Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 9

Supreme Court nominees categories (Categories' CfD)

• Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court
• Category:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court

These categories were deleted during a large CFD in February where several Presidential nominee categories were nominated (and kept). For these two cats in particular, the CFD resembled straight voting, with very little actual discussion of the merits of deletion of them in particular (as opposed to the Presidential cats, for which there was more discussion). As Osomec indicated in the final comment "Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result." In fact, a comparison to Superbowl losers was the only comment during the discussion that was actually about these two judicial categories. (The closer also made a comment: that there was already a list of judicial nominees, a point that is addressed below.) With so little discussion of these two categories, it was inappropriate to delete them.

The categories are both valid and encyclopedic. They complement Category:United States Supreme Court justices and its subcategories. The analogies to Super Bowl losers and to candidates for political office do not fit. Unlike Superbowl losers, many nominees to the Supreme Court are famous primarily or only for being nominees (think of why people recognize the names Harriet Miers and Robert Bork; in both cases, their status as failed/withdrawn nominees is noted in the article lead). Furthermore, with games as well as elections, there are always losers, but unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees have been relatively rare. The statistics show that most nominees have been approved throughout the Court's history, so something unusual happens when a nominee is not confirmed.

The closer pointed out that there is already a list that duplicates the categories. Setting aside the issue of how appropriate it is for this rationale to be raised for the first time in the closing, categories and lists are not in competition; they work best when used in synergy. Categories are helpful for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia in a way that lists are not (plus lists clutter See also sections whereas categories are less obstrusive). Categories furthermore help to classify articles, and as noted above being a failed or withdrawn nominee does help to define the notability of those individuals in a substantial way.

Simply on the numbers, there was insufficient consensus to delete. For these two cats, there were two keeps (unnamed and Sefrigle) and three deletes (Otto4711, mikedk9109, and nominator Xdamr). 60% with virtually no discussion should have been "no consensus". Based on these substantive and procedural issues, I ask that the deletion be overturned. Chaser - T 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (with editing and some writing credit to Postdlf)

• Overturn and relist - nominating all of these together doesn't make sense and these two were an "oh and by the way" type of thing in the CFD. --BigDT 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-create or relist per the well-written and convincing nom. By the way, has anyone asked the closer if he would be okay with a relisting? Newyorkbrad 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've now asked the closer about relisting.--Chaser - T 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - Most people in the CFD discussion indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be deleted, and only one or two people explicitly indicated that the Supreme Court categories should be kept. The fact that people did not explain themselves fully is not necessarily a reason to restore the category. Moreover, this category was nominated after a series of similar nominations for "nominees" categories at WP:CFD, as the discussion clearly indicates. Therefore, the people reading the discussion now may not fully understand the context of the discussion. I conclude that the deletion was appropriate. However, it might be appropriate to relist the categories simply because the discussion covered multiple marginally-related categories. The relisting could also be conisdered a discussion to build consensus on recreating the category. Dr. Submillimeter 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-create or relist, per nom/myself. Postdlf 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist Clearly there is further discussion to be had on this after such a detailed nomination. The correct place to do that is CFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist there seems to be agreement thatt here was not an adequate discussion. DGG 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist The deletion was appropriate given the circumstances, but I think, judging from this nom, it should be probably be relisted to grasp a larger community consensus. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Dr. Submillimeter, not per nom. --Kbdank71 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infoboxrequested (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

{{Infoboxneeded}}'s TFD discussion appeared to have a(n admittedly weak) consensus of delete and move to {{Infoboxrequested}}, which had been created during the debate AFAIK. As part of that closure, ^demon (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) deleted both Infoboxneeded and Infoboxrequested. Should Infoboxrequested have been deleted? If not, I'd like some discussion on the merits of restoring it, if only because it allows you to specify a particular template to be used on that article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• The debate was closed with the words "The result of the debate was deletion," and I don't see anything about a rename in that sentence. So endorse deletion, because no reason the closer made an incorrect decision has been provided. Picaroon (Talk) 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, the debate had nothing to do with Infoboxrequested. I saw no mention that it was going to be deleted along with Infoboxneeded. If the TfD had been amended to cover both of the templates, I could understand... but it wasn't. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation of {{infoboxrequested}}. If we have infoboxes, we should be able to request them. This TFD never made sense to me... might as well delete templates to request pictures, expert attention, etc. --W.marsh 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation per W.marsh. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse TFD - no evidence that the deletion fell outside the Admin's discretion and there was a good argument presented for the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Closing Admin's Comments - The way I read and understood the TfD (and please correct me and accept my apologies if I'm wrong) was that the {{Infoboxneeded}} and newly created {{Infoboxrequested}} were to both be deleted. I don't really care one way or the other about it, and I'll respect whatever the outcome of this DRV. I'm sorry if I read the TfD wrong and the latter template was to remain in place. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It seemed like people kept arguing to delete based on the name "infoboxneeded", even after it was renamed. Only a few really seemed to argue for the deletion of both names. --W.marsh 02:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    As one of those in favor of deletion, I was certainly against the use of {{infoboxneeded}} and {{infoboxrequested}}. I didn't explicitly say "and the fact that it was moved to a new name doesn't change my opinion" because I thought it would be obvious, and I think ^demon made the right decision by deleting both. If you check the wording of the template before the move to its second location, and afterwards, you'll notice that the difference is really one of minor wording switches; they're saying the same thing, but the second one is doing it in a slightly less demanding way. A name change does not a new template make. Picaroon (Talk) 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the solution here would be to restore it and send it straight to TfD. That would remove some of the ambiguity of the infoboxneeded decision. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is overwhelmingly endorsed.

