Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 28

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

Because it is vitally important to the success of this website, it will attract many new viewers and it is a good contribution. Victorvondoom2007 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jessica9.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was listed for speedy deletion yesterday on grounds that the user that uploaded said she was 9-years old. This is not valid reason for speedy deletion. I removed the tag, but it was deleted anyway. The user's user page has also been deleted, for the same reason, but Wikipedia doesn't have any such policy - in fact that policy was explicitly rejected: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Nssdfdsfds 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse regardless. Editor has only two edits, the first of which was to add this image to child. We already have plenty of images on that article. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. The user had three edits. The other edit was to create a userpage (which has also been summarily deleted - not just blanked). A user is entitled to have a picture of herself on her userpage without it being deleted. The picture can be removed from child if it is not one of the better pictures on there, but there's no reason to delete it.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn There does not appear to have been a valid reason for a speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I suspect the account was a trolling attempt of some kind, although exactly what the point of it was I can't tell. New user creates an account, making sure to specify their supposed age (9) not only on their user page but in their user name as well, then uploads a picture (supposedly of themselves?) and adds it to two articles, Child and Girl. Does not seem like something a real 9-year-old would likely do, IMHO. In any case, both articles have plenty of pictures already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, I can't think of any reason why it should be a troll. What's it supposed to be trolling? If you were trolling, you'd probably be posting to lots of pages pretending to be "9-year old Jessica". You wouldn't upload one picture and go away. Seems like the user is exactly what she seems, a 9-year-old girl who wanted to add something to wikipedia, but found that her images and user page were deleted without anybody getting in touch on her talk page to say why.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedily endorse deletion, I have blocked the uploader as a sock of Belginusanl, who uploaded this image (and others of the same person) before under a different filename, claiming it to be of a 12-year-old. --Coredesat 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well spotted, close this one as it's the same image then. Nssdfdsfds 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party minigames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deleting admin's closure was entirely opinionated. Radiant! mentioned WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but I don't see any. However, several Delete votes (and the nomination itself) was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Out of all the rants and raves and almost identical votes, it should have been No Consensus as no consensus was formed. The closing admin obviously thought they had an overriding vote, and that is NOT true. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, Radiant made the right decision to close as delete, seeing as the keep arguments weren't grounded in any policies at all. There was a total of one reliable source provided, and it was only peripherally related to the minigames. That tidbit can go in Nintendo#Controversy. Picaroon 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WHAT‽‽ There was more than one reliable source. There were 5ish in the references section. If someone thought that those sources were unreliable, that should have been brought up during the AfD. That didn't happen. McKay 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh my, how did I miss that answers.com link? Answers is practically the definition of reliable sources! We must overturn!</sarcasm> Picaroon 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So are you implying now that there were only 2 links? What happened to the other three I'm claiming existed byond that? Also, IIRC, there was reasoning provided for the answers.com link, and why we should treat that article as different than other answers.com links. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. [Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.]
  • "The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines," Where? Could you be more specific. All of the delete arguments had WP:CONSENSUS stating that the reasons were not founded on policy and guidelines. At best they had Essays saying listcruft.
  • "the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL" No, the keep arguments boiled down to "The content is encyclopedic." "The Content is notable." "the content is Attributable."
  • He also makes reference to two supposed quotes, that [Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.] don't appear as quoted:
    1. "no reason given for deletion"
    2. "it was kept in the past"

[Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.] Sure, while there are some who said that, I would not think that those are all the arguments, or even the bulk of them.McKay 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (modified 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) by McKay)

