Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March

MySpace Secret Shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted after it was improved after people requested it to have sources that confirm its notability. Article has sources and is under the criteria for a notable article and is supported by an admin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion, the improvements did little to sway existing opinions, and delete arguments continued to appear even afterward. Valid AfD. --Coredesat 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The improvements were made AFTER the deletion talk page was over.65.11.27.42 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • In that case, endorse G4 deletion. The recreated version is almost no different from the AfD'd version. --Coredesat 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse AfD, endorse G4. Valid debate, valid close, reposted content substantially similar, no new evidence presented. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually new evidence was shown. Check the links on the bottom the last one is new and it is by a reliable third party source on the topic.The minor changes were the only changes necessary and i believe that since it meets the criteria it shouldnt be deleted. It shouldnt be merged because there are also MySpace Secret Stand-Up shows. 65.11.27.42 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Multiple reliable sources are needed, so the link 65.11 refers to isn't enough on its own. The rest of the links are press releases. I tried Factiva and found passing mentions and more press releases, so while I'm open to be convinced otherwise, that one article isn't enough to justify a second AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The criteria says it only needs one or more sources so it is in the criteria.65.11.27.42 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And which criteria would that be? WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works..." --pgk 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per everybody. Pretty much the same article that was validly deleted by AfD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It says you need one or more nontrivial sources so as far as i can see bring it back.65.11.27.42 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• You need multiple non-trivial sources independent of the subject. Some Wikilawyers interpret two as multiple, one does not even meet that standard. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have found multiple (2) non trivial sources tht prove this article is worthy and plan onexpanding it. They are listed here: [2] [3] Now theer are three reliable souces and 2 press releases and if you google it smaller name sites have thousands of articles on it and now its fully international with 7 different countries in 3 different continents 65.11.27.42 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per comments by Sam Blanning, and others, above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

did you not read the comment above. But it doesnt matter anymore...Martini833 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Martini833 created MySpace Events, which happens to feature not just the Secret Shows, but also information on two other MySpace shows. The "reliable sources" in the article don't meet WP:RS; they're just articles about artists that mention MSSS as the place where those artists started their careers. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) where the term is prominently displayed and defined in the 1912 Party Platform written by Theodore Roosevelt.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a challenge of the redirect deletion, not the article deletion we discussed before. Overturn. Attack page? For a party disbanded in 1916?? No applicable speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ  01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and List on RfD per Anþony, speedy was not the way to go on this one but a listing on RfD is warranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the G4 speedy-deletion and list to RFD. A redirect is not substantially identical to an article. Do not undelete all the properly deleted versions of the page. I do share Anþony's suspicion that this is unlikely to survive scrutiny, though. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Dixie Mafia where the terms are used interchangeably in sources cited.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the nominator is challenging the deletion of this being used the redirect to Dixie Mafia and not the original article that was AFDed. --70.48.174.169 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete just the redirect. Clearly not a valid G4 deletion, since the redirect was never deleted at RFD and G4 only applies to recreations of stuff deleted at xFD. Possibly send to RFD though. --W.marsh 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ  01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and List on RfD per Anþony, speedy was not the way to go on this one but a listing on RfD is warranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The page was deleted using PRod:non-notable footballer according to WP:BIO, but the player although not playing for the senior national team, but still playing top level for Malta, although Maltese football may be at semi-professional level. And there is discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players on going.

I put this not Deletion review, because it does not proper process of AFD to delete it under discussion. Per previous Afd results, please for top level football already notable. Ongoing discussion of Notability discussion should not became a reason of Current deletion. Here the player DOB and match record as of 2005-2006 season. [4][5] -- Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirty underwear fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as being non-notable, when it is clearly notable. If Dearcupid.org is not a reliable 3rd-person 3rd-party source, then what else is?? Out-of-process deletion. Kingshockaz 2000 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse valid AfD, with a clear and unmistakable consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BattleMaster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|1st AfD | 2nd AfD)

I started to write an entirely new article in accordance with all Wikipedia requirements. Please unlock the page so I could publish it. The page has already its versions in NL and PL wikipedias, only on EN is locked. Merewyn 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per the second AfD, found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), unless the reliable sources that were asked for are provided. The fact that the article is on NL and PL is irrelevant; the various Wikipedia's are independent and have separate criteria for inclusion. If you think you can address the issues that were raised in the second AfD, I suggest that the best thing to do is write the article in userspace, and then bring it here for consideration. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per second AfD. You can prepare a version of the article that satisfies notability on your user subpage. But until that is done the AfD consensus was clearly to delete and should not be reversed without addressing the problem of sources. Resurgent insurgent 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD consensus was very clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Controversy Nobody yet answered my Question of Reliability for the games, so I repeat it here again and again. HOW can you check the reliable sources for a GAME? If by Google hits like it was required in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), then in fact it is VERY UNFAIR, the games you must pay for will always win - because of large amount of advertisement hits. Freeware will be always discriminated this way. Give the fair and clear rules for your requirements and stop demanding to cite the shop catalogues as reliable sources. Merewyn 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google hits are not a criterion for article inclusion. Non-trivial coverage by independent fact-checked sources are what qualifies a game topic for inclusion. The catalog is not independent, and advertisements are not non-trivial coverage. If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so, then you should add those to a draft and bring it here or to the AfD's closing admin. If you can't find such sources to cite, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's core policies; see WP:ATT. Yes, that means freeware is less likely to get articles because it's less likely to get covered by anything except fan what-I-like websites. But most freeware is just not noted enough for any encyclopedia; at least WP gives it the same objective criteria that it must meet as commercial software must meet. You misunderstand the requirements, which is why you misunderstand the fairness. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. Barno 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Re-Comment How should I state it more clearly? Your "independent" sources write about the commercial games because this is what the PR is paid for - to get as much attention on your product as possible, while nobody is interested in selling the Freeware. Therefore, judging by the amount of advertisements is a measure of NOTHING but the financial resources of the producers.
      Why is BattleMaster so special? This game started 1 January 2000, exists continuously for SEVEN years now, which makes BattleMaster one of the oldest and developing of the BBMMORPG games. The major difference between BattleMaster and many other games is that one cannot win BattleMaster. Game mechanics and playing worlds are deliberately designed to make total domination impossible. As a result, some player realms have existed since the beginning of the game (7 real years) while other realms have been formed and destroyed. Since all realms are controlled by players, the game has its own developing history [6] as lived and written by all the players, the players that make friends not only in the game but in real life too, visiting each other even across the world. Please unlock this page and allow to write the article about it all. Merewyn 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Please clarify:"If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so..." So an online game is only worthy to wikipedia if you convince enough media sources to cover it? Is that the only action available? What qualifies as acceptable media? JoetheLesser 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — JoetheLesser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment While I can certainly see the need for some notability metric with regard to online games, given the number of fly-by-night games played by less than a hundred people out there, I really have to agree to some extent with Merewyn here. If the criteria for free browser-based games are the same as those for off-the-shelf commercial games, you will never be able to include any, because, as the others have said, a free game without any advertisements will not be able to buy the publicity that games produced by the likes of EA, Bllizzard, and Sony can. Perhaps (though I admit to knowing nothing about the logistics involved) a new subcategory needs to be developed for such games, with criteria that do not depend upon mainstream, commercial coverage? --Dan Aris 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — Danaris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Support of the idea of subcategory for the freeware games. A freeware game (= no ads) that exists constantly 7 years and have over 1200 users playing each day [7] is worth noticing as a phenomenon. Merewyn 10:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Fair" is not the issue. We're not here to be fair! A large advertising budget gets your product noticed, and being noticed is the first step towards becoming notable. There are other routes to notability, but that's a quick and generally reliable one, like it or not. We're not here to fix the world's injustices—we're here to document some of its notable features. Xtifr _tälk 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps, then, absent a category that takes into account the nature of such a game, you could suggest some ways that those of us who play & like the game could seek to spread knowledge of it, and make it more notable? We want it to be more widely known--it's just we don't have bags of money, and we don't have any knowledge of the field. What sorts of mentions would be possible for such a game to get, that would be considered "notable"? --Dan Aris 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redeletion. The reposted version still failed to provide any evidence of independent sources (the core concern of the AFD discussion). Without independent sources, anything we write would either be of suspect neutrality or original research. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources. By the way, advertising has nothing to do with it because advertising also fails our neutrality and independence standards. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - So, you all mean that I should start the Wikipedia article by buying enough of advertisments in newspapers?? The way to measure the notability should be really rediscussed, I proposed to start here: Reliable Sources for a game? Or advertisement catalogue instead of encyclopedia. Merewyn 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  Advertisements are not independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

  No, we don't "all" mean that advertisements help get software a Wikipedia page. Just the opposite: see WP:SOFTWARE: "media reprints of press releases" are explicitly excluded, catalogue listings are explicitly excluded. None of the things you described about the game are included as valid reasons for it to have an article. If some reliable sources carried articles saying the same things that you said, that would give us strong objective reasons to keep a BattleMaster article. If you think these criteria really should be different for freeware games, you're right to discuss that on the notability talk page, but wrong to insist we change it in this deletion review. You'll probably find lots of game fans who will support such a policy change, but if the guidelines are changed in a way that is contradictory to Wikipedia's core policies, they will be rejected and reverted by the broader community of editors. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to indulge the fans of every game that gets a little more popular than thousands of other games without getting mainstream coverage. Barno 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, it's this simple: you need sources. Until someone has written about the game, we don't have sources. Get it reviewed, or written up, or something, then we can base an article on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about This?: External review fitting your requirements.

• Review at gameogre.com
• Featured Online GAME OF THE WEEK at gameogre.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merewyn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