On Lucie-marie's complaints:

• The debate, far from being "concluded too early" ran from 2 June until 8 June, six days. The minimum period is five days.
• She says there was no consensus either way, but there were only four people who argued for keep: DGG argued for keep because there were two reliable sources, JulesH and Drew30319 argued that it passed the Notability criteria, and W.marsh argued that it passed inclusion standards and "It's not our job to inject our own biases and try to correct supposed biases in the press." Deletion arguments centered on its unsuitability due to What Wikipedia is not. This policy overrides the notability guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Rachel Moran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Afd

I think the debate was concluded to early and there was no concensus either way regarding the outcome of the debate.--Lucy-marie 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as the deleter. When I looked at the page for the AFD, I saw many points for deleting the article and the only real keep votes is that the case was covered by the press. All murders have press coverage, so there was nothing in the article or nothing in the discussion that made me decide that the article was worth keeping. Anyways, some of the votes in the AFD were placed twice, leading to the confusion, so I ignored those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endose - can't see any errors in the close.--Doc^g 19:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse it was started on June 2 and closed on June 8, seems to have run for 6 daysDGG 19:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, looks like a valid close. AFD ran for the proper length of time. --Coredesat 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid discussion and close. FloNight 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The AfD ran for 6 days and I think the closure itself reflected consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• overturn It appeared to me that the discussion regarding this article had no clear consensus. Although you may (or may not) feel that the article is worthy of keeping I don't see where sufficient momentum had tipped the scale one way or the other. The more recent discussions seemed to lean more toward Keep than Delete. While I recognize that the discussion is not a "vote," it does appear that the discussion was split fairly evenly. I am requesting a review of the AfD outcome, not an opinion about the article itself. Drew30319 04:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 10
• Endorse Does every murder deserve an article? Surely not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (I nominated it). Reasonable close, given that there is no evidence that this is of particular cultural or historical significance; WikiNews is where we put news stories, Wikipedia is where we put articles about significant cultural or historical events. This case fails to rise above the generic, sadly. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure absolutely proper AfD with no process problems. Lucy-marie needs to accept the outcome and move on. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and closure per Lar and per JzG. ElinorD (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Loyola2L (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I hope I did this correctly. Dear administrator. Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers. They are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is by far, not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on. Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. Their concern was that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 . Unfortunately, EditorEsquire, in the Loyola Law School talk page, presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restor the page and wait for the discussion in the Loyola Law School talk page to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval.} Updatethis12 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• endorse but permit re-creation if a good article is written that demonstrates their notability. The article which was deleted consisted of a one sentence description, follow by 4 links to representative posts.This was a fully justified A7. DGG 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be OK to restore it, and let people work on it over time? --Updatethis12 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I was not asked to take a second look at the article before it was listed here. If I had been, I would have offered to provide the deleted material to the user and explained that the article was not deleted based on lack of notability grounds, and no precedent has been created; rather, the article was deleted because it contained no assertion of notability, per section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. The nominator should also be aware that if the article is re-created with an assertion of importance, in order to avoid further deletion process but not speedy deletion, such as at WP:AFD, it would be good if it cites to reliable sources which verify its content and are enough to meet the notability guidelines for organizations.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I saw what must have been the original article in a Google cache. As DGG's comment (above) makes clear, it was fragmentary. There is not even an actual blog called 'Loyola 2L'. There is a set of people who sign themselves 'Loyola 2L' in comments on other people's blogs, in one case a blog at the Wall Street Journal. Though the quotation from Michael Sauder above is interesting, that quote is of way higher quality than any of the comments I saw signed by 'Loyola 2L.' Our discussion here at DRV is just to confirm that the speedy deletion was correct, which it clearly is. Nothing prevents someone from creating a new article in a User sub-page, obviously, and getting it reviewed. EdJohnston 06:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Google hits are a poor measure of anything for this kind of article. Are there multiple independant published reliable sources that could be used to verify the content and establish notability for an article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, which was proper, allow workup in userspace if the nominator can source and provide evidence of significance, but it sounds awfully as if the main reason for wanting an article is support for the group and a wish to bring it to greater prominence, rather than a desire to neutrally document something of provable cultural significance. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Note: the redirect Onesidezero Design should be deleted if this deletion is upheld. Nevermind.