• • Whoa. Flatly accusing someone (in bold no less) of lying is pretty uncalled for. Yes you are supposed to WP:AGF but you are also supposed to remain WP:CIVIL and that is clearly uncivil. If you disagree with Radiant's interpretation of the AfD then say so, but flatly calling him a lair is wholly uncalled for. Please be careful to avoid WP:NPA. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Dacium said both of those things, then other people cited his/her reason later in the discussion. Extraneous bold AND italic words! WHOA —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I apologize, I stand by what I said, but I should not have done it how I did it. As Arkyan pointed out, this topic did have extensive debate. Anyone can see that I put a lot of effort into this AfD. When I saw that the result was "delete" I was very surprised, as I thought it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The purpose of the AfD is a discussion on whether or not the article should stay. But it seemed as if he was ignoring everything I had said in the article. I couldn't find any real substance in what he had said that made the article worth deleting. A couple of his arguments had quotes, and I wanted to see what he was talking about, but couldn't find what he was referencing. McKay 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overturn: Per nomination. Henchman 2000 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ifyou look here you will find that he biased his decision on Delete. Henchman 2000 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of this list which belongs on GameFAQs or some such, and strongly admonish anyone who describes legitimate differences of opinion as "lying", an attitude which is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - closing admin made a judgement call on a difficult subject clouded with a lot of heated comment and debate. I support that decision. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I really wish Radiant had not both deleted this article and nominated other such similar articles for deletion. I base this on my belief that whoever closes an XFD should not have participated in the discussion. If an editor has anything in particular to say, s(he) ought to note it in the discussion and leave the closing to someone else. That said, I find McKay's accusation of deceit to be inappropriate, lacking foundation, and in rather poor taste (especially with regard to the means of its expression).

However, let's consider the close itself. In terms of numbers, this was a clear "no consensus" with 12 keeps, 12 deletes, and 1 redirect. But, since AFD is not a headcount, let's also consider the arguments.

Arguments to delete. The two main arguments to delete were: indiscriminate information and lack of attribution. Through the course of the AFD, steps were taken to address the latter problem and a number of references and two paragraphs of prose about the minigames were added. I believe the first was also addressed when the game guide content that was initially present in the article was removed, leaving only the list of minigames with brief descriptions. A game guide "contain hints or complete solutions", but the article that was deleted included few or no such statements.

Arguments to keep. I disagree with Radiant that the arguments to keep consisted only of "ILIKEIT", "bad process", and "it was kept before". Keep arguments included direct or implicit references to following (and I'm paraphrasing): "the minigames are the central focus of Mario Party"; "the information is encyclopedic but the main article is already long"; "the article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content (instructions/hints)"; and "the topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable".

Conclusion. I initially started this lengthy comment not knowing what I would recommend, but have come to a clear conclusion that the decision to delete should be overturned. I find the argument discounting the "keep" arguments to be inaccurate and also rather dismissive, though I note again that I do not believe the close was made in bad faith or that there is evidence to suggest such. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. He shouldn't have participated in the latter Mario Party list AfDs, but he made a good call in closing it, simply because no one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia. No matter how many people vote to keep based on "it's necessary and encyclopedic just because", the fact that they didn't shows that this closure was in good faith. Anyone remember Bonus Stage? 50% delete, 50% keep, but it was deleted because the keepers didn't assert that it was encyclopedia, notable, or necessary. Remember - this is not a vote. It is a discussion, and if the closing administrator feels that you have failed to prove your points, it gets deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

50% keep, 50% delete = No Consensus. Henchman 2000 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD = Not a vote. The Kinslayer 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, while you are correct that the vote isn't everything, if he felt that the arguments provided against all of the delete votes were invalid, he should have said though. From my perspective it appeared as if they were ignored. Maybe they weren't, but if they weren't ignored, I think he should have stated so. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia? How about the list of things I wrote?

1. The minigames are the central focus of Mario Party;
2. The article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content;
3. The topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable.