How about the sources I gave above? I have the sources for the article, so accordingly to your requirements this article should be restored. Please. Merewyn 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a bunch of reviews contributed by fans to a website open to anyone's contributions without any kind of editorial supervision. They don't count as sources for us any more than we could cite amazon product reviews. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Who decides which sources count and which not? Why the sources mentionned above cannot count for BattleMaster while in the same time the Amazon or other eBay reviews do count for other games like e.g. Anarchy Online? Merewyn 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The log for this image indicates that it was taken by photographer Jeramey Jannene (a.k.a. User:Grassferry49, a.k.a. compujeramey on flickr), yet it was deleted as "no copyright tag". According to the url in the upload log, it is cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/100075920 which uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. If this is true, it should be restored and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I uploaded the full picture onto Commons and restored this one here. This isn't really a DRV topic. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Voting was fairly even, but a WikiProject stacked up votes of keep based on Ownership, resulting in a decision of "no consensus" by The wub. I am asserting that the closing admin should have based the decision on the strength of the arguments rather than on what appears to be simple vote count. Discussion was here. I am seeking an action of overturn and delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. I tend to agree with AM. The arguments to deletion boil down to guidelines on overcategorization, whereas the the arguments to keep boil down to WP:OWNership ("We at WP:GAA have organise our category very well", "It's a silly nom by someone who doesn't understand the subject", "Totally ridiculous suggestion", "we should respect the GAA Project as they know the topic better"). Just because there's a Wikiproject doesn't mean other people (not to mention standards) don't get a say in this. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • An unfair characterisation of the objections, see below. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I should have said that several of the arguments to keep boil down et cetera. >Radiant< 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Gross over-categorisation, bizarre result. Overturn and delete.--Doc^g 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, creating a Wikiproject does not give carte blanche to ignore general Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And in my experience, the more specific and narrow the focus of a Wikiproject, the more fannish and less reliable its opinions (in general—there are notable exceptions). If the arguments had been based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games guidelines, I would probably have endorsed the decision, but as it is...no. (Of course, if the Sports and games workgroup guidelines were being followed, I suspect this would have never made it to DR.) Xtifr _tälk 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Neutral because of closer's comments below. I'm still uncomfortable with the excessive deference shown to a minor Wikiproject, but overall, I find it too close too call. I think lists would be a better choice, but I wasn't in the CfD. Xtifr _tälk 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Closer's comment. Though some of the objections were unreasonable and implied ownership by the WikiProject, by no means all of them were. Some concerns I thought reasonable were raised including:
  • By their nature few players would end up in many of the categories. Peter Canavan has the most with six categories, few players would approach this and this hardly compares (as one delete !voter did) with Babe Ruth previously having over 100 categories.
  • Upmerging would result in large unwieldy categories.
  • The previous baseball discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Subcategories of Category:National League All-Stars was partially based on the fact that Articles were being written about each All-Star game. Such articles were not being written in this case.
• Given the arguments presented on both sides I did not feel sufficient consensus had been reached. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Wub's expanded comments. Tim! 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus closure Wub's expanded closing comments show that this decision was within admin discretion. Xoloz 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This was an established article before it was speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. The article did not meet this criterion since it asserted the notability of the company. In fact, MarchFirst got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise, and is a good example of a company which failed during the .com bust. See [8] e.g. While the article was far from comprehensive, it was not a speedy candidate nor should it be deleted via AfD. Rhobite 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the only part of the article that could be considered an assertion of notability was the statement that it was a company that failed during the dotcom bust. The article didn't even state what the company did... not that that's necessarily unusual for a dotcom, but it seems a little poor for an encyclopaedia article. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my own deletion. Looking at the "purpose" box on this page: "where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question", of course I haven't been approached regarding the concerns on this. Define "established" being here a long time doesn't mean it meets out standards, and doesn't afford a free pass. You say it asserted the notability, can you please tell me what that assertion was, per Bainer the being a failed dotcom isn't notability, there were 1000 upon 1000 of them. I'm sure many of them are "good examples" of failed businesses. "got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise" pity none of it is reference in the article then. --pgk 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't see that part - I should have consulted with you first. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn – Its name comes from the March 2000 merger of US Web/CKS and Whittman-Hart is a clear claim to notability. yeah next time check with the deleting admin first, but even if you've never heard of marchFIRST (dumbest capitalization ever?) you just need to click through to USWeb. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that makes things any clearer. Maybe it's just my pedantic reading of the wording but it doesn't say the company is a result of a merger, just the name (which could mean anything a break away of the original founders etc. though I admitedly didn't look that far). Whitman-Hart seems to lack sourcing so probably in it's current form fails WP:CORP, but being a spin off of even a notable company doesn't immediately confer notability. To add to the confusion of this supposed merger followed by bankruptcy yet the Whitman-Hart article suggests, Whitman-Hart is still a going concern which suggests there was no merger. Maybe I'm missing something but the original article does nothing to enlighten me. My reaction is still endorse the deletion, though I'll happliy restore to someones userspace if they want to bash it into better shape. --pgk 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion - marchFIRST was an Internet company, part of the dot-com boom of the 1990s that eventually failed and was sold is hardly a claim to notability - but no prejudice against a better article, and you can have this one back to start from if you like. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that be a GFDL issue? The intro to the old article wasn't good, but the timeline was fine assuming references can be found. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So undelete the history once there's another article in place. Problem solved. —Cryptic 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no claims of notability as written initially. Resurgent insurgent 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If that were the criterion, then we should remove the rule about speedy deletion of recreated articles after they've been deleted, because if whoever writes it first doesn't get it right for whatever reason, the encyclopedia loses. Kinda silly... Carlossuarez46 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) And also remove "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." from the purpose box above to conform to the apparent practice. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete looks like it certainly was notable at some point, if only briefly. I found a Cnet story saying it cut 1,700 jobs at once, which at the time was 30% of its workforce, meaning that it emplyed over 5,000 people! That was not a small company by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The company was certainly notable. IT wasn't Enron, but in business circles it was certainly among the more spectacular collapses, in particlualr because the company had just previously acquired Mitchell Madison. What this is here is simply the haggling over whether notability was asserted in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How would an undelete be better than adding the article content into one of the other two related articles? IMHO that would seem to be the best thing to do, whether or not this article is undeleted. -- llywrch 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. The company got a fair amount of press in its day and a well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written before it was inappropriately speedied). But it was a relatively short-lived company and I don't generally agree that "notability is permanent" so this should be tested against the community consensus in a full discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written' - did you look at the article? It has three links, one returns a "service unavailable" message. The other two are the companies this company may have been merged from (though I've still to understand how the companies merged, went bankrupt but the original companies are still currently trading...) neither mentions this at the destination of the link, they are generic front pages. Is this your idea of well-sourced?--pgk 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as above, is anyone actually willing to put some effort into tracking down some sources and bashing this into some sort of shape? I've already said I'll restore it into userspace for someone to do just that... pgk 08:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I posted some of the 905 Newsbank articles on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if the following links count as reliable sources, but here you go: [www.varbusiness.com/sections/news/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=18814404], [www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,59579,00.html], [www.crn.com/it-channel/18818591], [www.digitalsolid.com/2007/03/01/marchfirst-second-monday-and-the-scarcity-of-good-domain-names/] and [www.forrester.com/go?docid=23949]
  I am not sure if these are reliable sources, but they could be useful. Opinions are welcome. --SunStar Net ^talk 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of those are those free IT trade magazines. I consider them a solid middle ground as far as reliability goes: They're generally quite factual and certainly quite a few steps above blogs and things, but since they're loath to report any negative information I don't consider them in the same line as the New York Times and such. I'd certainly consider them reliable enough for non-controversial information in an article. With so much coverage, I'd be absolutely astonished if MarchFIRST can't be turned into a decent and well-referenced article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per the current version of WP:CORP. All publicly traded companies in the US will be subject of multiple secondary sources; each must report quarterly results and file them publicly with the government (called form 10-Q or 10-K for the 4th fiscal quarter). There are dozens of organizations that collect, collate, and report on everything that gets filed: CNN finance, Yahoo finance, and many others are available free online. Many more are available by subscription such as Forbes, Fortune, and ValueLine. So, while it is not impossible that online content from a while back has been removed by these guys, the hard copies are still out there of these periodicals. A slew of information about the company can be found at [[9]], and a cursory search indicates that some stuff remains online from that period , see forbes, another mention by forbes, pr newswire, some lawfirm yakking about the collapse. I would suppose that the SEC, Forbes magazine are a couple of relatively reliable sources, so what's the problem? Carlossuarez46 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Without disagreeing with Carlossuarez46's specific findings in this case, I have to note that the broad interpretation of WP:CORP he/she opened with (that all publicly traded US companies can be assumed to be notable) is not the generally accepted interpretation. See WP:CORP's Talk page for more. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The policy at WP:CORP says notability can be established by write-ups found in multiple independent sources. It is inconceivable that any US public company cannot meet that, due to the extensive number of publications devoted to investing in stocks and bonds of companies (regardless of whatever the company actually does or produces, which will probably have a slew of trade or industry publications mentioning the company or its products) and US governmental requirements for reporting which generates thousands of pages of sourcing for articles. Although some people don't like the implication of the loosened WP:CORP, it's hard to gainsay its consequence. Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't AFD, the article was deleted by criteria A7 no assertion of notability. It is the article which is deleted, not the subject. Deletion isn't saying there is no way we can have an article on the subject, not that they actually are non-notable. What it is saying that someone without any knowledge of the subject on viewing the article has no clue as to why we have the article. The article was awful, as persistantly offered above I'll happily restore it if someone wants to knock it into better shape. No one has taken me up on that yet, so we seem to have the situation we are trying to overturn something not based on the basis of deletion, but leaving it in the same state it could be deleted again on the same speedy criteria. --pgk 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • But saying that it ought to remain deleted means you must believe that whatever was there cannot be the basis of an article. Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable (so in effect deleting the subject). Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • DRV is not asking you if you think it should remain deleted as such, nor is it asking you if the material currently in existance could be used to build a valid article. It is asking did the process of deletion work as it should, did the article as it stood meet the most basic standards required of wikipedia articles, the basic drive towards quality over quantity should tell us keeping stuff which falls far short of the basic standards by a long way hoping that someone, maybe some day will make it acceptable is a bad idea. "Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable" - no it isn't, the speedy criteria G4 does not apply to material speedy deleted. If you merely recreated a duplicate the original then the original speedy criteria would stand and could be reapplied, if on the other hand you addressed the issues of the speedy deletion (in this case non-assertion of notability) then the original speedy criteria wouldn't stand, G4 certainly couldn't be applied. The article has other issues which need to be addressed (lack of sourcing for example), but those aren't speedy criteria. --pgk 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • And this is also the frustration of the requester here not discussing this with the deleting admin (me) first. The basic issues could have been addressed, the article would probably have been restored days ago and we'd have a better article as a result (not necessarily a perfect article) instead we have this drawn out discussion which really fails to address the fundamentals. The time we've all invested here (myself included) could have been used to a net positive effect in terms of article quality --pgk 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, old article is decent source to build off of and sources show it can be done.. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Night Gyr. Clear media attention, satisfying WP:WEB. Don't care if it's AFD'ed. I don't think that a draconian interpretation of "did not assert notability" satisfies the spirit of A7, for a company which is clearly notable anyway. Patstuart^talk·edits 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books

This MfD was a mass nomination of user subpages used by some users to collect other users' signatures. The list in the MfD was almost certainly non-exhaustive. It was closed by User:IronGargoyle as, to quote the important bit:

Keep pages from active participants (most, I would suggest any with contributions outside userspace) and Delete pages from completely non-active participants.

Gargoyle became unable to enact the close and made this post (again, selectively quoted):

I would suggest that any user with fewer than 100 mainspace edits would have their autograph book on the one-week bubble to avoid any ambiguity.

While this attempt at compromise is laudable, it is in my opinion unworkable. As I said at WP:ANI, the 100-edit barrier creates a 'reward' for editcountitis, which we absolutely do not want. It may encourage useless edits so that the user can get the reward book, or even so that they can get it back after it was deleted. If any admin tried to enforce the close they would probably find themselves in complicated conflict (what happens if the page is deleted, the editor then makes 100 useless articlespace edits, and demands it back?) with good-faith editors over something that really isn't worth it. I don't necessarily approve of these signature books but I definitely don't think that admins should be getting into conflict trying to enforce this unenforcable close, which is essentially a declaration of policy.

Although it might seem an exercise in pointlessness to overturn a close where, because the admin left before enacting the close, hardly anything has actually happened (all but two of the links on the list are still blue), someone asked on WP:ANI if anyone was going to enforce this. Technically if the closing admin doesn't enforce a close, other admins should (see also CSD General-4) so we can't just forget about it. So this close should be overturned and considered as a 'no consensus'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and either relist individually or delete them all. I agree with Samuel Blanning that the way this MfD was closed is unworkable. I don't agree with the no consensus interpretation, although I wouldn't come here arguing against it had it been closed that way in the first place. What I think correctly resolves the issue Samuel Blanning raises above is to individually list each of the autograph books so that each one can be considered in the context of the contributions the user has made to the project. The only conceivable reason that any of these should be kept is under the assumption that they fall under the main purpose statement at WP:USER:

  Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.

  While whether the autograph pages serve this purpose can be debated (and was extensively in the MfD) individually for each autograph page to see if that page is indeed facilitating communication among participants. However, since this is really a lot of bother, I'd be equally fine with overturn and delete all. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and close as "no consensus, default to keep" - MfD closures don't dictate policy. As Sam Blanning eloquently pointed out, enforcing an arbitrary edit count requirement is a ridiculous and unjustifiable chore. There was no clear consensus established in this debate, but it is worth noting that the sum of time, effort, and ill-will expended by editors in the MfD far exceeded any potential loss of productivity that not interfering with these signature books might have caused. Let's take a lesson from last year's userbox affair and discourage divisive campaigns against the friendly banality of otherwise productive contributors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with all speed The compromise is laudable, but unworkable, so get rid of them all. They dont deal with encyclopedic issues, they dont have any bearing on any wikiactions at all, and are a clear violation of WP:NOT. We aren't myspace people. And the notion that contributing more means you can break certain rules is just wrong. I have many, many edits over multiple calender years, doesn't mean policy should not be more lax on me now then when I had 15 edits. It's rediculous. -M^ask
• Turnip --Doc^g 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete the lot of them, including the turnip. Sig pages are pointless to a 'pedia, and a rule that you can have a sig page if you have >100 edits is equally pointless not to mention WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, but in any event do not relist. Actively harmful to the encyclopedia, in that they distract actual productive contributors into dealing with their inanity. —Cryptic 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and close as no-consensus Relist clear cases for deletion per WP:NOT#Webspace (or even prod them). Agathoclea 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and use some common sense. Is the user here to have autograph books? Delete them and tell the user this is an encyclopedia. Is the user here to contribute? Let them have their silly autograph books, they don't hurt anyone. Yes, yes, the 5 minutes they spend on writing "~~~~" on such a page could be spent in creating another FA, but who are we kidding with this kind of logic? No one wants to write articles in an environment that screams "Don't you dare to have some fun!" at you. --Conti|✉ 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• List in groups or individually as appropriate. (I think this = Endorse closure. DGG 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Wholesale deletion will offend and/or sadden some good commentators. Wholesale keep encourages misuse of WP as a social site. Individualized consideration by the deleting administrator will take up a bunch of admin time. Individualized or group consideration on future MfDs will take more overall contributor time than signing the autographs does. So I don't think there's a good answer here. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Partial endorse: per Conti; admins are not robots: trust them to use a bit of common sense, and scrap the 100-edit criterion. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I agree with Conti above, but I'm not sure I'd also agree to the same conclusion. (Well, that is if I properly understand what Conti is endorsing. Thank God this is a discussion & not a vote.) If a Wikipedian has an account on Wikipedia just to collect autographs, I believe an Admin can delete the page, if that is the best solution. But I hope my fellow Admins would first try to convince the user to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful manner first. If the Wikipedian is otherwise a productive editor ... well, let her/him have their fun. -- llywrch 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Dumbest nomination ever (I'm talking aboiut the MFD nomination, not this one). They're annoying and unencyclopedic, yes, but the ill will and massive process wanking that would inevitably follow from such a nomination is a hundred times worse. (Case in point: this DRV.) Seriously, people want to list them individually now? How many of those will end up back here? Just if you see an autograph book by an inactive user redirect it to the main user page and be done with it. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there's constant testing of the line between a Wikipedia user page and MySpace page. Anytime the line between appropriate and inappropriate discretion on user pages is tested, these same "it's not doing any harm" and "this discussion is taking more time" arguments are put forward. The problem is that unchecked, a certain portion of the users here would establish a MySpace community here. That's not to say that there isn't some validity to those complaints, but it's a cost that will have to be paid at some point if we're going to enforce any limits on user pages. —Doug Bell 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's why anyone with a shred of common sense sticks to the battles that are actually worth fighting over. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the last thing Wikipedia needs to do is drive away more good contributors over silly non-issues like we did with the userbox wars. Pages from people with no contributions to the encyclopedia can be, and are, nominated for deletion at MFD. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete all per User:Radiant. --kingboyk 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete and don't relist per all other delete votes. I can't add anything new that anyone hasn't already said. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear Dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Undelete The article had previously been deleted and User:DrFrench wrongly thought it should be considered for speedy deletion again, whereas the article had been totally re-written from scratch and is a much better account of the actual subject. The arguments given on the talk page of the said article were not taken into account and I believe it was deleted by a biased admin whose opinion had clearly been for the removal if you read their opinions in Talk:Top_Gear_(current_format). Davesmith33 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the AfD was unanimous, and its problems couldn't be solved just by rewriting. Why not toss it in as a sentence in Top Gear? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main Top Gear page as it is a relatively minor part of the show. It was too minor to be on the main page, yet too major not to have it's own article. Davesmith33 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Honestly! Top Gear Dog is a dog who appears on Top Gear. It's a one-joke joke. And it wasn't that funny either. Plus, it's a pretty useless dog... A short para in Top Gear is quite sufficient, unless and until the dog becomes a worldwide celebrity with his own dogography. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy and Andrew, you fail to take into account a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main Top Gear page as it is a relatively minor part of the show. It was too minor to be on the main page, yet too major not to have it's own article. Davesmith33 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, the endless Wikiconundrum: what to do with cruft purged from the main article. However, it is a recurring theme in the show, so at least a sentence would be worth having. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that if the overwhelming consensus on the talk page was that Top Gear Dog is too extremely minor of a show element to be mentioned there, that's all the more reason it shouldn't be a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. The TGD article was deleted orginally for lack of notability - being nothing more than a short-lived in joke. It was nominated for speedy deleteion on the same criteria. The general consensus of editors (that is every one except Davesmith33) on the main Top Gear article was that TGD deserved nothing more than a passing sentence - anything more was merely fancruft. The "If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley" argument is merely WP:POINT. DrFrench 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. "Too minor for Top Gear" and "Too major to not have its own article" is a direct contradiction. Chris cheese whine 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • PS2pcGAMER, you are contradicting yourself there - "While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability." But is Jon Bentley more "notable" than TGD? I'm sure more TG viewers know who TGD is, than Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Bentley has no relevance to this debate. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) but it probably would make sense to post a redirect in order to prevent the page from further recreations. Rossami (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I figured that it should be noted that Top Gear Dog now redirects to Top Gear (current format). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other related AfDs:

• Gregory Kohs - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (2) - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (3) - Delete

• DRV - Deletion endorsed

• Very, very weak overturn and relist. Should not have been speedied after surviving an AFD. Very, very weak because only one of the sources there is even remotely reliable, the other sources are either Wikipedia (WP:ASR) or a press release (not independent). If this is relisted, that needs to be made evident: multiple means multiple. --Coredesat 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, but unless some new information comes to light the decision should be delete. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are a number of related AfD's missing. Anyone can add them? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added all of the Kohs AfDs. There doesn't seem to have been another AfD for MyWikiBiz, so I'm wondering why this was the "2nd nomination". WarpstarRider 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Found it. It was MyWikiBiz.com ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, RESTORE. Regardless of why Kohs was LEGITIMATELY banned again, for legal threats, we'd already shown in DRV, AfD, etc. that MyWikiBiz for that article was notable. It was unilaterally deleted by User talk:JzG. - Denny 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Really, tired of unilateral deletions against consensus. WP:IAR is not a license to just ignore everyone else and do whatever you want. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Should not have been speedied. I suppose it is reasonable to relist a nonconsensus for another AfD soon afterwards, doing a Speedy is really deliberately defying the rules based, I suppose, on one's personal opposiution.DGG 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - if you're an admin and you're unhappy with the way an AFD turns out, you should be coming here, not just disregarding the community's discussion. Wikipedia is not censored, least of all for "things that annoy JzG", and JzG's personal interaction with Kohs should have made him stay out of the situation in the first place. This was in extremely poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Milto LOL pia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Aren't these deletions done with the approval of Jimbo? I know Gregory Kohs was blocked by Jimbo for refusing to stop spamming. Corvus cornix 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not according to the log. It had passed DRV + AFD. The deletion was IAR. - Denny 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, don't relist. Seems like we just can't figure out how to apply notability to people that annoy us these days. --tjstrf talk 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by desperate grasping at straws for reliable sources. This is worth all the trouble to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Relist - With a note that "sources" presented at the last AfD, which swayed editors towards saying it marginally met WP:CORP turned out to be obvious duplicates or derivatives of the one independent source we already had. Danski14^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I support the idea of the article's deletion as non-notable, but the closure of the AfD should have been appealed here, to deletion review, not undone by a unilateral deletion. It would be nice if we could treat this DRV as if it were an appeal of the original "no consensus" decision, in which case I would vote to delate, but I'm sure there will be people unwilling to look at it that way. So it seems that there is really now no choice but to start again. Put it back on AfD. Sigh. Metamagician3000 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDEL: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately can be invoked here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn yet another arbitrary JzG unilateral deletion, something he says he has no intention of stopping. I'll be glad when some admins have a little chat with him. He is driving good editors from the project with these ongoing antics. Jokestress 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times has he done this? Perhaps RFC if its an ongoing issue? - Denny 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic case of an admin coming under fire for making a hasty decision. It's easy for any good editor get the admin tools. It's a challenge for that editor to become a successful sysop. And once those tools get revoked for abuse, they're hard to get back. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; obviously out-of-process. Guy, I would have expected more of you. No opinion on relisting. Ral315 » 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb.

alderbourne 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see the deleted article, but if the article itself did not make any claims of notability, then the deletion was proper. If you want to rewrite the article to indicate what you said above, and can provide proof of your claims, then please go ahead. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Click on the "cache" link above. The article doesn't lack in assertions of notability, but comes across as a bit advertorial. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

No time given to respond to speedy delete; last revision of the page was sourced, verifiable, substantially relevant (as much as autofellatio). Neologism accusation in previous VfD is irrelevant, since the article is about a *practice* rather than the word itself; 'autocoitus' is simply a more encyclopedically appropriate term than the standard 'self-fucking'. Sai Emrys 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the deletion is sustained, I ask an admin to post the content of Autocoitus as of its last revision before the speedy delete to User:saizai/Autocoitus for my archival use, since I don't have access to it, there isn't a gcache copy, and I don't want to look for the links again in case it comes up later. Thanks. --Sai Emrys 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Got it myself; never mind. --Sai Emrys 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically responding to the various issues brought up in last VfD, and referring to the most recent revision:

• Reliable sources - Amateur porn is a reliable source for whether a sex practice is conducted or not. Additionally, the article at last revision had other (text) sources, e.g. LPSG.org threads.
• Claimed impossibility WP:PN - The sources cited conclusively prove otherwise. If the editors voting for deletion on this ground were not inclined to view that proof, that is their problem and not one of the credibility of the source.
• Neologism WP:NEO - Irrelevant. The article is about a practice, not the word itself. Also, see pegging and santorum; they are sexual neologisms but nevertheless kept.
• Censorship / revulsion - Irrelevant and inappropriate reason to delete on Wikipedia; it is a sexual act and can sustain an article just as much as autofellatio, anal sex, pegging, scat / coprophilia, etc. Yes many people will find it offensive or unpleasant. So what?
• ghits - Autocoitus = 65 (not 15 as claimed in VfD); self-fucking = 19,200; selffucking (no space) = 6,360; selffuck (no space) = 16,100; self-fuck = 33,100, including many forum threads about the practice.
• Rename - I'm fine with renaming the article to something like self-fucking. Autocoitus is simply the most obvious clinical term. Best would be to have one redirect to the other.
• Notability WP:N:
  • "Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.
    • About as much detail as autofellatio
  • "Multiple" works should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.
    • Multiple sources cited.
  • "Non-trivial" means the source addresses the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
    • Sources cited all specifically about the topic.
  • "Published works" is broad, and encompasses published works in all forms, and various media.
    • Ergo Pornotube and [lpsg.org] sources are perfectly legit
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
    • In this case there is no need to rely on the honesty of the sources, since they are self-proving.
  • "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
    • AFAIK this is not an issue here --Sai Emrys 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Ridiculous" is not an argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible or a joke page? --Sai Emrys 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ridiculous as in patent nonsense, or more specifically a nonsensical attempt at an article. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was closed properly. In addition, there were absolutely no sources. PornoTube is not a reliable source. This may require a speedy close as the nomination pretty much defeats itself - we require that something be attributable to reliable sources as defined in WP:RS, not that something simply exists. --Coredesat 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pornotube was not the only source listed in the article. Additionally, it *is* a reliable first-hand source, given that it is not being used as some sort of social commentary but as documentation of a sexual practice. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. Neither is LPSG. --Coredesat 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "... in some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed," - this is one of those cases. This is not a case of citing a YouTube discussion as authoritative source for what they're discussing, but of citing primary source evidence for the viability and existence of the practice the article discusses. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • On the off chance that this is a genuine misunderstanding on your part, allow me to explain. In an article on a topic whose notability has been established by reference to reliable secondary sources, we may on occasion allow primary sources as references to individual facts. So if a video is hosted on YouTube, and does not violate copyright, and contains a section which verifies a fact, and if there is no better source for it, and if we can cite it precisely (time in and so on), then a YouTube video may be allowable as a source for a piece of detailed information. PornoTube and XTube, needless to say, are considerably more likely to host copyright violations, but that is beside the point: in this case they are being presented as sources for the main premise of the article, and in a way that requires the reader to join the dots. This is a novel synthesis from published sources, aka original research. What we do not have is reliable secondary sources which establish the notability and existence of this concept, and the terminology you use to describe it. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • As noted in the original UDR, the terminology is not under dispute nor a good reason to delete rather than simply retitle. It odes not seem to me that this is WP:OR; the article says "some people do X" and the source is a clip that clearly shows someone doing X. That's not exactly "analysis". How would it be more credible if, say, Savage were to write an article - citing those same videos most likely - that says "some people do X"? Can we then point to him and say that he is a better source - as a secondary - than the primary source? How does that make the article better or more authoritative? --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. You've managed to conclusively prove that it exists and is possible, and nothing else. That is not an encyclopedia article. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • On what grounds exactly? If it's something I addressed above please refute my comments rather than just reasserting it. --Sai Emrys 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also, compare to autocunnilingus, which isn't even known to be possible. --Sai Emrys 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not clear from the history, but I gather this was speedied after it had passed an AfD. IOf so there is no need of dicussion--it'sd out of process and should be reversed without further ado. But if this was an original speedy, it still is a total abuse of Speedy--speedy is for non-controversial deletions. If it seems obvious thaqt a deletion will be argued in good faith, the only place appropriate is AfD. If one even suspect it might, then possibly prod. This is not the place to debate the merits, AfD is the place to debate the merits, and if one wishes to argue against notability, that's where it should have gone. I look forward to debating it there. Speedy overturn recommended.DGG 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But I mention a point of confusion: whether it is physically possible is irrelevant. Notable fantasies are Notable, or do we eliminate all fiction entirely? WP is not the place to debate anatomy.DGG 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the consensus at its AfD was clearly delete. The newest version that was speedied was almost identical to the version that was discussed in that AfD. Just wanted to clear that up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• List as AfD per DGG. When a speedy is contested, use AfD to confirm deletion. As it is now only sysops can see it so I don't know if it actually does meet criteria. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • History restored behind {{drv}} tag for the purposes of this DRV. --Coredesat 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ugh! I'd vote delete BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • On what grounds? Personal disgust (i.e. censorship)? --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith and don't behave like you're the only one who knows that Wikipedia isn't censored. Resurgent insurgent 10:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • All zie said was "Ugh". That sounds like simple disgust to me, even in good faith. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The most recent version had zero sources. The most recent version which did have sources had zero reliable sources. Corvus cornix 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See below. --Sai Emrys 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ridiculous... lack of reliable sources. Resurgent insurgent 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please use this version for comparison. Note multiple sources. Last revised edition had sources edited out for unspecified reasons without responding to the discussion about that on its talk page. --Sai Emrys 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Administrators: please give the same partial undelete to its Talk page as is on the main page, and post a link to the most recent revision here for reference (per above). Thanks. --Sai Emrys 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we know... the first admin who commented - before the history was undeleted - already mentioned your "sources". Sorry, they are not the type of reliable sources to base an article on. Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh FFS. A PornoTube video is not a source. An XTube video is not a source. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Some guy saying "bush bombed the two towers" on YouTube is a source, but not 'reliable' on *what it claims* because it has no editorial review. So you can't point and say "look, bush bombed the two towers, RandomVlogger92334 said so!". But you can point and say "look, some people thinkg bush bombed the two towers! see, right here!". Here it is being used for the latter. No different from any other primary source documentation of a practice; you're not accepting some random vlogger's word for something existing, but seeing proof of the thing itself. If you disagree, please rebut the *merits* of what I said rather than simply reiterating "but it's not a source". Note the quote above from WP:RS re exceptions. Just 'cause it's on YT (or PT) doesn't mean we're obliged to pretend it doesn't exist. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. BUT! I would say don't salt this... yet. The article is along the same lines as Autofellatio, Autocunnilingus, etc., and it's only a matter of time before a reliable source writes about the act and it becomes notable in the Wikipedia sense. And so, it *might* belong on Wikipedia in the future, but as we all know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- therefore, as of right now, internet forums and videos do not qualify as reliable sources, and it should remain deleted until actual Wiki-endorced sources emerge. Rockstar915 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That source might come in a month. Or one year. Or never. Why not just keep it deleted? Resurgent insurgent 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstood me -- my point was that we should keep it deleted. But since it's a page with recreated content, often similar pages get salted. I was just saying that we shouldn't salt it. Rockstar915 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was read entirely correctly at the AfD, and not a single reliable source has been added to the article since it was recreated by the original author. Sorry, but 3 guys fucking themselves on pornotube does not an encyclopedic article make. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was deleted through AfD less than two months ago, and the article that was speedied was virtually identical to the article that was AfD'd. Valid G4. WarpstarRider 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment There is obviously some dispute about N and whether there are RSs, and the place to discuss this is AfD. WP should not be blind to the outside world, and material which would only be expected to be documented by blogs or the like, is appropriately documented by them. Using a little reason, In what essential way would the situation be different if a few porno books were found instead of the videos? Direct observation is not necessarily OR. Interpretation is: reaching a conclusion on whether the material is real or faked would be OR. . Saying this material is part of at least web culture and documenting that is appropriate use of sources.. The fact that there are a number of them is N. I already !voted to relist at AfD. where the above argument can be used. DGG 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion as reposted content. Neither the deleted versions nor this discussion have presented evidence that justify overturning the very clear decision of the AFD discussion. Nor did any deleted version ever rise above the level of an unsourced dictionary definition. Rossami (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Strongly so. Even with good faith in mind, many of the comments appear biased. Notifiability has been established, and the sources are better than for a lot of articles on WP. The presence of porn vids (VHS, DVD and downloadable, it seems) does not serve as a reliable source for the contents of such an article, so it can be stubbed if necessary, but it does document that this is a topic, and that the article has as much of a place on WP as other stubs, pages on music albums, pages on characters in fictional works, and so forth. I doubt a similarly sourced article about an equivalent topic that had nothing to do with sex would be as likely to end up being deleted as one that is related to sex. A "wtf?" topic? Yes. A non-topic? No. I concur with the points raised in objection to the delete. A move would be okay, if nobody objects to the unencyclopaedic tone of the article name. The article can be stubbed, just like a ton of other articles on WP. Any replies should be directed to my talkpage, if possible, as I don't watch Deletion Review (I hit the article via an internal link). Zuiram 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because that's pretty much what that argument is. This isn't censorship. --Coredesat 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• What the ... Keep deleted, nonsense, ureferenced, etc. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Administrator who deleted this article did it without reasonables reasons Wadim 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Was previously AFD'd for reasons of notability. Deleted three times since as being a recreation of deleted material. Article has been around for years and yet has no sources other than the subject's Web site. I protected the article as a deleted page becasue the author claimed he would keep re-creating the deleted article from a saved file on his computer. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not the original author. I had to recreate the article from material in Google's cache. In any case: Europe United is an active organization with more than 500 members. It's Web site is active too, just check it's forum [10] and this should be enough. All that deletions and protection is censorship for me. Wadim 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no evidence of notability given. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of all unsourced articles about "emerging political parties" even if they have got 500 members. Which is fewer than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, by the way. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want info about big parties, buy Microsoft's Encarta. Wikipedia is different (or it should be). If you censor any info about small and new organizations, you are against democracy and freedom on Internet. Wadim 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:NOT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Censorship, democracy, freedom... but you missed the First Amendment! If you're going to do the whole freedom of speech thing, you have to do it properly. It doesn't work, of course, because Wikipedia is not free speech and never has been, but please at least check all the boxes! Guy (Help!) 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above, valid AfD, and - judging from the last comment by the nominator - as a WP:POINT nomination. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject deletion I stated it on the talk page on Europe United, but there is a heck of a lot more parties that are smaller and have done less yet still get a page on Wikipedia. Europe United's status as the first (or near first, there is also Newropeans which hasn't been deleted) pan-European party is also notable. The deletion is unjustified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebloke (talk • contribs) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Are we getting any hits on google for this? Any reliable sources? I'm amazed at how just one person can bring a page down. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Judging from the look of the page, thanks to the cache, the page should be redirected to United Nations (Europe) since that what I thought it would be about. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BuickCenturyDriver, who are you claiming was the "one person" who "brought the page down"? The AfD was unanimous. Corvus cornix 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not blaming anyone in particular and I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm just amazed at how long ago the page was and yet it only took one user to knock it off. All it took was for one person to nominate for AFD and that knocked off the page. I'm also curious as to whether the one that was previously deleted was the old version. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The AfD was unanimous in 2005, 2 years ago!!! Europe United was created in 2005 and perhaps it wasn't notable that year. But today is 2007 and the party is still active, with enough members. I think that some administrators forgot what Wikipedia is about. If an organization exists and it is active there should be an acticle about it in Wikipedia. If you don't like this, use Encarta!!! Wadim 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand what Wikipedia "is about". We're an encyclopedia, not a web host. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • "We're an encyclopedia..." so... Wikipedia is your property. hm ok, ok Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a repost of properly deleted content. No actual evidence has been provided either in the deleted versions or in this discussion that this party has now achieved the notability that it lacked when the AFD discussion was held. No sources were provided other than a link to their own website (which fails to qualify as an independent source). Rossami (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AFD was valid, protection was valid. No indication of notability was provided. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Afd was decisive way bsck then, no new evidence was brought to the new article (google cached version), nor to this DRV. Google seems to bring up unconnected geographical locations when "Europe United" is searched. Still nothing obvious two years later, think that it'll have to wait a fair while longer before there are enough sources to write this from. _{And crying cenosrship rarely helps get an article un-deleted....} Inner Earth 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact is that Wikipedia's administratos try to delete information about this political organization. Maybe in USA that is normal, but in Europe we call it censorship. Wadim 10:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Deleting an article about a non-notable organisation has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey! We are not talking about "3 old men that meet every week in some bar to drink beer and play chess" (perfect example of a non-notable organization), we are talking about international political organization! Wadim 12:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You can convince me if you provide evidence of notability by independent third-party coverage (e.g. newspapers, tv programs) of this organisation. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In Europe (& in the USA, & the rest of the world), we don't scream censorship, we read the guidelines and try to make descisions based on reasoned arguments - if it's notable, it will have been covered in the European press - so show us! And international organisation could be me and some friends who come from different countries - we're not notable just because we're international (nor because we have our own website). Inner Earth 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. There was a straight by-the-book AfD in November, 2005; all participants voted to delete. Asking for a Deletion Review for an unsourced article is not reasonable until sources are provided. The article (at least the version of it on answers.com) still has no third-party references, though the problem has existed since the original AfD. Political parties, of all things, should be easy to find press coverage for, if they are at all known. Otherwise how will anyone vote for them? The version of the article I saw said that Europe United was just a political association, not a party at this point, so perhaps no-one has ever voted for them. The party's web site doesn't mention any elections in which they have run candidates. Wadim's suggestion that he will just keep recreating the article borders on disruptive editing. EdJohnston 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I said: "If you just ignore this note and delete the article, I will simply copy it from my computer again.". By the way, the note was ignored. In any case, I give up. I still think that this deletion is some kind of censorship, and I'm happy that Wikipedia's administrators only control Wikipedia, so people can find what they need on other Web sites.Wadim 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Notability not established. Previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion. Adambro 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Deleted without consensus: vote was 9-7 but closing admin claimed 12-7 James S. 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW it was 12-7, counting the nominator and counting an Archive comment as == Delete and counting a "Comment This kind of stuff is meant for blogs..." as == Delete. Also FWIW my closing was based, rightly or wrongly, on the theory that:
  • If most everyone agrees Entity X is harmless, Entity X is kept.
  • If some believe Entity X is harmful, but others think it's helpful, Entity X might be kept depending on the balance of various factors.
  • But if some believe Entity X is harmful and others think it's harmless but not helpful, there's no real reason to keep it, and that was the situation here in my view. Herostratus 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion I'm not even looking at the item, haggling over vote counts is an insufficient reason to contest a closure. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Vote count is not a reason for deletion, but that means it also isn't a reason for overturning a deletion. And as Herostratus said, if nobody believes that something is helpful, and some people do believe it's harmful, the logical thing is to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. It's not a vote. The closing comments state the reasons behind the evaluation of the arguments and the decision to delete. I see nothing wrong here. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - "voting" outcome alone cannot be determinative. It's not actually meant to be a vote. Metamagician3000 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Gonna have to go with this here, he's a sysop and he (other sysops) can read it anytime. I wouldn't say it's harmful though. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks the cache, I know this article waa a discussion. Not too many were interested. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The decision was within reasonable admin discretion and was well-explained on the page. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, policy and popular opinion both leaned towards the decision made by the admin. --tjstrf talk 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael S. Greco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

administrator's only reason was that the page constituted copyright infringement, which is simply not accurate. ABAORG 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's national media office, and a practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by administrator SwatJester or someone using that member name. The reasoning offered for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and a legal expert on copyright infringement, I would like an explanation behind this line of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned and operated by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys from all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his national activities as president, his involvement in the Clinton administration, his work for the Dukakis and Weld administrations in Massachusetts, his work as ABA judicial reviewer for federal court appointees, and for and his work with Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association. The ABA has received several inquiries already re: the deletion of the page (why it was deleted, how students and other inquirers can now access that information on President Greco, etc.)

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. We believe it to be a valid and important addition to the growing Wikipedia.org family of knowledge.

Sincerely, J. Nichols

• Endorse and speedy close Copyright violation is of this page at his firm. GRBerry 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore If the ABA Media office claims they wrote it, then the page at his firm was probably copied from the article, not the other way around. However, why is the ABA "maintaining" articles on their membership? James S. 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. (1) if they copied their web page from our article, why are we not credited? This is required. (2) When they say they wrote it, they probably mean that they wrote it on their web page first and copied it to Wikipedia later. (3) If the material on their web site is not copyrighted, they need to make this manifest, otherwise we must assume its under copyright. No predjudice against anyone re-creating the article, written in their own words. Herostratus 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deleting editor I deleted it as a blatant copyright vio of that page. It was clearly a valid copyright deletion, the copy pasting being incompatible with GFDL attribution. Also, I should note the WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:USER implications of User:ABAORG's actions here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Obvious Conflict of Interest. They don't WP:OWN the article. alphachimp 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above but also there is no proof that J. Nichols is who he says he is. Consider the following posting that I made on WP:ANI.

  Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:abanews@abanet.org them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse If the text is released under GFDL and the images are multi-licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons, then there would be no basis for the article's deletion. The ABA must understand that doing so would enable the text to be edited by anyone. A disclaimer on the talk page or an update of licensing information on their web page should be sufficient. However, the article itself does not clearly establish the notability of the subject with verification from multiple third-party non-trivial sources. Killa Kitty 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The suggestion that they maintained the article sounds like they were using us for free web hosting - well we don't do that. Also, we have clear policies on using copyrighted material and its fine as long as the rights holder contacts OTRS and provides the relevant release. Surely not a problem for them to do if they are who they say they are. Personally, if the guy is notable, it prefer an independantly written and properly cited article but call me old fashioned in that respect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as per several of the above. If this is a legit communication (which i tend to doubt) and if the ABA is prepared to relase their text under the GFDL then it can be recreated. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Unknown John Bolton MBICSc 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was speedy-deleted per {{db-bio}}. The original content might have failed to assert his significance but he is a notable author. For example, Britannica has an entry for him[11]. Kusunose 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The deleted article just said they were a Japanese author and gave no further information. As such it made assertion of notability and was rightly deleted. That said, the speedy deletion does not prevent a new article being started if any editor wishes to be bold and create one that does assert notability and is supported by reliable sources. WjBscribe 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The deletion was entirely proper as WJscribe says above, but I see what Kusunose means. Let's give him/her the chance to expand it before closing this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete Extremely notable author. I've undeleted for now, and added to the article a bit including a reference. Definitely an article Wikipedia should not be without. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obviously valid Articles-7 - remember that the question is not whether the author is notable, but whether the article asserted this, which it didn't. Close this review as moot following recreation with assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Talk:Friendship Circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason given was "and the only contributor was 'Zalman613'" However you did not even give a chance for anyone else to comment. 12.26.60.132 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, the reason given was "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)". >Radiant< 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Friendship Circle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and the reason clearly given there, no reason was given why that is not of major importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.60.132 (talk • contribs)

• That was the talk page. Talk pages for pages that have been deleted are usually deleted as well. And it looked like someone was just trying to recreate the article content on the Talk, which is not what Talk pages are for anyway. (Though I'm only going by the snippet of content included in the deletion summary; I can't actually see the deleted page's full content.) WarpstarRider 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are an admin. than restore the talk page and you will see. The point that it said there was, that the organization is fundamental in changing societies look at the inclusion of special needs children. Knowing about that, through that post, is a part of people being aware of the this type of thought or at least to know that it exists in a large way. That explains clearly the importance and significance of the subject, the deleter does explain why that is invalid. 12.26.60.132 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I speedied this. This article does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It is also heavily POV, contextless (international? US? Israel?) and is a mission statement, not an article. having reread, I would still delete. jimfbleak 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement which would require substantial rewriting to be anything else) and G12 (content copied from another website with no assertion of permission, [12]). If you could fix those, you would still have the problem that it is an article on a specific group but under a generic title, and the possible conflict of interest - created by a user called Zalman, and Rabbi Zalman Grossbaum is a leading figure in the group. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Direct cut-and-paste from a website. Not an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD G11 mainly and also A7. An attempt at a neutral, sourced article on this subject would be one thing, but this was a cut & paste mission statement. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• That's a copyvio, first rewrite it then we can debate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Central station metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Four lane ends metro station.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Haymarket metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Ilford road metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Jesmond metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Longbenton metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Monument metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Northumberland park metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Regent centre metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:South gosforth metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:St james metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:West jesmond metro station sign.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (IfD)