This article was speedily deleted supposedly because of a lack of assertion of notability. However, I maintain that the specific claim "Onesidzero is also the co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis which he runs alongside fine artist/designer Gurps Kaur," constitutes at least an assertion of notability. Whether the assertion actually constitutes notability or not is debatable, but I don't think this is obvious enough to deserve a speedy. (Note, I did create the article, but only because it was requested at Articles For Creation. I felt at the time that the sources listed were sufficient evidence of notability, though I was open to discussion otherwise; I certainly didn't expect a speedy.) Powers ^T 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Inkthis article has distinctly dubious sourcing - the purported BBC page is one of their user editable things, isn't it? Seems to me as if there might be enough credible sources for a single article between the two of them, but the deleted one was... not one of your better ones. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well as I said, I didn't compose the article. =) With AfCs, I tend to err on the side of creation, figuring deletion processes will weed out any bad articles I don't catch myself. I just didn't think a speedy was justified here. Powers ^T 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 17:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AFD. A7 speedy deletion isn't for 'this has dubious sources', it's for when the article doesn't even show any sign of notability. If there's a chance of an argument in favour of the article, it should go to AfD and not be speedy deleted. On a side note, I think speedy deletions under A7 that come up for a DRV should almost always result in it being restored and put on AfD for full deletion discussion, as at least one person feels it asserted notability. --Barberio 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD per nom ... "co-founder of an annual graphic event called Inkthis" constitutes an assertion of notability, albeit not the among the strongest I've seen. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list If it had said "famous annual graphic event" it would have been an obvious assertion of notability, but the exact wording shouldn't matter that much, as long as something possibly notable is given.DGG 19:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse for now not a great speedy, granted. I'd be tempted to overturn it, but not when even the nominator isn't sure if it belongs on wikiopedia. Go, do some thinking, and come back when you've made your mind up. And please don't create articles and leave it for others to 'weed out' the inappropriate ones. The deletion process isn't a tool to do your thinking for you.--Doc^g 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When working with AFC, I just create the articles. I weed out the obviously bad ones, but anything borderline I create so that the wider Wikipedia community can form a consensus on the acceptability of the article. I am not so arrogant as to presume that my judgment on a submitted article is always correct, thus I err on the side of creation. This is a collaborative project, after all. Powers ^T 13:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is also a project where we don't try to make work for others. Please do not create articles if you're not sure they belong on Wikipedia - we've enough work to do.--Doc^g 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to raise my threshold just so we can avoid a few AfDs. It's far better in my mind to keep useful articles submitted to AfC from being rejected than it is to keep borderline articles from being created. This article is a classic case in point. I know virtually nothing about the subject area discussed in this article; who am I to say, when reviewing it as an AfC submission, that this person is clearly not notable? I can express concern about notability, but declaring him obviously not-notable is a task for the community, not for me alone. Powers ^T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not insert into wikipedia articles you think may not be suitable. And please do not create articles on something you admit to knowing nothing about.--Doc^g 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the purpose of Articles for Creation. Powers ^T 20:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • (And as for my being unsure, it's true I don't know how consensus would rule in an AfD, but I am reasonably sure that this was not a proper speedy.) Powers ^T 14:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article. If anyone thinks it has merit, I'll undelete it.--Doc^g 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse I can't see the article but if the nom is unsure then we would be better off being asked whether a proper article created in user space can be moved into main. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You can view the original submission to AfC in my DRV nomination above (it's linked as the word "requested"). Powers ^T 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. If an article is worth this much time and study at DRV, it ought to be worth a normal AfD discussion, where the issues are better focussed. Neither the creator (Powers) nor the speedy deleter (Naconkantari) made an obvious error, in my opinion, so there is no process or person that needs to be set straight. Just send the article to AfD and see how it goes. I left a note for Naconkantari so he can join this discussion if he wishes to. In my legalistic heart I know that the speedy was correct, but I have read elsewhere that WP likes to get to the heart of the matter by shortcutting procedural steps when it can reasonably do so. A completely correct sequence of events would be: (a) This DRV upholds the deletion, (b) Powers adds a sentence to the article claiming notability, (c) the article is re-created. Do people prefer that sequence? EdJohnston 18:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have any sentences to add beyond what was in the article submitted to AfC. Powers ^T 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and thanks for contacting Naconkantari. That was an oversight on my part. Powers ^T 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per "There's no point in undeleting an improper speedy if no-one wants the article". I think overturning and listing at AFD would be a waste of the community's time in this particular instance. The article should meet Wikipedia standards *before* entering mainspace. Orderinchaos 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