• • An interpretation that these were only "ILIKEIT" or "USEFUL" is dismissive and inaccurate. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for further discussion, though I have no opinion on the article itself. It is obvious from the lack of agreement here that there was also no agreement at AfD, where the same arguments were used, and rather than discuss the merits here, it should be sent back for re-argument based on the current version. DGG 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion When closing an AfD, or judging any consensus for that matter, you need to take into account the value of the arguments in relation to policy. I think Radiant did this well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self. To clarify a bit, I didn't quote people in my closing but listed some of the ideas people argued from. Actual quotes along those lines include "There is no reason to delete these articles" (Bowsy), "Nominator has provided no reason for deletion" (Dacium), "We have no reason to think that this article should be deleted" (McKay) and "Nominator should post links to past AFDs ... nothing has changed - so still keep" (Dacium). WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments include "Keep as this is a useful list" (Burntsauce) and "Mario Party has extended into quite a long series" (Valley2City). >Radiant< 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I should add that I've struck my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (2nd nomination), and that my nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames was intended to be procedural because it was noted that those party game articles should all be treated similarly. >Radiant< 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I figured you were paraphrasing. However, I think it's unfair to characterise those users' arguments as consisting of nothing beyond those quotes. See, for instance, these other statements by those users, which are claims with direct relevance to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and/or refutations of the reasons for deletion (material in parentheses is added by me):

1. Bowsy: "Mario Party is about minigames more than anything else." (notability)
2. Dacium: "Information is too big to fit in normal articles for games." (proper content organisation)
3. Burntsauce: "I see nothing that strikes me as "game guide" material here, and we can quickly remove it should it ever creep in." (WP:NOT)

-- Black Falcon 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first is a non sequitur. MP is notable and it consists of minigames; it does not follow that an enumeration thereof is encyclopedic.

  No, the logic isn't perfect. You are correct in saying "If X is notable, it doesn't mean all the Ys in X are notable" but it seems implicit that he's saying that the minigames themselves are notable. Sure, he should probably show why he thinks that, but his opinion is a valid one. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The second is also a non sequitur. If information does not fit in one place, it does not follow that we need a new place to put it. Guidelines like WP:AVTRIV and WP:FICT are relevant here.

  Yes, funny you should mention WP:FICT. I quote in part: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice." On some of the MP lists it was specifically ruled that it was too long and unweildy for the main article. Do you think a better guideline fits? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The third is a proof by assertion. Other people argue that this is game guide material. Indeed, if gamefaqs.com is any judge, I would expect to find exactly this in a MP game guide. Just because a good game guide would contain more information doesn't mean this information isn't game guidish.

  Ahh, now that's a non sequitur. Just because there is a proof by assertion doesn't mean that the content isn't true. On the other hand, you mention that others argued that it was game guide material. I argue that not only were all their comments a proof by assertion logical fallacy, in most cases, those who thought it wasn't game guide content asked what they thought was gameguideish, and their comments never even made it to the Argumentum ad nauseam phase. And in most of those cases, no reply was given. WP:CONSENSUS states that without adding additional thought. I argue that consensus was reached in favor of keep. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• My point here is that I tend to discount fallacies when closing a discussion. >Radiant< 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  the purpose of this Deletion review is to determine whether or not policy was followed. The argument being made here is that policy isn't being followed. IIRC, the purpose of the closing adminstrator isn't to "discount fallacies" made in the discussion, but to gather the feel of the AfD to see where consensus lies. Not (like Radiant himself claims) make additional judgements on the content provided therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs)

  • The purpose of the closing administrator is to weigh the arguments. Obviously, valid arguments weigh stronger than fallacies. >Radiant< 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    And I'm saying that there aren't any fallacies on the "keep" side. I think you used a judgement call to say what was a fallacy and what wasn't. If someone thought the arguements were fallacies, they should have said so during the discussion. McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Still a game guide in my opinion. The Kinslayer 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion That article was absolutely useless, and I actually like the Mario Party series, but, that being said, I also know that a list of the minigames is totally unnecessary and I'm still feeling a WP:ILIKEIT vibe from the overturn votes, since no one has, once again, brought up anything that merits the article's existence. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Contrary to what you may think, the purpose of a deletion review isn't to say "Overturn, notable" or "Endorse deletion, still a game guide" Those are not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the process was followed. Particularly in the outcome -- Did the closing administrator properly follow procedure and determine whether or not consensus existed? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah sure why not. (Did you really think challenging my view was going make me say 'By gods your right, restore it immediately I say!'?). Looking through the AfD, no-one adequetly (in my view) rebutted the deletion issues, therefore the admin was right to delete. The Kinslayer 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you did exactly what I was thinking you should do. I pointed out that your argument wasn't valid for a Deletion Review. I was hoping that you'd go through the AfD, and the result to determine whether or not you think that the process was followed. I believe that the process wasn't followed properly, beacuse the closing admin:
        1. Didn't give an accurate summary of what happened
        2. Claims that he did some original research on the content to determine what consensus really was. McKay 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
           • So what, he didn't give an accurate summation of the events because you disagreed with him? He assessed your arguments, which WERE "I like it", "It's useful", and "Mario Party is notable, and the mini-games are important to MP, making them notable by association". None of which are appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