Rogue result. Images have no encyclopaedic value, and are essentially textual content pretending to be an image. Last time I checked, we don't use images for this sort of thing (e.g. we don't use "" where "Longbenton" will do - particularly as there are implications for screen readers and users of large fonts). The closing admin decided that apparently despite the images being purely cosmetic, having no value, and the usability concerns, 3 ILIKEITs and a straight vote are apparently a consensus. Chris cheese whine 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• XfD isn't the right place for this. A discussion about whether these are the logos of the stations or just text on a goldenrod background should occur at some relevant page, not IfD. -Amarkov moo! 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• (Comment from the closing admin) "No encyclopedic value," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The actual wording of the nomination is "serve no purpose, purely cosmetic," again fairly subjective claims, which many others did not agree with. The images are public domain and were being used. There was no reason to delete them. WP:IFD is not the forum for whether the images belong as the title for an infobox or not. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)}
  • Again, I put it to you that 3 WP:ILIKEITs and 1 straight vote are not a consensus, and hardly support the claim that "many others did not agree with" the nomination. As for the wording of the nomination, I think it's not a big jump to infer "unencyclopaedic". I still challenge anyone to defy this claim (it has not once been addressed, not in the debate nor in the accompanying talk). Chris cheese whine 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that a free image be used for encyclopedic purposes to remain on Wikipedia. -Nv8200p talk 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • IfD begs to differ. Chris cheese whine 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Ifd is not a policy. But even at that, the images were being useful in the article namespace so they could be considered encyclopedic. -Nv8200p talk 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, now you're just making excuses. They were not being useful. They were being used where it would undoubtedly be better to use text, and purely to fulfull a cosmetic role. The WP:MOS is clear on the point that we do not blindly follow the styles of others, and the point that apparently we should use the same typeface as on the signs carries no weight whatsoever. Chris cheese whine 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here is my re-cap for non-deletion:

1. The images were being used
2. There was no legal reason to delete them.
3. There was no policy reason to delete them.
4. There was no consensus to delete them

Nv8200p talk 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The images should not have been in use. There was no real opposition to the proposed deletion. "UE" clearly is a policy reason to delete, otherwise it would not be listed in the instructions as a viable reason. Chris cheese whine 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Increasing the cosmetic appeal improves Wikipedia. I've seen templates that use images te recreate route maps which is much better than providing them in voluminous writing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Where were these used before they were nominated for deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The images were used in the infobox for each station such as in this example for West Jesmond. DrFrench 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chriscf keeps removing the image so, look in the history and find one of mine or DrFrench's reverts to see the image in context. -Nv8200p talk 04:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse decision The proliferation of those images is annoying (starting with this particularly obnoxious example) and some policy/MoS directive needs to be created to keep Wikipedia from turning into Geocities 2.0, but I can't read this from the discussion. This reads more like an "I'm unhappy with the outcome of the IfD" nomination to me. ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussion suffered from an overparticipation of those with an interest in using them, and underparticipation of outside parties, hence I'm unhappy with the outcome in the sense that I believe the closer failed to take the interests into account. Chris cheese whine 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A photograph of the place would be encyclopaedic, a mocked-up version of the station sign is not. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean overturn and delete? The original decision was to keep. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I don't see the value of substituting the text "West Jesmond" with a picture that says "West Jesmond". I know it might be typeset in a rare and non-reproducible typeface, but still it offers little enhancement over plain text. Replace with a photograph of the respective station if you must. (Oh, and the image server is having a bad day - I can only see the alternative text despite having purged both the article and the image description page.) Resurgent insurgent 10:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep; this is an editorial decision that should be decided by the contributors on those pages, not on DRV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It has. There is no consensus to use the images. Hence I proposed them for deletion. Chris cheese whine 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It has not. If so, please provide a link to the relevant discussion by the contributors to those pages. The definition of consensus is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community. The group that particpated in the IFD agreed that the images should be kept. No other group has discussed the text versus image issue in the infobox headings -Nv8200p talk 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • We do not need a discussion on the merits of text vs. an image containing the same text in much the same way that we do not need a discussion on the subject of whether or not grass is predominantly green. There is no consensus discussion anywhere which is so enormously compelling as to override this common-sense fact. Chris cheese whine 18:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank God you are here to show us the errors of our ways! -Nv8200p talk 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

        Also, as far as I am concerned, the user who created them and their buddies calling WP:ILIKEIT is not a consensus. Chris cheese whine 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

        • More so a consensus then one person saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and using the guise of "unencyclopedic" as a human shield.
          • Now I see the problem. For a while, I thought I was on Wikipedia, but evidently I've stumbled onto Myspace. Chris cheese whine 20:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • You are on Wikipedia, and generally speaking, falling back on insults when your arguments are failing isn't very convincing. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep The IfD result was fair, it just seems Chris is upset about that result. I cannot see any strong reason for deleting them. I'd also ask that he doesn't keep removing images prior to the IfD outcome, doing so is pre-empting that outcome. Adambro 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per User:Crotalus horridus. Deletion reason boils down to "I don't like them," and all User:Chriscf is doing to explain himself is to add exclamation points to that sentence. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Demented Cartoon Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know I have asked for this before, and I have noted your responses. You all said that the page led to nonsense, and what I claimed (that there was one a pretty informative article that was as good as any other article) was not true. (original request on January 13 2007) I know for a fact that somwhere in the history of the page you will find the version I was talking about. Full of true information about the movie, and quite a long article at that. tDCM is a very popular flash movie, and if you can find the proper version, I'm sure it would be a great re-adition to wikipedia! I am willing to work with an admin to halp him/her find the right version! Please contact me via userpage if you can help me get the proper page restored! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion, the problem wasn't that the page was nonsense, it's that there was no coverage of the animation in reliable sources or any other evidence that it met the notability standards. Until some one can produce reliable sources that prove otherwise, the page stays deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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 - [13][14][15] - and the deletion logs for the pages in question - [16][17][18][19] - 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)

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

This was deleted due to unverifiablity. I'd like to try and develop an article in userspace and then move it to mainspace. See User:Miltopia/Wiki vandalism - if an admin is willing to move it there, that would be wonderful. small note: In the event it's determined the old history shouldn't be uncovered, please do not delete my subpage, since it won't be posting of recreated content. Milto LOL pia 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably a better idea to come back when your article is written, since your subpage has nothing in it. Wait, never mind, I misread your request. I could userfy the page history, but I'm honestly not sure you want it, since it was quite obviously a vandal magnet. Try starting something from scratch first. --Coredesat 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• It is highly unlikely that a valid article on this can be developed which is not both self-referential and obvious from the combination of "wiki" plus "vandalism". I suppose if Miltopia wants to waste time that is not our problem, but the deletion consensus was as much in respect of the subject as of the article. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore to userspace, I think this could get some good sources. Abeg92contribs 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for now, but if you can come back with some reliable sources on the topic, might be worth reconsideration. But find some reliable sources first, please! Otherwise, there's really nothing to talk about. Xtifr _tälk 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to a good article on the topic. Chris cheese whine 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Overturn: Article about the webcomic, it was speedily deleted (A7) 5 minutes after Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists, an anthology that published it by the same admin. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, neutral on a list. The book as a reference certainly gives enough information to constitute notability at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Could somebody just tell me what the claim to notability is supposed to be? Only, that looks a lot like a valid A7 speedy to me. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say that the speedy of this article inconjunction with Attitude 3 seems to me that it was just done without much thought - if an article is important enough to be featured in a book about online cartoonists, its importance is not in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, I'm still trying to work out the supposed claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article consists of two sentences - what it is and that part of it happened to get published in Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. It's a textbook A7; just put a redirect to that article in its place. --Coredesat 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How on earth does a redirect make sense here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's part of the larger compilation. There's no information about this particular comic, and the previous article had pretty much nothing to build upon. It's a simple solution. --Coredesat 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist. I cannot view the text of the article, so will not comment on its content. My suggestion to overturn and relist at AFD is mostly for the sake of courtesy. I am aware that a speedy deletion that is contested need not be overturned, but when editors other than the article's creator also request undeletion, I feel it's a good sign that more discussion (and an opportunity to develop the article) is warranted. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. The entire text of the page was "Fighting Words is a political webcomic by Ben Smith. Material from the strip is printed as part of Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" plus an almost empty infobox and some minor wikification. There is no reasonable assertion of notability in that text and the page has been unchanged since May 2006, leading me to conclude that no expansion is likely. Rossami (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion, redirect it to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists. --Dragonfiend 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the deletion/relist issue, but I'm opposed to a redirect. The link between the Attitude vol. 3 anthology and Fighting Words isn't strong enough that a redirect would be representative.Epameinondas 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You may be right -- it just seemed that since the information in the deleted Fighting Words article ("Fighting Words is a webcomic by Ben Smith that was in Attitude 3") is already in the Attitude article, that a redirect would work. --Dragonfiend 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn - no valid reason offered for deletion. Reasons offered were "not encyclopedic" which is pretty meaningless in an AFD debate; WP:BLP concerns, which are invalid because the article was sourced and it's very unlikely that someone is going to sue for being called heterosexual; "unmaintainable" and "too broad" which since the list only had a handful of entries is ludicrous on its face and "once gay, always gay" which is rank POV pushing. The !vote count was 11-7 which is hardly a clear-cut majority, especially in light of the poor reasons offered for several delete !votes (which should lead to those opinions being discounted) and the fact that one of the delete !votes actually supported the notion of having List of ex-gay people which is for all intents and purposes the same list. Otto4711 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of requesting that the history be restored, I thought I would state the following: The list included "people who at one point identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual but no longer do" and "people wrongly believed to have renounced LGB identity."[20] Also, there were three mentions of encyclopedic in the AfD, none of which linked to WP:NOT. For this deletion review, please provide links to policy. There might be room for an article on "Notable people whose sexual identification changed overtime prior to their death." -- Jreferee 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please point me to the official and exhaustive list of Valid Reasons that you've been perusing. Failing that, endorse deletion for the reasons given in the deletion debate. >Radiant< 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If this was directed at me, I never said that there was an exhaustive or official list of valid reasons. I said that the reasons offered in this nomination were not valid for this AFD. Otto4711 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• endorse A number of reasons were given for deletion in the Afd, all of them valid. Anmong other, I questioned the assumption that a gay person would not object to being called heterosexual is probably false; there is further the problem that listing here implies the person was once gay. Therefore, BLP concerns make a list like this unmaintainable. The close was reasonable.DGG 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, it seems from the above comment that you do not understand the content of the list. The list was for people who stated that they were once homosexual and no longer are. There are people, for example, John Paulk and Richard Cohen, who made careers out of stating that they were once gay and no longer are. How can someone who states in a reliable source that they were once gay and now no longer are possibly be subject to BLP concerns? How can someone who writes books extolling their own transformation from gay to straight possibly raise concerns that it might be "implied" that they used to be gay when they write and sell books in which they state flat out that they used to be gay?! It's a ridiculous non-concern. BLP does not demand that biographies of living people be deleted in their entirety if there is unsourced or poorly sourced material. It demands that the unsourced or poorly sourced material be removed. Since the items on the list were properly sourced BLP cannot properly be used as an excuse for deleting the items or the list that the items make up. Also, at no point in the AFD was the notion that a gay person might get upset at being called heterosexual raised so why that's coming up here is a mystery. Otto4711 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. Most of the delete !votes used arguments that were subsequently rebutted, or which could trivially be solved without deletion, or which are somewhat week (e.g. "Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay" or "This doesn't provide useful imformation" (AKA WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "Delete per BLP" -- BLP would only require the article to be sourced, which a number of contributors suggested it was). The keepers were outnumbered, but only by a small amount. I don't see consensus, no. JulesH 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Kind of a tough one. Nom makes a good point that many of the delete !votes were weak but I believe the points were still valid. Also concede that the consensus was weak, so while I will endorse the deletion, I would also not mind seeing it relisted to generate more consensus one way or another, but not flat-out overturning. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't mind seeing it relisted then maybe you should vote relist instead? Otto4711 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because I still endorse the deletion. As I stated I view it to be something of a borderline case, where my support is behind the closing admin but I would not oppose relisting. Consider it a "weak ensorse" if you must. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion of a list of this nature which is not footnoted to reliable sources on every single name, which this wasn't, should be automatically endorsed per WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The only problem with this statement is that every single name on the list was sourced, either in the article itself or in the linked page to the subject's own article. Otto4711 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Linked in the article' is a smokescreen for endemic poor sourcing and not good enough for lists of this nature. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, so undelete the article and I'll move the sources from the individual articles to the list. Problem solved. Otto4711 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Poor debate, for sure, but the fundamental fact is that this was a list of people asserting a sexuality for which no reliable sources can be found any more. Heavy on "said to be", light on sources. And what, precisely, is supposed to be encyclopaedic about lists of people who might once have gone gay but don't any more? I don't see it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, read Reparative therapy to get some idea of the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Second, the sourcing for people's former sexuality does not vanish with the change of sexuality. Source for John Paulk in which he identifies himself as a "former homosexual," which he also states in the book that he wrote (which as far as I know still exists and did not vanish in a poof of fairy dust). Source for Richard Cohen, in which he is identified as having transitioned from homosexuality to heterosexuality, which he has also written about in his as-yet-not-turned-to-fairy-dust book. Source for Michael Johnston in which he is reported to have given a speech about his "journey...out of homosexuality." The sourcing is there and the encyclopedic nature of the topic is there. Otto4711 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no suggestion as far as I can see that any of these individuals have undergone "reparative therapy". Such a claim would certainly require robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately being obtuse? This was not "List of people who had reparative therapy" (although many on the list did in fact have it). This was a list of people who used to self-identify as gay and no longer do. The reparative therapy link was offered to show that the notion of gay people turning straight is an encyclopedic topic. "Ex-gay" redirects to that article. Otto4711 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Isn't this a subpage? I thought they were explicitly not allowed. JuJube 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If it is, undelete it and move it from being a sub-page. Otto4711 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes! There is obviously no consensus to delete in that debate - thus an explained delete closure just begs to be overturned. Given the lack of consensus, is there an overriding policy reason to delete anyway? Now, I'm torn - this is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. But then, if it is properly sourced, is it any more of a problem than any list of people by sexuality? If we get the wrong people on this, then we'll have problems, but same goes for the 'lists of gay people' which I suspect we have. POV issues rise here - but looking at it, it seems to me that the deletion argument is also guilty of that. Ok, my vote weak overturn as 1) no consensus to delete b) no overriding reason to delete without such a consensus. But I wont cry if this says dead. I hate lists - and especially lists by sexuality (or ex-sexuality).--Doc^g 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Otto. Deletion reasons included:

1. "not encyclopedic" (vague and unexplained)
2. "just a way to beg for trouble" (so is any biographical information!)
3. "sub-page... in the mainspace" (moving is a solution here)
4. "WP:ATT" (the article and it was rather well-sourced)
5. "WP:NPOV" (huh??)
6. "large/unmaintainable list" (the list was being regularly maintained and being large is hardly a reason to delete)
7. "Once gay, always gay" (here's one response that comes to mind: <uncivil remark not written> (no offense); also see WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAP)
8. "doesn't provide useful imformation" (no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT)
9. "susceptible to BLP" (so is all biographical content!)