(Third AfD Nomination) Closed for "gross violations of WP:BLP", ignoring a large body of opinion presented that WP:BLP was not being violated, the article was well sourced, and the subject was a notable part of Internet history and usenet culture. This should have been closed as 'No consensus', but the closing admin has used his own opinion that WP:BLP nominations should be closed when there is no consensus. This is the third attempt to have this article deleted, and this will be the second time this AfD in particular has been inappropriately closed. Barberio 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse mainly because one should strive to come to some kind of consensus on articles such as this. No consensus just prolongs a problem if there is one. Looking over the past AfDs I think there is a leaning towards delete. I think the admin made a good decision considering BLP. Then again, I admit, I have deletionist tendencies. Sleep On It 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Note that this editor has no edits in mainspace. All his edits as far as I can see are calling for the deletion various pages or calling to keep them deleted. I urge to closing admin to ignore this editor in determining consensus. JoshuaZ 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close. BLP policy allows for the removal of material of non-public people that are borderline notable if the harm outweighs the benefit. Sources exist but are not enough to establish true notability in one area. Also it appears the subject of the article may have desired deletion, which should be taken into account in theses borderline cases. The reality that this article will be used as an attack piece needs to be taken into consideration in the cases of non-public people also. These altogether make this a good decision as intended by our BLP and deletion policies and our notability/bio guidelines. FloNight 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I disagree that the article on the subject was or had to be an attack piece. The subject of the article main recent objection to the article seems to have been the mention of the nickname "Arky" which some other Useneters have refered to him by but which the subject considers an insult suggesting he is from Arkansas. -- Infrogmation 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Overturn (Vote changed to overturn per discussion below). The AfD shows no consensus to delete. Additional notes: there were irregularities while the VfD was going on such as the article being speedied at least once, before closing, AfD being closed, then reopened. -- Infrogmation 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• As nominator for this third AfD, I endorse this thoughtful and well-reasoned close, which was founded on lack of unbiased independent reliable sources as well as WP:BLP violations. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per FloNight, and the need to draw a line under these things.--Doc^g 21:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion - Consensus was totally ignored is this AfD closure and the closing statements were that of a "vote," not a proper non-partial administartive one. The closer even cited WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which states very clearly at the top "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline;... " (bold not added by me as it is part of the text). Very improper close. --Oakshade 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion FloNight pretty much said what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The argument for deletion was that this violated BLP by being badly sourced and biased. This was never countered; people just said "but he's notable!" That's not the point. -Amarkov moo! 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I presume those voting to uphold deletion based on BLP bias would have no specific objection should someone recreate the article with neutral language and proper sourcing? -- Infrogmation 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The concerns raised in the debate about BLP were with respect to the reliability of the sources used and the excessive reliance on primary sources. This is the bread and butter stuff of BLP and the closer was right to give these arguments more weight. --bainer (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The concerns raised in the debate about reliance on primary sources were debunked in the debate. I've debunked them again below, in boldface, for your reading pleasure. Uncle G 12:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The AfD clearly did not have a consensus to delete; the closing admin practically admitted his decision to be based on his personal opinion of the article, which is improper. The way, the truth, and the light 02:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per WP:RS self-published sources about the person themself are reliable sources...Usenet posts count. Much as I respect the closing argument, I don't find it persuasive in the face of consensus. -N 03:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Says who? You misunderstand WP:RS. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. Self-published sources may be used about the person themself. -N 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, please read the part about "it is not contentious". Moreover, the pages do not speak of using discussion forums as sources, but of press releases, personal websites and weblogs. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• In what ways are the cited Usenet posts contentious? I have never seen AP or anyone else suggest that these posts were forgeries. Perhaps you could explain your point? Thanks. Phiwum 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse usenet is most certainly not an acceptable source of information for a BLP. I could write any old junk on usenet and there is no way to verify if it is true or not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification Just to clarify my comment - I do accept that there are circumstances where usenet can be a reliable source but I firmly believe that in a Biography of a Living person we should only use absolutely reliable sources and usenet doesn't qualify. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That whole argument is irrelevant, though. Once again: Usenet was not used as a source here except for direct quotations, of things written by the subject and then quoted in other sources, and dual-sourced to both those sources and the original postings for accuracy. Don't make me put a pretty coloured box around this. Uncle G 12:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • My comment was a direct response to N's one that usenet posts were acceptable sources. You going to put a pretty box under his comments as well or will you overlook them because he supports your POV? ;-p Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Whom you were responding to does not make your rationale relevant, and that you apparently, from what you have just written, have such little clue as to what my view on the matter is, despite the fact that it is written in boldface above (as well as in the 2nd AFD discussion and various other places, and is even deducible from the article itself), indicates, that you, specifically, are in need of a pretty coloured box. The argument about the use of Usenet postings as sources is irrelevant here. The article did not actually use Usenet postings in the ways that you are arguing about, in the first place. Uncle G 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FloNight's arguments. Riana ⁂ 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep per relevant arguments presented in AfD. WP:BLP may require deletion of the facts about the person, but the facts about the Usenet poster are clear and sourced by the subject's own comments. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RS does not speak about using subject's comments sourced from a discussion forum like Usenet. They speak of press releases, personal websites and weblogs. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is a reasonable extrapolation to use publicly available Usenet postings, though. And WP:RS does not override consensus, in any case - there was clearly no consensus to delete. The way, the truth, and the light 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• No consensus is an excuse. Consensus can exist only within the purview of policy. RS is policy and administrators close AfDs while keeping policies and guidelines in mind. Posting on forums and discussion pages cannot be taken as a reliable source especially when "it is contentious". — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing contentious about the fact that he said them. Whether they mean anything may be contentious. WP:RS does override consensus, but it doesn't apply in this instance. There is no claim that the Usenet posts were not made by the poster "Ludwig Plutonium", so they can be used as examples of what he posts without violating WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, you've probably never read WP:RS, have you? Both of you are simply abusing that guideline. The way, the truth, and the light 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• The comments themselves are contentious, and cannot be used in a manner that would be prejudicial to the person himself. Moreover, BLP talks about sources such as personal websites, weblogs etc, and not discussion forums. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that he wrote them is not in contention, which is what is relevant with self-published sources. The way, the truth, and the light 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The comments on Usenet forum are contentious and controversial. There are no multiple, secondary and independent reliable sources available to establish notability of the subject. That combined with BLP concerns is a good reason for deletion, as summed up by various established users on the AfD discussion page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The usenet posts were never used in order to establish notability, as far as I know. They were used in order to present AP's theories. Nobody is a better source for what AP alleges than AP and no one has disputed that the cited posts were authored by AP. Thus, citing these posts do not violate WP:RS. The claim that AP is notable depends on other sources (including newspaper articles and a mention in both Discover magazine and a real crime book, as I recall), not AP's posts. Phiwum 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I voted to delete this on the AFD because establishing notability for a person requires more than just sources, in most cases the sources need to demonstrate some level of achievement as well. In response to Uncle G, I agree that the use of primary sources in order to meet WP:BLP and WP:V were met, but they did not convey any real sense of achievement. AFD ran full time (which is good) and the close was within reasonable bounds for discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Much of the support for deletion was based on alleged embarrassment caused to him, and not lack of notability. I think his being known by so many people for his long-term pattern of internet activity its itself enough to establish notability. I do not think the close was reasonable, and the deleting admin has just expressed his belief that WP:RS is a valid reason for a contentious delete, which it should not be. The way, the truth, and the light 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• "I think his being known by so many people for his long-term pattern of internet activity its itself enough to establish notability." – Are you unilaterally trying to rewrite policy? I expressed that WP:RS and WP:BLP were reasons enough to delete the article (on the basis of opinion presented by various established users), for the article neither properly sourced and unbiased but existed solely to make a mockery of a lesser known individual. Imagine yourself in his position and you will understand what BLP means. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per FloNight. I think BLP issues presented in the AfD are valid. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FloNight. The things FloNight said are what I actually want to say. Terence 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The recent deletion of this article seems to have been mishandled from the start. There was no consensus in the end and I dispute the claim that a college newspaper is not a WP:RS. Phiwum 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When was the last time you were on a college campus? As someone who has been on one recently, I can confidently say that they are at best borderline. JoshuaZ 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I am regularly on a college campus, although my experience is largely irrelevant. Are there other instances in which college newspapers are routinely denied use as an WP:RS without evidence? Is there any policy suggesting that we should treat college papers as unreliable? There is, to my knowledge, no clear reason to believe that the Dartmouth paper reported inaccurately regarding AP but if WP usually regards college papers as unreliable, then I will acquiesce. (I notice that the VT newspaper is the first source listed on the Virginia Tech massacre page. Should this be removed as unreliable? Bot the VT newspaper and the Dartmouth newspaper were reporting on a campus event.) Phiwum 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion I think the decision made by Nick was incorrect and that the sources given met WP:RS and he met WP:BIO. Moreoever, as pointed above AP's main concern was not deletion of the article but the presence of a certain nickname he found offensive. That said, this was a borderline enough case that it was within admin discretion about how to close. If I can find more sources about the individual in question or more evidence for his notability, I will bring a new DRV at some point in the future. In the meantime, let's let this lie. JoshuaZ 19:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  Changing my mind to overturn per comments of Barberio, Phiwum and rereading of the both the AfD and its close. There was a strong consensus to keep in the AfD. There was no strict BLP violation (that is, unsourced or poorly sourced content) aside from the use of usenet posts which can be easily handled by simply removing those parts (as was pointed out in the AfD). While it is reasonable to delete articles based on the general ethical point behind BLP, admins should not use this as an excuse to go against the consensus of an AfD. Furthermore, if anything, AP wanted an article about him. The only detail he was unhappy about was a nickname that he didn't like(heck, if we need that to keep the article, we can just take that out easily). JoshuaZ 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little dubious to endorse a deletion you disagree with on the basis of the arguments made, think happened out of process, and might DRV again in the future? Isn't the whole point of "no-consensus" results to err on the side of keep? --Barberio 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not when it's a BLP, and most of the arguments to keep completely ignore the arguments to delete. "Notable" is not a good reason to keep a BLP violation. --Rory096 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Non-notable individual; WP:BLP violations. In relation to notability, the subject has zero publications for his theories, and zero adherents for his theories. Nobody has ever put forward a reasonable claim as to what this individual is supposed to be notable for. The WP:BLP violations are obvious: the subject was systematically mocked (however much a pretense of neutrality may have been maintained), and the potential effect of the article on the subject persistently ignored. FNMF 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• AP is notable for being