             We specifically denounced that those were what our claims were. His job was not to assess arguments, but to determine whether or not consensus was reached, and I don't think he did that. Consensus was not reached in favor of "delete". McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure. I can't really disagree with anything that Radiant's said, here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. While some "Delete"-ers had IDON'TLIKEIT arguments, the "Keep"-ers had none at all outside ILIKEIT. I think it was a pretty clear cut case that the Keeps were out debated by the Deletes. Axem Titanium 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Black Falcon has shown that the "keep"ers had other arguments, can you discount them? McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, I was not using WP:ILIKEIT whatsoever! I was using WP:N which it does qualify for. And the deletes were out debated by the keeps anyway. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn which defults to keep. The AfD was allowed to run for the full length of time, yet no consensus was found for deletion inspite of substantial discussion. Thus it must be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the post above yours should have explained that 50% No keep and 50% Delete DOES NOT equal No Consensus and therefore a keep. As has been stated numerous times, AfD is not a vote, it's a debate. The Kinslayer 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    and what he's saying is that there wasn't consensus for keep. If there was consensus for keep, we wouldn't be having this little discussion would we?

• Comment - Nobody wishing to keep this article has provided any sources which show notability of the mini-games outside the context of Mario Party itself. Can anybody show otherwise? I don't consider coverage in game guides or primary sources to be enough for this, and I don't considering copying and pasting portions of the main article to be enough either. Editorially speaking, it makes no sense to fork articles like this. Overall, people wanting to keep this article did not have strong arguments. One group claimed the nom didn't really give a valid reason for deletion (maybe, but it was quickly followed by a decent reason for deletion, so that doesn't really matter). One group gave various reasons for keeping, most of which were variations "it's good, I like it". Black Falcon attempted to source, but as I pointed out, this just resulted in forking content from the main article. --- RockMFR 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• How did we not have strong arguments, the deletists didn't have strong arguments anyway, they were saying "I don't like this article, I don't want it here, I know, I'll use a lame excuse to try and make it seem like something is wrong with the article". On the other hand, we were saying, "This is a notable subject, it is sourced and you are using reasons that aren't true to try and get the article deleted". Which is better? Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - 50/50 is a clear consensus to delete when the reasoning of the 50% urging us to keep can't produce a reason related to our policies and guidelines for why we should do so. It's not all about the numbers. Chris cheese whine 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, we used WP:N so we were using policies and guidelines. AfD is mainly about numbers and ranting, of which there was way too much to forge a (proper) consensus from. However, the deletists were clearly usein WP:IDONTLIKEIT and policies and guidelines that did not actually apply to the article like WP:ATT. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Done well, and an Admin who has the brass cajones to actually read the arguments and realize the the Keep votes amounted to nothing more then WP:ILIKEIT rather then making this a straw poll gets points. -M^ask 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin who fails to understand how AfD works and makes an opinionated closure and who fails to realise that the entire nomination was a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument most certainly does NOT deserve points. Henchman 2000 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nomination may well have been inspired by WPIDONTLIKEIT. However, unlike the WP:ILIKEIT crowd, the nominator was able to provide ACTUAL policy failings to support the nomination. And if you feel that WP:ILIKEIT OR WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be considered above actual Policy related arguments when summing up a deletion debate, then I hope your never an admin. As has been stated numerous times, numerical counts of people supporting or opposing a proposed deletion is NOT the point of the AfD. Even here in the review, the people wishing for the article to be restored haven't been able to muster a better argument then "Admin had no right to delete the article, the people saying 'Keep' was at least equal to people saying 'Delete'.' The Kinslayer 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, Kinslayer. If youare saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments shouldn't be considered over policies and guidelines, then you are saying that many delet votes shouldn't have been counted as they were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The keepists used poilicies and guidelines like WP:N, which we are doing at the moment. Also, the admin did have no right to delete the article, as there was too much cloud and mist to form a consensus from. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, it was a comment on the logic you seem be displaying at the moment! I think far too many people throw NPA around needlessly just because they don't like the holes that are appearing in their own arguments, so they use it as a smokescreen. As for the too much cloud issue, only you and a very few other people hold that view. The admin at the time felt the issue was clear enough to judge, as do a large majority of the people in this review. Most of the cloud and mist, it has to be said, came from people stating 'Keep' with no reason or very weak reasons (this also happened, although as far as I'm concerned, to a far lesser extent, with some of the people saying 'Delete'.) The Kinslayer 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Closure as delete was within admin discretion, and the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments. WarpstarRider 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Twin City Fan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company history is very notable. It is probably most regarded legend in the US fan history. Twin City Fan is the parent company of the oldest fan company in US history: Clarage, and the largest private industrial fan company in the US. More interestingly, the Barry family has successfully run the company for 3 generations. The first generation, Ben Barry is considered the founding father of moderm fan industry, who founded Barry Blower, Barry Chicago Blower, PennBarry, and last Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. 63.252.184.178 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fancruft! Just kidding. Overturn deletion A quick Google News search shows this to be a notable company, including being involved with some court case that made it to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That comment made me smile :) Anyway, overturn and relist in light of evidence for potential notability, but relist so a consensus as to whether or not it's sufficient can be reached. The prior AfD didn't have much debate on it either way. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The article starts: "Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd is a group of industrial fans companies, comprising Twin City Fan & Blower, Aerovent and Clarage. Today, Clarage is the oldest fan company still in operation independently." That last line is a claim of notability entirely ignored by AFD and if Clarage is notable, then why isn't the umbrella organization it falls under? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. The article itself is completely unsourced, and reads like an advert (or at least something from an "official" company history). Being owned by a family is unremarkable; and the claim that Clarage is notable as the oldest "independent" fan company makes no sense, since Clarage was apparently bought out by this company, thus making it non-independent and unremarkable. The Google references are all either company home pages, commercial references or product directories, and one or two local business news stories like "Twin City Fan opened a plant in our city". No significant third-party coverage at all, and nothing to back up claims that this company is the "most regarded legend in the US fan history". --MCB 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Given the lack of an assertion of notability, endorse deletion but without prejudice. Chris cheese whine 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. My review of the Google News hits turns up several mentions of a single legal dispute between the former owners, a fair number of reprints of press releases, some recruiting posts and a surprising number of duplicate hits about their name change. The South Dakota Supreme Court case mentioned above appears to be a routine worker's comp dispute. I'm not finding enough to meet the requirements of WP:CORP. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial, independent sources can be found. Rossami (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD was ill-attended and soft on substance, but so is this nomination to overturn. No problem with a better article if better sources can be provided. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LaPret (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AFD)

Person is notable. I provided creditable press releases, magazine articles and websites and ASCAP records. Several Admins with hate for the group Profound Intent in which the Rapper-Songwriter is a member continues to vandalize the article and submit it for speedy deletion. The performer has recorded with Yung Joc, written for Tatyana Ali and has participate in a nationwide release in iTunes called Play the Field. His name is found in not just recent searches but content dating back two to three years ago. He is also well linked to singer Teairra Mari.

I even tried to start the article over and improve it and they deleted it while I was in the process to ensure that it would be approved. I've seen articles on Wikipedia with no references at all, I still don't understand that.