I should note that while going over the AFD page for March 21, I skipped over this discussion because it appeared a clear case of "keep" to me. -- Black Falcon 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as closer, I think I made an error here (after looking at the debate again, and noting the problems here). Not sure if I should simply undelete this, or not...? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think you can take unilateral action since its now at deletion review. But I'm still on the fence on this one. Per WP:LIST, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Do you think it would be reasonable to read the AfD as saying that the consensus thought it is unlikely that an unambiguous statements of membership criteria could be developed to overcome WP:BLP concerns? -- Jreferee 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't say as I find it at all reasonable to put words in the mouths of the people who !voted in the AFD. Had they wanted to raise the issue at AFD, they could have. To answer the specific concern, however, off the top of my head the membership criteria would be something along the lines of "for people who once self-identified as LGBT but later began self-identifying as heterosexual." The wording can be tweaked but it seems relatively unambiguous to me. Otto4711 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The article seems to have been deleted because WikyBlog's notability was questioned.

1. User User:Kesh confused it as an "innovative use of Mediawiki" and not an independently developed project.
2. User:Retiono_Virginian "doubt[ed] it exsist[ed]" but did not refer to the links on the article to WikyBlog.com and the sourceforge project page
3. I find it somewhat ironic that DidiWiki used a reference to WikyBlog to defend it's own deletion.

   Note as well that, using DidiWiki's approach, the number of hits when searching google for "WikyBlog" is now around 88,000 in comparison to:

   • DidiWiki (30,000),
   • WiClear (46,500)
   • WikkiTikkiTavi (34,000)

   which all have articles on Wikepedia and have been deemed notable.

4. Moreover, a google search for "powered by wikyblog" returns over 27,000 results.

It is for these reasons of interpretation, popularity, and measurable user base that I respectfully request the undeletion of the WikyBlog article. Oyejorge 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD. Google hits alone are simply a rule of thumb and are not part of the notability guidelines. --Coredesat 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Unanimous AFDs are usually only overturned/relisted with the presentation of multiple reliable independent sources. This doesn't seem to have that. Wickethewok 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid unanimous AfD (and it was even relisted twice, and still got no support despite being open for 3 weeks!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD valid; noone of the above make it notable; also, I only get 27 google results (not that that's important...) JulesH 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The close by Punkmorten was certainly valid. As noted by Wickethewok, undeletion in this case should really be accompanied by the presentation of multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. -- Black Falcon 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was CSD'd under nn-bio after an afd. That was in September 2005. Since then, Star has released an EP, appeared with AFI and Godhead, made #1 on the iTunes dance chart [21], and been covered by the LA Weekly [22], Buzznet [23], and MusicEdge [24]. Overturn Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most recent deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23
• Last full deletion review (links to all prior): Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22

GRBerry 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, again. Still no reliable sources which are really about him. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion yet again; however, you can write a new article in user space that cites reliable sources (the Buzznet article hardly qualifies as a reliable source, it's an ad for the EP) and come back here with it - it could then be restored and/or given a full AFD discussion. However, do not unsalt the article until that condition is met. I'm being a little harsher here because that possibility has been brought up a few times, and no one has attempted it. --Coredesat 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • LA Weekly is a reliable source. But now I expect to hear some excuse as to why it's not good enough. I see a lot of excuses popping up as to why this topic must be so vehemently excluded. None of them really justify WP:PP to me. Semi-protect I could see. WP:PP is a bit extraordinary for someone who is much closer to notable than, say, my boss or my kid brother or my high school principal. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Repeating general plea for Wikipedia to bring their sourcing in line with the 21st century so obviously notable individuals can be covered properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeating general comment that being in line with the 21st century does not make unreliable sources reliable. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's part of the problem, we're still considering otherwise reliable sources unreliable. But I've led us too far OT already. Just generally frustrated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse yet again. Viral marketing aside, no reliable non-trivial sources about this person. As with Dr Steel, I think we are being targeted by fans to try to promote a "famous for what?" subject into notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Yes, LA Weekly gives him a passing mention and Buzznet is clearly not reliable. But that still leaves iTunes and MusicEdge as reliable enough to base an article off. A number one at iTunes is clearly notable and there's sources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion deletion endorsed just a few days ago (see DRV March 24th). Suggest future DRV attempts be speedy-closed: a new DRV every 4 days is disruptive and unreasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No one's noting the DRVs on the article talk page. (They can't, of course, because of the curious use of PP.) I might have known what the issues were. Clearly there are issues so bad that they require extreme lengths to prevent the creation of the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It may be worth placing a note on the talk page - I'll do it once I gather links to all the DRV discussions. The frequency this appears on DRV is a reason why deletion is usually endorsed. --Coredesat 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per [25] this LA Weekly article (and photo). I realize that he's still borderline in terms of media mentions, but given the buzz (evidenced by over a million Google hits), I think the notability is close enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a passing mention, actually, despite the photo. --Coredesat 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless, if a notable magazine in a major city is making "passing" mentions by name and printing photos of someone, I would argue that they must have some notability. The Weekly determined he was notable enough to showcase in the photo. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I found another mention in Slate.com [26]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh please. Both of those are "also-ran" namechecks and nothing more. His viral marketing campaign really is not getting result, perhaps he should hire a new publicist. Or get his kit off on YouTube, that seems to work. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • His viral marketing campaign did succeed in getting him a #1 spot on iTunes downloads, for what that's worth. Honestly, I don't care whether or not he has an article. I thought the Lonelygirl15 thing was incredibly stupid, but eventually it got to the point where I couldn't deny it's notability. I think JS is getting close to that point, if not already there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, we don't include things because they are "getting close" to being notable. They have to be notable and the information attributable now, not later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Without sources that are actually about the subject and aren't just passing mentions, there isn't much of an argument. --Coredesat 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when is reaching number 1 in an iTunes chart not notable? And how are MusicEdge and iTunes not reliable sources to attribute to? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse nothing here--Doc^g 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - passing mentions are still trivial no matter who's doing the mentioning. Chris cheese whine 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and redeletions. As several have already said, passing mentions are not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. As to the claim that he hit "#1 on the iTunes dance chart", everyone can be number one if you parse your selection criteria narrowly enough. iTunes alone lists 23 different chart types, each with 22 charts (by country). That alone does not convince me that the subject yet meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:MUSIC's relevant criteria is: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." That is not well defined... that is to say, what chart(s) qualify as "national music charts", though it does say "any national music chart". So... unless you are saying that the US iTunes dance chart is not "any national music chart", it would seem to fit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Axina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted as a hoax or nonsense piece. It isn't. I work in the motor industry and can confirm this car does exist. It's not in production yet. It's notable, ALL RIGHT!! Okay, can we discuss this now, pleeeease!!! Flakysnow-494 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Based on this, obvious hoax. Compare that to Toyota Tercel. - Denny 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, blatantly obvious. --Coredesat 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Valid closure and no new sources provided to review here. -- Satori Son 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred the Monkey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

So... This is a bit confusing, but please bear with me. Determining if Flash cartoons and artists are notable is quite difficult: web rankings can often be misleading, and the popularity of certain things is hard to ascertain. Fred the Monkey, I think, fits into the category of "notable, but just barely". The cartoons are produced by the animation of a single artist, and it takes a lot of time to make a single episode. Because of this, updates are very, very rare. The site has been up for roughly 4 years, and there's only been 20+ cartoons. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Fred, but the last time I checked for a new cartoon was about three months ago. And since web rankings are obviously based on hits, we can guess that FTM will be lower than, say, Newgrounds. This isn't because less people know about it; rather, it is because FTM simply has less hits due to it being a single artist's work, as opposed to several. That does not, however, make it any less notable. Google search results would back this up. Several cartoons have been featured on Newgrounds, the Cubetoons article still exists (albeit due to being featured on IGN), and the Fred the Monkey forums are some of the most active I've been on. Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominee. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V requires independent reliable sources, of which there are exactly zero. And neither forum activity nor google hits make something notable anyway. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - WP:WEB not fulfilled, neither is WP:V, so it was deleted for appropriate reasons despite SPAs. Wickethewok 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the AfD debate. Lack of sources not remedied. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We do not follow a principle of "notable unless proved otherwise"; if something cannot be proved notable, it is not. Tizio 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry all, I was in a huge rush when I typed this and forgot to check the guidelines. I'll withdraw this nomination for now and open a new one once I can find proper sources and sites. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Robin Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The stub did indicate why the subject was notable. The article was deleted within 5 minutes of creation; no one gave me a chance to improve the article Abridged 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More info: A message was left on my talk page that the article was tagged at 17:16. The article was deleted at 17:17. Also note that the deleting admin could not have given this much careful consideration since he deleted 5 other articles the same minute by his log of user contributions, and clearly did not take the time to confirm that the criteria for speedy deletion had been met before deleting. Abridged 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - unless an article is pure vandalism, it shouldn't be deleted so quickly when active improvement is still going on. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't have any problem with the rapid response, but "Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. // Bibliography // Homeopathic Medical Repertory, 1993 (1st edition), 2005 (3rd edition), [1][2]" is a clear and unambiguous assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn If that was the entire content, more will obviously be needed to fully establish notability, so I would have added a prod tag, not a speedy, to give it a chance. Dont bite the newbies. DGG 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that was just the claim to notability. The article was a biostub: Robin Murphy (born, 1950, Grand Rapids, Michigan) is a Naturopath and homeopath. Dr. Murphy became interested in homeopathy as an undergraduate. He studied homeopathy at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) where he earned an ND in 1980, and directed the homeopathy program there from 1980-1984. He has also taught at Bastyr University. He directs the Hahnemann Academy of North America. Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. Three books, two refs, one link to a bio. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Speedy not justified. --Lee Hunter 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Um. Not an A7, but awfully, awfully spammy. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why you think that? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What is a "A7"? Here's a link to the way the page looked when it was deleted [27]. I don't see how "spammy" applies, and I consider that a violation of WP:BITE. Abridged 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "A7" is one of the criteria for speedy deletion: WP:CSD#A7. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This article made a clear assertion of notability, so it's not a speedy candidate. If the notability is in doubt, it should be discussed on AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment; I think a speedy close here would be justified as everyone agrees. DGG 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as the deleted article did enough to make it not a CSD A7. I would be inclined to argue for its deletion on a AfD (as "fully spammy," maybe) but that would be the place for it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy, but without prejudice against listing at WP:AFD. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I placed the speedy on it because I didn't feel notability was clearly asserted, although it is a close call. Also, the article was apparently deleted due to a prod a week earlier as well. I have no problem with the article remaining if the concerns about notability are addressed. Hatch68 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What needs to be asserted is "importance", not "notability": Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria --NE2 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have to endorse the speedy-deletion based on the evidence available at the time. However, the speedy-deletion has been contested in good faith so an undeletion and listing to AFD is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alpamysh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I believe the page was deleted too soon, despite having undergone major improvements and citing all its sources, including the main source on which it was based. The page should have remained for at least another day to allow for it further improvement, or at least be moved to my personal Talk page to improve it there. Currently, I have no backup of it, and simply can't re-write it as there were several sources and quotes that I found before and can't find them all again. It is better to restore the page, and I will re-write it even more. Note that the original request for deletion came only after the first, preliminary version of the page, whilst by the time the article got deleted, it was in its 2.0 version. To make the story short, if the page gets restored, I will quickly make it conform fully to all Wiki standards, it won't be very hard, since the article had a good collection of quotes and research in it, and will need only minor shortening and adjustment. --Wisconsin96 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was deleted as a copyvio, which seems to be partially true. Do you want me to email you a copy of the text? If you rewrite it, make sure you don't lift passages from other sources without attribution. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Golden State Ambulance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Just wondering what happened to this article. I can't find it on the list of deleted articles and it's not even showing up under my account at all. I can't find any record of it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Javastein (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