a remarkably well-known example of a crank using modern techniques to spread his message. Like Gene Ray, AP has become a part of modern crankdom by relentless self-promotion rather than by actually persuading others. In this respect, he is unlike cranks of yore (say, Alfred Lawson) who needed converts in order to create a widespread and lasting reputation. The modern use of free self-publication to successfully spread one's unusual theories is frankly quite interesting to me and there are few better examples than AP and Gene Ray. Phiwum 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that the subject is interesting to you for that reason is fine. Unfortunately, however, there are no reliable sources that establish the notability of the subject on these grounds. What I suggest is that you publish an article about that aspect of the subject in a reliable source, which other Wikipedia editors may then consider using as a source for a future entry about the subject. Until such reliable sources are written and published, claiming that the subject is notable for that reason constitutes original research. FNMF 15:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your right FNMF, multiple articles about the person in a newspaper and a chapter in a book devoted to the person and having his perculiar and personality discussed in a major magazine don't show any encyclopedic notability at all. JoshuaZ 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your use of sarcasm is of course highly amusing, if a little heavy-handed, but the resort to it suggests it may be time to bring this deletion review to a close. By the way, I'm pleased to see you using the concept of encyclopaedic notability. Oh, and a tip for future editing: it should have been "you're right," not "your right." But then again, that's your right. FNMF 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm or not, JoshuaZ's points are relevant. Unlike, oh, I don't know, say, spelling flames. Do you have any reaction to his substantive claim, namely that AP has been mentioned in a college newspaper, a popular science magazine and a true crime book? Much thanks. Phiwum 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The very minor mentions do virtually nothing to establish any notability worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that JoshuaZ did not at all actually address the point I was making: that the grounds of notability you were claiming are not supported by the sources, and thus that basing an entry on those grounds constitutes original research. In addition, of course, the article is essentially and in toto (pardon my Latin) a BLP violation. FNMF 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. That's something we might discuss. On the one hand, we have proponents of the article claiming that AP is notable because he is very widely known for espousing certain theories (admittedly cranky theories). They offer as evidence newspaper articles, a magazine article and a book which mention him espousing those very theories. These articles don't need to say he is notable. By their existence, they establish notability. They also cite Usenet posts (undisputed) which elaborate on those theories. Can you please restate your dispute? Thanks! Phiwum 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my "Delete" vote, his "theories" have no publications whatsoever, nor do they have any adherents. The fact a person has posted nonsense on the Internet and other people have read the nonsense does not by any means establish notability worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. The fact the entry is maintained to laugh at his nonsense is the crux of the BLP violations, and, given that he is in all likelihood an essentially defenceless and vulnerable person, I consider the entry to be a gross violation of the Wikipedia credo to "do no harm." No doubt some people will say, "But he's an attention seeker," but to me, if that is the case, it is very clearly connected to the reasons he is defenceless and vulnerable, reasons that do not have to be spelled out here but which should be clear to anybody with eyes to see. And, given that there is absolutely nothing this person is genuinely notable for, there is no reason whatsoever for Wikipedia to maintain such an entry. FNMF 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems about identical to endorsing deletion because you don't like it or don't like articles about extreme cranks. However, notable cranks do exist and AP happens to be one of them. JoshuaZ 03:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your characterisation of my argument is inaccurate. FNMF 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again you make an assertion with no logic or evidence to back it up. It would help us all if instead of simply asserting that my summary was inaccurate you explained how and why it was inaccurate. JoshuaZ 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've given plenty of evidence. I am not endorsing deletion because I "don't like articles about extreme cranks." I am endorsing deletion because the article is about a non-notable individual and because the article is a systematic violation of WP:BLP. It's clear I won't convince you no matter what I say (not surprising, given the vigour with which for a long time you have tried to keep this article and its content), and I can only hope that objective and sensible readers will grasp the points I have made, in spite of your misrepresentations of my position. FNMF 03:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see how you've disputed Joshua's claim. Suppose there is a guy who has a wacky, off-the-wall theory, a theory that is clearly cranky, indeed, so cranky that it barely counts as a "theory". Suppose the guy achieves some infamy by widely publicizing this theory. He's mentioned in a few minor articles and such. This hypothesis is along the lines of (I think) what Joshua means when he refers to "extreme cranks". The question, then, is whether you would reject an article about such a fella. Clearly, Joshua and I would not. Personally, I find such guys quite interesting and worth documentation (not ridicule and not paternal protection). And, indeed, we cannot claim non-notability when in fact evidence of notability is given: book mention, magazine article mention and newspaper articles (not to mention quite widespread familiarity, far more than Kibo, Gene Ray or Joel Furr). Phiwum 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Keep per Arthur Rubin and JoshuaZ. FeloniousMonk 03:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Josh and Arthur. If an NPOV article is negative, then it should be negative, not deleted. Guettarda 03:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Most keep comments entirely ignore the question of BLP, and therefore much of the argument for deletion. In addition, we need to be careful with possible BLP violations, so that argument tends to carry a lot of weight in AfD discussions. The closure was valid. --Rory096 05:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Although I didn't take part in the original AfD debate, I find the arguments exerted to its closure (perfectly summed up by Flo and Sjakkalle) convincing and in the best interest of our policies and current practice. Phaedriel - 05:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. FloNight said it well. And I'd add that, finally, it's time to put away childish things. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - not notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The AfD ran for 8 days and the consensus was clearly delete, and the delete arguments were pretty solid. (Note that a DRV is looking at *process* not the reasons for deletion which were explored in the AfD). Orderinchaos 13:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for your welcome attention to process. As to the AfD, I believe a review of it clearly shows a lack of consensus. -- Infrogmation 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