He is also signed to an indie label South Capitol Recordings which is parented by Block Entertainment. Once I made the label a link using [[ ]] those admins then went to the label page and added a deletion tag, however the article not started by me, had been there for sometime until I listed it has his label. I'm shocked the ASCAP article has not been put up for deletion. He and his group was briefly mentored by Kelly Price, I even supplied a picture.FranklinRose 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Profound Intent and LaPret have been through multiple valid AfDs - [1][2][3] - and the deletion logs for the pages in question - [4][5][6][7] - show a total of 15 deletions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia articles are created on notable topics, not the other way around. Profound Intend has no releases other than a single. LaPret, as a solo artist, has no releases at all. If a group is notable, it will release. If it hasn't managed to release yet, it is not notable in any respect. I deleted a number of attempts to continually repost this content. I've previously advised that this set of articles should be created after the subject becomes notable, not before. Nobody hates Profound Intent. What's to hate? Nobody knows about them. I hate them because I deleted the article on them? We work on consensus here, and the consensus is that this group and LaPret are not yet notable. Stop worrying about whether there's an article on LaPret and go make a release. If it becomes popular, someone will write an article on the subject. I am very disappointed over the rampant attempts to repost this content despite consensus here, most recently today resulting in a block of FranklinRose. How many times do we have to AfD, speedy delete, and DRV this person/group? --Durin
• Endorse deletion, exactly what Durin said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, evidence was provided of minor notability, but not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. There's little more to say. Xtifr _tälk 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, no reason given to overturn it but "I disagree with the consensus". If you have new information, I'd be happy to see it. -Amarkov moo! 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party Advance minigames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Does not fail WP:ATT like the closing admin said, also, it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists. Henchman 2000 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Closers note I see no other way to close that AfD than the way I did. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, fails WP:NOT like the closing admin said. You are quite right that it's silly to not delete the others as well, so I've put them on AFD. >Radiant< 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, after you sort out all the comments it's clear that the consensus was to delete. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant endorse I don't agree with the decision to delete, but I can't see any other way the debate could have been closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate could've been closed as No consensus, seeing as that is what everyone expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henchman 2000 (talk • contribs) 18:07, March 28, 2007

• Endorse, closer was quite right. The article shows three primary (read: unreliable) sources, two of which require interpretation. They are not good enough, so the nom is wrong, and the article did fail WP:ATT. With regards to the comment about similar things not being deleted (yet): WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING cover that. Thanks to Radiant for nominating them. Picaroon 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Primary sources aren't neccesarily unreliable. If they're used to backup non-controversial information and are not needed to determine notability they can be quite reliable. If celebrity X says their birthday is March 2 while all "reliable" sources say March 1, it would be silly to not believe the primary source. (Just a comment on the reasoning, I am not commenting on the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I do agree with the decision to delete, but that doesn't matter either because the decision was clearly based on policy. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Despite the merits of the article or lack thereof, the discussion was closed appropriately. However, this should in no way constitute a precedent for other similar articles. If such a precedent was desired, the articles should have been nominated together. If any editor wishes to recreate the article in part or in whole while also addressing the issues raised in the AFD, s(he) may request userfication from the closing admin. -- Black Falcon 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, depending on whether we overturn the other article here on Deletion Review. It would see reasonable to discuss them together. DGG 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• If there is a reason to discuss this further a new discussion can be made. Overturning a closure is done when there was a procedural problem with the closure itself, from WP:DRV "This page is about process, not about content". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - "it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists." is not a very compelling argument. WP:NOT a game guide and WP:OR are. The Kinslayer 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the DRVer's reason to undelete is completely incoherent and does not cite any form of applicable policy. "The closing admin is silly" does not constitute an undelete reason. The clear consensus was that only the Delete people had opinions based in policy. Axem Titanium 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Compelling arguments, but I'm still a little unclear. Could you please elaborate for the sake of those of us who find the debate a little less self-evident? The Kinslayer 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. In my book, a failure of WP:V or WP:OR (and therefore a failure of WP:ATT) creates a default-to-delete scenario - i.e. the "keep" camp needs to provide a compelling reason for doing so. The only thing that came close to a reasoned argument was citing precedent, which is something we don't do. Nomination seems reasonable, but lacking evidence to support it. Chris cheese whine 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a failure to the above if it didn't cite any sources relating to the minigames, but it does. Henchman 2000 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)