• Deleted as a company not showing significance by User:Rspeer according to the logs. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: suggest this be closed, as Javastein didn't present any arguments for undeletion—merely asked what happened to the article. But also suggest that this not be considered to prejudice a possible relisting at Deletion Review with reasons, if anyone wants to try, and has reasons to offer us. Xtifr _tälk 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadouken! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article has been deleted a number of times which really is rather stupid. Its also been protected from being recreated. Read the articles talk page to see how badly this deletion needs overturned. It was deleted orginally for unnotability but it cant be categorised under this, not anymore. They've been interviewed on XFM and performed live, as well as getting play on Radio 1, working with Bloc Party and Klaxons, currently on a headline tour, their debut single sold out on PRE-ORDERS they now have a new member and are widely considered the hottest new band in the whole of the UK by NME. Read the talk page, the people have spoken and they want this article. Now.--Shookvitals 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Shookvitals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Overturn and list. This band certainly meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Where are the reliable sources? MySpace, YouTube, their own web site and the web site of their record company do not qualify. They have no entry at allmusic.com. Corvus cornix 19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a number of scans from NME, Articles from various websites as well if that counts?--Shookvitals 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Got more sources? List them. Otherwise, I'm going to have to say Endorse. Show the article can pass WP:BAND, that's all you need to do. Scans aren't necessary, an article cite should be fine. --UsaSatsui 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Previously endorsed in January with the same arguments/purported sources. Unless new sources are offered this will be speedily closed. "Stupid" is no reason to reconsider this. ~ trialsanderrors 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Its proponents say Hadouken is the inventor of a genre or something. Ridiculous. How many times do we have to go through this? JuJube 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So delete that. The band can still be notable without that claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid deletion, "getting popular" is not a reason to change that. Bring sources. Reliable ones, independent of the band. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've asked NME for verification of the claimed magazine scans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have more sources, a particularly interesting ones from Gigwise which prove a number of things
  1. They were one of the headlining bands on a Myspace new music tour[28]
  2. They released a single[29]
  3. Fantastic one here showing the effect theyre having at the minute[30]
  4. 4th on the NME chart show ahead of the new My Chemical Romance video[31]

  I'll willing supply more if needed--Shookvitals 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Does the NME chart count as a "national music chart"? If it does, they pass WP:BAND under criteria #1. --UsaSatsui 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "Get cracking, the more times you vote, the more influence you'll have..." does not instill confidence. Looks like poll stuffing to me. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and the 25-30 selections you can choose from aren't helping either. Nevermind, that chart is junk. --UsaSatsui 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per guy, and the nominator's comment "stupid" makes it pretty tough to assume good faith here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait let me get this straight, the page is not being unprotected because I said that it was 'stupid' that it was? I'm sorry but since when has 'stupid' been such an offensive word. I could have said something a lot more offensive but I didn't. Im trying to be as useful as I can here but I just feel that everyone is always against the 'new guy'. Isnt their a rule on wikipedia 'Don't be a dick' or something. Im pretty sure most of you would fail it.--Shookvitals 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can't say that I see any serious assertion of notability in the deleted versions of the page so I can't disagree with the various deleting editors. But the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith so overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD where definite evidence will be needed to show that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article needs to be brought back, but renamed. A list of fiction that builds the fourth wall would be useless, as it would include pretty much all fiction. But a list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall - by first looking like breaking it but then not breaking it after all - is much more interesting. The AfD debate failed to consider this view. This should be undeleted and renamed to List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall or List of fiction that restores the fourth wall. JIP | Talk 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - perhaps the reason that no one considered the viewpoint was because no one (including this DRV nominator) offered it. The article was correctly deleted, but there is no bar to the nominator or anyone else creating List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall. Otto4711 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion. I was thinking of the wrong article. The list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall was in the main article, but removed without explanation. I have added it back. JIP | Talk 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The original review was closed for what the closing admin believed to be a necessary precaution based on possible office issues. The office has since spoken, and said they won't have a statement on it, so this is just to re-open it. Please see the original review for comments and concerns. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural note: Opinions in the aborted original discussion will be taken as still valid at closing time if the editor offering such opinions has not withdrawn or updated them. Please do not feel obligated to repeat them here. GRBerry 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and *not* for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopaedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you feel parts of the article are problematic, delete those parts. The article does use reliable sources for a large part of the content; non-contentious claims are sourced from Bauer's own web site (as is permitted by policy) and contentious claims are sourced from Writer Beware and the official Writer Beware blog (which is a reliable source, IMO). Some claims are sourced with primary sources, which is far from ideal, but does provide us with means of verification that the statements are true. I guess, however, that it is these parts of the article you objected to, so I'd suggest deleting those parts, rather than the entire article. JulesH 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore Based on what was there before (multiple, non-trivial sources establishing notability). If there are POV/neutrality concerns that is now an editing matter. Also the current history link isn't working, an admin must fix that. We cannot see now what was there before. Please restore ASAP. - Denny 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update Seeing the history, restore/undo the deletion. Someone can AfD after if they feel like it, once it's restored. - Denny 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. The BLP policy doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - even by the most stringent policy interpretations there is no basis for deletion. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• (reaffirm) Restore - I agree with Crotalus horridus. This sets a bad precedent. St jb
• keep deleted. The Barbara Bauer article was one of several articles created on Wikipedia in May 2006 by User:JulesH for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Wikipedia, even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Wikipedia editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the Talk:Barbara Bauer and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Wikipedia, using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The original attempt to delete the Barbara Bauer article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Wikipedia to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Wikipedia editors to use Wikipedia as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Wikipedia article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Wikipedia is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be enough coverage of this issue for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as OFFICE stated on the mail list they are not taking a position, can an admin please restore the history of the last couple versions at least so people can judge/see what was there fairly? - Denny 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- It is not required that Wikipedia be able to verify the web site (an official publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an influential and well-reputed professional association); it is only necessary that we can verify that they published the information that is attributed to them in the text. This is true. I see no text in the AfD debate that suggests the result was "keep pending removal of [some] sources." The claims in the article are well-sourced to reliable sources. The only even remotely dubious source (used for "Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.") is (a) a very weakly-phrased claim, (b) is undisputably a reliable WP:A#Primary_and_secondary_sources primary source for the claim being made. Besides, if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article. JulesH 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

reply to JulesH. The cited webpage says, "Below, in alphabetical order, is a list of the currently active literary agencies about which Writer Beware has received the largest number of complaints over the years, or which, based on documentation we've collected, we consider to pose the most significant hazard for writers." That website does not show us the "complaints" and "documentation" that support their claims. The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to make sure that Wikipedia does not find itself in the position of repeating claims that are not reliably sourced. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources says: "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I take this to mean that we need to cite a reliable third-party source that verifies the undocumented claims made by the "Writer Beware" website. What is a reliable third-party source for a Wikipedia biography? "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." About the original article deletion discussion, the article was saved from speedy deletion by an administrator who called for the article to be cleaned up; relevant comments from the discussion: "Weak keep if attacks are removed", "article is in desperate need of cleanup", "Strong Delete Wikipedia is not Google", "This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks". "if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article" <-- but in this case, the article was created for one purpose, to have Wikipedia repeat an unverifiable claim by website; this is not why Wikipedia has biographical encyclopedia articles. --JWSchmidt 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You're misinterpreting the policy. Wikipedia does not require its sources to provide sources for their information; that would be insane. SFWA Writer Beware is a reliable third-party source. Because Writer Beware is such a source, the information is clearly not unverifiable. The purpose of Wikipedia having biographical articles is to inform people who are researching a particular person about who that person is, and what they have done. I'm well aware of this, and I dispute the suggestion that the reason I created this article was merely to have Wikipedia repeat the information: I found well sourced information that seemed to me to be notable and interesting, and I created articles on its subjects. It was later decided that of those articles, only this one should remain. JulesH 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia biography page, a reliable third party source for negative information about the subject might be a reputable newspaper that has trained investigative reporters, editors and fact checkers. Such a source might publish an investigative report in which they examine court documents and provide the public with a carefully documented report of how many claims for damages have been awarded to customers of a business. Such a source might publish the names of people who have gone to court with claims against a company and print direct quotes from them that reveal the problems they had in trying to do business with the company. Such a source would also have a section in their article where they ask the company for their perspective on the customer complaints against the company. The Writer Beware webpage does not come close to meeting these standards for being a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography article. Wikipedia does not exist as a means to amplify unverifiable negative claims about people that are made by websites. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia's policy is that only newspapers can provide reliable sources for biographies. Writer Beware is a publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, one of the most important professional associations that exists for genre fiction writers. It is an important and credible source by any standards I've ever seen discussed even remotely in connection with a wikipedia policy. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - looking at the Google cache, I honestly don't see how this person meets WP:BIO standards. The sources are either self-referential, have no actual information, or are blogs, which to me doesn't stand up very well. If someone can come forward with good, reliable sources, then perhaps it's worthy, but right now? I don't see it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(I note that I can't see any sources that may have been added after the Google cache was created, just for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Articles which turn into Interwebs smearfests about living people should be deprecated, demolished and buried. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for criticism or praise - it is a compendium of what has already been published in reliable sources. The article in question consisted almost entirely of what has been (negatively) said about the person on blogs and message boards. WP:BLP specifically prohibits the use of these sites as sources for biographies. "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." Surely there is something which has been published in a reliable source which discusses the allegations for/against this person in a neutral manner, if this truly is not a tempest in a teapot, right? FCYTravis 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion - see rationale at the top.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Your rational is already logged. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Restore. (1) No OFFICE action -- if and when there is, it can be dealt with then; (2) Previous AfD closed as "keep"; (3) subject satisfies WP:BIO as a subject, due to controversy covered in multiple sources; and finally, (4) article does not violate WP:BLP for two reasons I analyze below:

1. The main source of her notoriety is her filing of a lawsuit, the verifiability of which is incontrovertable by reference to public records sources.
2. The collateral sources which form the basis of the public controversy in which she is embroiled meet WP:RS. The SFWA site is not a personal home page, blog, fan site, rumor site, etc; it is the official site of a respected and established professional organization, the equivalent in its field to (for example) the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association. The author of the SFWA piece, A. C. Crispin, is an officer of the organization, and a well-known author in her own right. As for Making Light, while it is a blog, it clearly fits the exception in WP:RS to the general prohibition on self-published sources, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Teresa Nielsen Hayden unquestionably meets those qualifications.