AfDs are decided by the arguments. As Orderinchaos put it, the delete arguments were pretty solid. In fact, very. FNMF 13:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: None of the relevent delete arguments oppose an article on LP the notable Usenet poster; only the references to LP the person are at all questionable. See, for example, the article we used to have on Armando (blogger), since deleted for not being notable, rather than for BLP considerations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, there were by my count 16 keep, 1 "allow existence" 3 merge, 11 delete. All the users commenting were longstanding so there's no issue of sockpuppetry or anything similar. The notion that that reflects a consensus to delete is difficult to understand. JoshuaZ 14:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment; as an aside, some of the information from this article should be included in the Usenet personalities article. How can we do that and maintain the GFDL if the article is to be deleted — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I was neutral on the AfD and expressed no opinion at that time. The arguments for deletion were indeed solid, but to claim that "the consensus was clearly delete" makes me wonder if I was reading the same page as everyone else. I'm neither an admin nor an expert on AfD procedure, but I was expecting to see no worse than a "no consensus" verdict. --Finngall ^talk 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I planned to stay out of this until I saw the arguments above. Most significantly, the arguments revolving around the reliable sources are very sound, the delete arguments surprisingly weak on a re-read of the discussion, and FloNight's commentary in particular completely unconvincing. Deleting was the wrong read on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. Certainly the article and sourcing could have been improved. But by way of comparison, I haven't noticed any significant push to delete Baldassarre Squitti or Tommaso Squitti. Those articles, given merely as two of countless possible illustrations, just happily sit there with little or no controversy. Which leads me to conclude that this article was likely deleted because of contention about this figure known as Archimedes Plutonium, rather than for lack of notability or any other valid reason. Irrespective of arguments about Usenet as a source, Archimedes Plutonium is notable because the figure has caught the attention and fascination of a large number of persons outside of Usenet. (A cached version of the article as of May 30 is available here.)
  Moreover, this should also be overturned on procedural grounds. There was not a clear consensus to delete, and according to established practice an AfD is not a vote, but rather is expected to reach a threshold of consensus prior to deletion. A slim majority vote tally does not in general meet this threshold test for deletion, but rather should be noted as "no consensus" and, accordingly, kept. Any violations of WP:BLP should simply be noted and fixed.
  Worse yet, I now note that the "vote" in the AfD was 16 keeps, 3 merges, 1 to "allow existence" and 11 deletes. What on earth is going on here? ... Kenosis 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD is a vote? --Rory096 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • AfD isn't an admins dictate everything. Consensus is generally necessary. And when the majority of people favor keeping and all those editors are well-established users it is at best hard to reconcile with people claiming there was a consensus for deletion. JoshuaZ 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • AfD is not a vote per se. The "vote" tally is merely a convenience to allow an admin to quickly assess consensus, or lack thereof, and move onto the next task. To illustrate, an 11-9 vote to delete is not clearly a consensus, and should not, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, be called a consensus to delete but rather should be recorded as "no consensus" and thus defer to the status quo. But that's not what happened here. The "vote" [quotes intentional] or "tally" was 20-11 to keep, if you include requests to merge (which really need be a separate discussion unless there's a clear consensus to merge into a specified article). If you exclude the "merge" opinions, the tally was 17-11, taking into consideration the one user's stated request to "allow existence" as an obvious alternate way of saying "keep". If you eliminate that, the tally was 16-11 to keep the article. While this may or may not necessarily be interpreted as a strong consensus to keep (it's roughly 60% to keep and 40% to delete), if anything it was most certainly not a consensus to delete. Instead, as occasionally can happen, there appear to be other administrative preferences at work here, which are not being disclosed but rather couched as various arguments why this article should be deleted, and none of which are compelling. ... Kenosis 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Process was not followed. •Jim62sch• 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. No consensus to delete in the AfD. BLP arguments unconvincing. Spacepotato Spacepotato 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per FloNight. ElinorD (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2|DRV 1)

