media outlets were cited. Another AfD can be tried in a few months if anyone wishes, when linking will not be an issue, and ther will be more evidence one way or the other on notability. As to the merge, that should be setteld on the relevant talk pages, not here. The AfD neither mandated not precluded a merge, but it looks to me as if the consensus of those commenting on the AfD was opposed to a merge, which makes doign one promptly rather problamatical IMO. DES ^(talk) 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The only arguments given for deletion were claims of being a non-notable neologism, which were countered by the sources in the article, and even the nominator proposed a merge rather than a deletion. AfD is the place to take things when you want them deleted, not merged, and there was clearly no consensus for a merge within the afd, so I referred it to the talk page for more discussion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If "merge" can't be the result of an AfD discussion, then someone better talk to all of these administrators: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ...and that's just closures from the past few days. Furthermore, this DRV is about the fact that the process that was possibly compromised through imbalanced influence by Something Awful members. - Chardish 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't say a merge result was impossible, I said consensus was in favor of retaining the content, and if it ought to be merged, that could be worked out on the talk page. Stop fighting over this with revert wars on the article and work it out on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I reverted once, I fail to see how that constitutes a "revert war." If you wish to address something only to me, please use my talk page. Thanks. - Chardish 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close and try to merge the article so that it won't matter anyway. I voted delete, but if I had to step back and evaluate the discussion, it looked like there were half-decent arguments to keep. I'm not willing to overturn based on the COI because I think the result would probably have been the same without the COI. Shalom ^Hello 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ludicrous - if process says keep unencyclopedic self-referential nonsense, then process is hopelessly broken. --BigDT 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not heartening to see one with the mop speak so lightly of community consensus. Unless of course you mean the !vote was tainted with single purpose accounts or whatever, in which case your wording is poor. -N 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - not a dictionary, etc. --Android Mouse 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I will endorse close, with some reluctance, since there was no consensus for deletion, although I don't know why people considered a remarkably new term which has just popped up on some internet sites notable. As an editorial decision, I fully support merging this in with criticism of Wikipedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with criticism of Wikipedia. Pretty much, this term just highlights a problem we always had of systemic bias on articles. In this case, it is about articles getting shafted due to age, fictional importance or for one reason or another. I don't find the term notable enough to make this article stand out by itself, but it would be useful at criticism of Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete. "Wikigroaning is a term brought to public attention in June 2007"... WP:NEO, WP:ASR and pretty much WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• This doesn't seem a wildly unreasonable close. There were some problems with this afd: apparently advertised on Something Awful, and looking at the huge number of editors commenting, and the relatively high number of new, inexperienced and unacculturated editors it's evident that the discussion was heavily skewed. Having said that I would probably have closed this one as keep myself. Criticism of Wikipedia does look like a suitable merge target, but that (as Night Gyr rightly says) is a decision for the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close as reasonable. There are obviously sharp divisions on how to deal with these articles, and a discussion on a possible merge would seem a reasonable next step. DGG 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why is nobody addressing Something Awful's involvement here? While I support the opinions of the people who support merging, I thought DRV was more than just an appeals court; I guess I'm wrong. - Chardish 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just Plain Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia; if this gets worse, Relist. Looks to me that few people bothered to deal with socks in the AfD in any case. However, I don't think the article should be deleted, merely merged, and for merging, we don't need to go through AfD yet again. Would save time, no? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Close, but I think a merge + redirect would be a perfectly reasonable final outcome as well. JavaTenor 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

"Political Spam" Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Page was deleted "COI spam by owner of politcal party", however while it was created on the behalf of the President, whose account this is, it is hardly spam as much as it is a recognition of our status as equal to comparable movements who are similarly referenced in Wikipedia, including, but not limited to Australian Young Labor and the Young Liberals (Australia). Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• See that word "our"? Endorse deletion until we have credible evidence that anyone but the group cares. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If the group is notable, someone uninvolved will create a real article in time. We'd need a pretty darn good reason to undelete a blatant WP:COI violation, and nominator presents no such reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion A quick glance did not find any reliable sources that talk about the group. If we had them we might be able to have an article but we can't without any real sourcing. JoshuaZ 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• self endorse deletion. Per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: "recognition of our status as equal to otherstuff" is not a valid argument for anything here. First of all, Wikipedia does not exist to "recognize" anyone's status. Status may be an issue with respect to notability, but, second, this wasn't deleted for a lack of notability. It was deleted as spam! And third, of course, the existence of other articles is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All this obviously means that there is no prejudice against creating a non-spammy article, but it would have to establish notability using verifiable information from reliable sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Anyone who can do that (even the president and/or owner) is welcome to do so, but it is, in general, very hard to do if you have a conflict of interest. Xtifr _tälk 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Page was deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, but it wasn't advertising. The article was about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado, GoLite. The company is of similar size to other companies that have articles, such as CamelBak and Kelty, and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, such as the article on Hydration packs, the article on rock climber Ray Jardine, and Primal Quest. Lucien Dray 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete I'd say they pass WP:CORP, and the article didn't have a spammish tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely a real company... Heck, I own two jackets made by them. — George ^[talk] 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Better sources (that is, independant ones) would probably be needed, or at least asked for, at an AfD. But this was a speedy, not an afd, and this does not read like advertising, far less blatent advertising, to me. DES ^(talk) 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• WP:ITSAREALCOMPANYALRIGHT does not seem to be an inclusion guideline, article was unsourced and requestor and article creator has no other contributions. All of which serves to engage my scepticism. So: Lucien, can you cite the multiple non-trivial sources from which a rewritten article that does not fail policy, will be drawn? Guy (Help!) 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • There's plenty of sources to choose from. A Google News Archive search brings back 502 results, the first page alone of which contains the LA Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, and two New York Times articles. Google Books brings home some book mentions too, mostly backpacking how-to guides. This is plenty sourcable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per Starblind. JoshuaZ 17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn appear to be plenty of sources out there. Here's a link to the search mentioned by Starblind. JavaTenor 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I was the creator of the Andrew Lande article and upon returning from my trip to Europe to my surprise the article was deleted. Maybe I didn't write up enough sources the first time but the guy is in fact encyclopedia worthy.

I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People)

First the broad notability

Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary.

Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc.

Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes.

Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS partly where it passes

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources.

Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)

• The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.)

Andman8 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete Contested PROD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)