This debate simply was not weighted properly by the closing admin. I'm trying extremely hard to assume good faith about the whole thing, so let's go over the discussion:

The keep suggestions were mostly based in policy - noting the subject's national records in her sport, noting her notoriety stemming from the internet fame she has received (both of which are noted here: [1]) and noting the multiple, reliable, non-trivial coverage she has received both as an athlete and as the subject of her internet fame. There were a few questionable comments (noting only her records, "holds WP's interest," Google counting, age discrimination, citing Star Wars kid), but the vast majority of keep comments were strongly rooted in policy, many debunking the arguments made by the delete suggestions.

What did the delete suggestions cite? WP:BLP, which this article met with flying colors, ranging from reliable sourcing to undue weight concerns, as noted numerous times by the keep voters. Many cited non-notability (often per WP:BIO), one even suggesting a speedy deletion, which was not at all supported by policy due to the numerous sources and noted as such, others "human decency," because the subject has not been happy with her fame (which is dealt with through BLP and was, again, addressed fully via sources), one comment questioning the legitimacy of the sources (and since one was the Washington Post and two others were internationally respected papers, this was easily countered), one questioning her record as compared to the overall record (an odd statement that has nothing to do with anything), three blatant misstatements of what the sources say (about records and about her notability, the latter very bizarre), one delete without extra comment, one citing WP:POINT (huh?), one blaming "male hormones," one person who !voted twice, one blaming "masturbating neanderthal bloggers," oen blaming "drooling idiots" and an incorrect weighing of the arguments at the initial DRV, one simply asking "why the hell is this still up for debate," one citing that a person interviewed by the Post "doesn't want the attention," one blaming "bottom feeders and bloggers," one simply asking "please...," and a couple simply saying "so what, she's a high school athlete." There was also a pretty heavy sock farm that I'm confident got dealt with properly.

Every one of those delete suggestions were addressed using policy, guidelines, and basic knowledge of how we do things here. Yet, somehow, User:Coredesat, who closed the discussion as delete, somehow found the strength of argument to be on the side with no policy arguments that weren't adequately countered. A question as to what arguments swayed him did not garnish a response, and his closing statement even completely ignored policy, which is entirely problematic.

The last DRV was closed as an overturning of the deletion, while noting that there were BLP deletions in the past that may have met muster. This ambiguous closure has been erroneously interpreted as saying that no mention of her internet fame can be put in the article. I'm hoping this time that those taking part in the discussion will actually use policy properly, and this will be closed due to the proper weight of knowledge. The closure was simply interpreted improperly, and thus is under DRV's purview. This article needs to be undeleted. To the closing admin - make sure you note which policy arguments are being used here when you close this - DRV is not a vote count, and we need to fix our mistakes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fictional ninjas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Category:Fictional_ninjas said to go here (after another told me to go there). You know, it's getting kind of tiresome. My arguments are there. In very short: it's Category:Fictional samurai not Category:Fictional samurais, and Category:Historical ninja not Category:Historical ninjas. Also: Ninja in fiction as the main article. Every serious source uses "ninja" as a plural form; "ninjas' is a popculture word used by teenagers and in bad (or badly-translated) movies (these movies were actually an argument for "ninjas"). Dictionaries use both forms, but there's just no reason to favour "ninjas" and several to favour "ninja" (above). --HanzoHattori 22:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: nom's claim that "every serious source uses 'ninja' as plural" was fully rebutted at CfD by reference to the Oxford and Webster's dictionaries, both of which list both forms as valid pluralizations. I think the professional lexicologists who help prepare those dictionaries might be surprised to hear that they are not "serious sources". The argument by analogy with "samurai" is unavailing, since no dictionary I have access to lists "samurais" as a valid pluralization. Nom's disdain for the influence of "popculture" on language is apparently not shared by those who study language, and is not relevant to a review in any case. Xtifr _tälk 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - No one actually cited any reference material on actual ninja. Books by Masaaki Hatsumi, the current Grandmaster of three ninjutsu traditions, use "ninja" as the plural form. Although both "ninja" and "ninjas" may be correct, Wikipedia should probably work with the form used by the primary source of information on this topic. Dr. Submillimeter 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Explanation of closure. Ninja is now an English word, steeped in the common vernacular. To me it's irrelevant whether one classical source uses a particular terminology. Books like Ninjas: Mastery of Stealth and Secrecy are now much more common than the ancient works of scholarship. The comparison to samurai is not relevant either; there's no such common parlance of using samurais. But regardless, it comes down to whether one believes that common parlance matters. The nominator does not, and a majority of editors in the CfD debate did. (Please also note that Category:Historical ninja is now up for rename to "HIstorical ninjas".)--Mike Selinker 02:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just for clarification, the books by Masaaki Hatsumi are contemporary books, not classical texts. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. That makes it an even less compelling source, then.--Mike Selinker 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Please read the article on Masaaki Hatsumi. He is the leading living authority on ninjutsu at this time. I fail to see how his books are not compelling. His books are the primary written references on ninjutsu traditions. Dr. Submillimeter 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sure his books are compelling. For me, one modern reference, no matter how important, doesn't outweigh hundreds of other modern uses to the contrary.--Mike Selinker 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. "Ninja" is the correct version in Japanese, both uses are acceptable in English, and consensus at CfD supported "ninja" (twice). The parent category will probably also remain "ninja", unless the closer ignores consensus. -Sean Curtin 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, DRV is not meant as a next iteration of the same debate. There is something to be said for both "Ninja" (original plural) and "Ninjas" (using English grammar), and consensus has elected to use the latter. >Radiant< 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Radiant. --Kbdank71 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original close with no prejudice to relist. As Radient said, DRV isn't the place to reargue the debate. --Farix (Talk) 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)