This article is a good example of how we can show that Wikipedia is capable of neutral, professional coverage of controversial matters, even matters in which it is a party. Restore. --MCB 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, it says "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." The Writer Beware blog is not a self-published blog; it is published on behalf of a reputable organization. Making Light may be inappropriate as a source here, and I would suggest the removal of that and the information sourced to it following restoration of the article. It is irrelevant now, anyway, as news of the lawsuit against Wikipedia, Nielsen Hayden, Jenna Glatzer, "Miss Snark" et al is sure to make some non-blog source. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment History restored behind protection. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and keep article provided that better sourcing is added. Reliability of the original sourcing was not at all clear. ~This is an instance of where we do have to be careful of BLP. The withdrawal of the Office action was not a license to ignore BLP, but rather a statement that they relied upon us to evaluate with it properly in the usual way. DGG 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment There was no OFFICE action. I remarked on the email list about the office not being open. Please don't make leading comments like this. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• (reaffirming) Restore - for the reasons I previously stated in the closed DRV.[32] A few additional notes: some of the criteria decried as being lacking in the most recent text of the article was missing due to disagreements over proper application of RS. For example: the Nielsen Haydens are certainly notable (each has an article here), but there was disagreement whether (and to what degree) their blog, Making Light, could be cited as it pertained to what happened between them and Bauer. (One editor, for reasons of his own, preferred that they and Absolute Write not be mentioned at all.) Similarly, the Writer Beware blog is a direct outgrowth of the Writer Beware section of the SFWA site, is run by two notable writers who are well known and respected for their anti-scam work for SFWA, and should not be deprecated as a source. As for BB's own notability, unfortunately it arises primarily from negative information as reported by SFWA and other sources. If one looks through the old Talk thread, there is considerable discussion of two or three secondary sources that nearly everyone associated with the article considered sufficiently reliable for inclusion. Every attempt was made to limit the article to this, but this limitation ironically has the effect of making the article seem less clear and complete, so that it ends up seeming less well sourced than it actually is. And of course, one of the the main claims that we were trying to properly source, that Bauer has been known to make (poorly founded) legal threats against those who mention her online in a negative light, is now confirmed by the existence of this very docket in Superior Court in NJ. This seems likely to engender the sort of mainstream reporting that was previously so scarce on the ground. Again, I urge that all these sources and the issues surrounding this article be considered in depth; a superficial reading does not do justice to the complexity of the situation regarding the article and its subject. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. There is no exception for "notable writers who are well known and respected." No blogs, period. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore The deletion rationale hinges on the reliability of the sources. I am convinced of the reliability of SFWA. Surely SWFA has more than enough reliability to at least discuss its worthiness via AfD. Kla'quot 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore MCB makes a very compelling argument for restoration. Statements were all sourced, and not original works of wikipedia. Article should be restored.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore This certainly qualifies as reliable and sourced. I saw no libelous statements, everything was nice and sourced. WP:BLP doesn't mean we can't have neutral article on people just because they are criticised. Oskar 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse I don't feel this meets WP:BIO at all. What in that article establishes notability? The fact that her agency appears in the SFWA worst 20 agencies list can't be it all on its own, as not all of the rest of those agencies seem to have articles. The only other references there are several bios which do nothing for notability, one link that doesn't work at all, a couple blogs entries, and court information that can't be included without delving into the same area of WP:OR that Jimbo already said his piece on. There are no newspaper articles, no other secondary sources of any kind. Even assuming the blogs are reliable sources, from where exactly is her supposed notability coming from? I fully agree with the nominator that this article is completely unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion No content worth salvaging. Complete BLP violation. --Tbeatty 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and if there's still controversy put through AfD again. The notability of this individual looks potentially questionable, though being in a top twenty suggests she may be worth having an article about and surviving the previous AfD suggests I'm not alone in this suspicion. The alleged BLP violation looks bogus to me, the article's got plenty of decent sources backing up the various statements (the word "blog" is not radioactive) and I don't see any clear NPOV violations. Bryan Derksen 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. So yes, it is radioactive. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per FCYTravis. Take one unremarkable person, add one or more unremarkable events, and stir in innuendo to taste. The usual recipe for WP:BLP nightmares in fact. Logically there have to be 20 worst agencies in any list of 21 or more literary agencies, so being one of them isn't a great achievement. Usually these kinds of articles are built from newspaper reporting, which is bad enough, but this is based on blogs and dead links. As Tbeatty says, there is nothing here worth salvaging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore (my vote was already in the previous debate). MCB and Karen have shared the facts on this matter in detail above and it makes little sense for me to rehash them. There is no BLP violation to deal with. The deletion being reviewed concerns BLP, if her notability is questioned, that can be handled on AFD. It is not the place of DRV to judge her notability. An article that already survived an AFD does not lack notability to the point it warrants speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this article is restored, it should be done without the bad source material (i.e. blog entries). Cary Bass ^demandez 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per Bryan Derksen et al, and because there was no cause for a speedy deletion in the first place. The article having previously gone through AfD last month ago, the most that should have been done as an initial action by Admin was a further AfD nomination. Js farrar 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore multiple non-trival cites for reliable, verifiable and persistent sources. Meets BLP. Edivorce 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore The sources are all fine: Bauer herself for non-controversial claims, her university for background information on her qualifications, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a large professional organisation that provides advice about finding suitable representation to writers (cited twice -- once from their own page, once from the official blog of "writer beware", one of their projects), a blog produced by an expert in the field of the publishing industry, along with primary documentary evidence of a court case. Despite two of the sources being blogs, they are both acceptable according to the definitions at WP:RS. No information is contained that is not backuped up by at least one of these sources. There has been no violation of WP:BLP here. JulesH 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - in that case, WP:BLP needs reviewing. Saying a source is unusable simply because of the format in which that source is published is so silly as to be beyond belief. Js farrar 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that this proviso needs reviewing. Surely the intent is to prevent Wikipedia from saying, "According to Barney Rubble's blog, Dick Dastardly has been seen cheating in races." Rubble has no standing of reliability in such a case. But if Rubble says, "Fred Flintstone tried to get me fired after I pointed out his illegal rock-crushing methods," and Rubble is a known expert in the field of rock crushing, then that is an appropriate source to cite. He is a) speaking within his field of expertise, and b) talking about what happened to himself in relation to the subject. This is the situation with Bauer vis-a-vis the two blogs mentioned here. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be. From WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." There is no process, approval or editing system involved in a blog. All you have to do is type and submit. That makes them, then, the least-trustworthy and least-credible sources, and for biographies of living persons, there is absolutely no call to use any source which is not absolutely and inarguably credible and reliable. If we simply publish endless piles of blog opinion about a person, what we get is not a biography but a scandal sheet, listing every gripe every person has ever had about said person, no matter how trivial, false or overblown. The only thing we can reliably say about Ms. Bauer is that she's been listed on this "20-worst" list, and that she has a college degree. FCYTravis 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be." And you're missing the point too: Publication method (which is what a blog is) is totally orthogonal to editorial process (which is what you're talking about). Some blogs *are* edited in the format you're talking about. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting that this blog is attached to a reliable website. If they'd posted it to their website instead of the blog. We wouldn't be having this discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or is not self-published, which is the case for one of the two blogs in question. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - All sources pass WP:BLP and WP:RS, deletion was without merit. --Silas Snider (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I agree with Docs original assessment. Additionally, I'm not seeing why this subject meets WP:BIO and the article was certainly very overbalanced negatively while using completely unacceptable sources for those claims (per WP:BLP}. Shell ^babelfish 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if your issue is notability, then that should be discussed at AfD, after an undeletion, in order to get a wider audience for the question. The last AfD closed with a keep result. Nothing has changed, except that Ms Bauer has issued a law suit against Wikipedia, the SFWA (along with two of its officials), the operators of the blog that is cited in the article, the operator and former operator of the "Absolute Write" web site that is mentioned in the article, a person identified only as "Miss Snark Literary Agent" (!) and others whose names I don't recognise. Suing the SFWA is almost guaranteed to get an article in Publishers Weekly, so notability will be further confirmed there. JulesH 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - this is becoming a widely-discussed issue, and a wikipedia article on it would be helpful. Bias should be addressed through editing, not outright deletion. --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This article was clearly created as an sttack piece. It did not seek to provide a balanced view of the person, but rather to detail derogatory information. Since then it has improved somewhat but it is still unbalanced and too depepndent on inappropriates sources. Perhaps a restoration followed by another AfD would be the best way of resolving the matter. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but allow article on agency; most of the claims of notability in the article pertain to the agency, not to the individual. Those that do relate to her mostly seem to do so in her role as a representative of the agency. It is the agency, not the individual, who has achieved notability, and the focus of the article should be on that. The founder's personal biographical details are not relevant. Xtifr _tälk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per above.  Grue  08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - Should have gone through AfD. --J2thawiki 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Additional third party source discussing Bauer (albeit briefly and in a manner rather hostile to wikipedia): http://www.israelnews agency.com/citizendiumlarrysangerwikipediawaleswoolbarhillelchapmanlibelisrael4877032807.html (delete space; for some reason this URL won't post without it being embedded) JulesH 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that "israelnews" is considered an unreliable blog whose writer has been banned from Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per JulesH and MCB, particularly MCB's point that Bauer's legal filings are a matter of public record, and the professionalism and expertise of the website owners providing factual information regarding Ms. Bauer. Noirdame 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I have reopened this, as this was not a merge, but a redirect, no content was merged, nor did the closing admin mention anything about merging. This may have been closed accidentally. --Xyzzyplugh 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, should have used the word redirect. Either way, you are not requesting deletion, and no deletion occurred, so there is no need for a deletion review. GRBerry 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Admin chose to Redirect this. First of all, this was redirected without consensus, many more editors were in favor of keeping than deleting, and gave reasons for their position. Secondly, the article was removed for violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, while it is not at all certain that it does. Specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not ban articles on words, it merely says we don't have dictionary definition articles. Removing this article violates long-standing tradition, if not policy, that we don't delete articles which clearly and obviously can be cleaned up and rewritten into high quality articles, simply because they are not high enough quality yet. Why is Thou a featured article, while "The" is essentially deleted? Etymologists have written vast amounts on the word "The", and if Thou can be good enough to be a featured article, undeniably The could too, if anyone bothered to do so. Deleting an entire class of articles, those on words, automatically unless they are already high quality and well-sourced, will prevent us from ever being ABLE to improve them into high quality articles. This violates the basic process that a huge percentage of our best articles follow: low quality stub becomes ok quality stub becomes ok quality article becomes good quality article becomes good quality well sourced article becomes excellent quality sourced article. If you auto-delete a certain category of articles half way through the process, claiming that the problem is the process isn't finished yet, then how is the process ever supposed to get finished? If we want to ban all articles on words, then rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to say so, and start with Thou, a featured article, to prove we really mean it. Otherwise, this is an ok quality but not yet well enough sourced article, and we know full well there are reliable sources on this, here's one out of a large number which exist, do what we do in every other situation, keep and clean up. Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn due to lack of consensus. Although, this is simply an editorial decision, so we should just be able to reverse the redirect - the history is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo. Redirect to article (grammar) ensures that the encyclopaedic topic of grammatical articles is kept, without the dictionary definition. Close is correct: "has potential" and "important subject" are just opinions and have no bearing on whether an article should be kept per policy. And the "in popular culture" section really was one of the worst of its kind that I can recall. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I admittedly do not fully understand the deletion review procedure - how does what you said relate to the central issue that, 1. there was no consensus to delete, and 2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not require the deletion of articles which currently contain nothing but a dictionary definition? WP:NPOV does not insist on deletion of articles which are currently POV, WP:V does not insist on deletion of articles which currently aren't full sourced, without even trying to look for sources, why would you assume Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary requires deletion of articles which are currently a dicdef(assuming that's what this was, which is not certain either, the editors advocating Keep thought it was more)? --Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment by me: It is possible that I have not fully understood the deletion review process, in terms of the way I wrote the above. As it may be that I am merely supposed to explain how the deletion process was not followed properly: This article does not warrant deletion due to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:WINAD does not insist on the deletion of all articles on words. The fact that Thou, an article on a word, is a featured article, is the clearest possible evidence of this. Since WP:WINAD only requires deletion of articles which can never be anything more than a dicdef, and this clearly can be more, then no deletion is required by WP:WINAD. As no other reason for deletion was ever given, and as the presence of reliable sources clearly meets WP:V or WP:A or whatever we're using today, and as there was no consensus to delete, deletion(redirection) was inappropriate and should be overturned. --Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If restored, this article really should not have an "In popular culture" section. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• DRV not needed because the article history still exists and the article is not protected. This can be handled by the standard editing process (and dispute resolution if it comes to that). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• technically not needed but the ed. bringing the DRV was not unreasonably confused because the effect of a redirect is almost the same as a deletion: it removes the staus of an article, and it removes the material. Potentially controversial redirect have a review process of their own--was this followed? was the ed. in question made aware of it? Finally, does appeal lie from Redirects for discussion to DR? DGG 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet troll squads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I believe that the article was neither an "attack" nor an original research. It summarized the investigations of Russian and Polish journalists and activists. The article's editor attributed all the paragraphs to the respective publications. I cannot find a Wikipedia policy mentioning the term "attack". The omnipresence of scabrous comments in the Russian online forums is evident. There are known cases of impersonation of Russian opposition figures and distortion of their statements.

I think instead of deleting the article, one should add more reliable sources to it such as court decisions. Perhaps, expanding the scope of the article to libel cases of vague origin would help. The article already included a reference to the work of Polyanskaya that mentions a court case of libel of Starovoitova.

On my part, I have translated from Russian a bio stub of Nikolai Girenko, a murdered Russian ethnograph who testified in court cases against nationalist groups. I am mentioning this article here because it shows the scale and nature of attacks against the civil dialogue. ilgiz 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see here official decision on personal attack made by this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys. 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.

I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn obvious consensus to keep on AfD, and another outrageous deletion by User:A Man In Black.  Grue  08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the AfD was a trollfest, Grue's amusingly hysterical assertion notwithstanding. But we could relist semiprotected if anyone thinks it's worth the effort. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that most of those who voted "keep" are trolls? That's "hysterical assertion" if I saw one. What happened here is User:A Man In Black, who doesn't know jack about Russian or Polish politics, completely ignoring opinions of people who do. That's what I call "systemic bias", which we're supposed to counter, not encourage more.  Grue  14:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. >Radiant< 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist for the reasons I've presented above in this undelete request. ilgiz 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, AfD is also no place for ignoring votes and discriminating users' opinion. The discussion was NOWHERE NEAR a "delete" consensus.AlexPU 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, clearly no consensus for a deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Overturn. I have posted my opinion here User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive20#Deletion_of_Internet_squads_article, and I am working toward improving the article under a different name. More sources are added, primarily about similar "Internet teams" in China. It would be great if Ilgiz (who perhaps knows this subject better than me) and other editors could help to improve the article.Biophys 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as stated already, this is from the AFD page, section titled, How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." not to mention the Admin's comments on the page, "I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping." Betaeleven 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist - I believe there was some consensus to delete in the original debate - unless I am missing/miscounted something there were more !votes to delete. That said, there was more than a little confusion going on there and it wouldn't hurt to try and build a more solid consensus one way or another. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I was made aware of Ukrained (talk · contribs) stumping for votes in e-mail on ANI, as well as this article being used as a brush with which to smear Wikipedia users. The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources and the fact that the claims made were not supported by the sources, and these arguments were poorly refuted by keep comments, if refuted at all. Thanks for the laugh, though, Grue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources". OK, let's see if it's really the case, or you're making it up on the spot:
    • "Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either" (great argument)
    • "Looks like a conspiracy theory to me." (aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    • "It's surely a conspiracy theory."
    • "OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition." (aka TLA alphabet soup)
  • There were actually 7 sources, most of them inline. The delete arguments like "WP:NOR" are self-defeating. You made your decision based on some WP:ANI rumor, and closed the debate without even reading it. Just admit it, because we all know it's true.  Grue  21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• relist. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place. DGG 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of the article. (1) Users Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum and CBR prepare new out of Wikipedia canvassing for this article. Please see the following messages: Message one, message two. I would like to stress that these users continue their out-of-wiki canvassing right there. I think they have attracted more users now. (2) As I am Russian speaking guy, I would like to notice that Biophys esentially links his article to three sources. First, eye for an eye publication which alleges that users of some forums are FSB employees, no evidence is given. Second source translation of the article by Polyanskaya which repeats the same pattern - asserts that some internet users are from FSB without any evidence. Third source is a fiction (Anastasia) written by some dissident. There are no any conclusive sources. if this is a Wikipedia, I believe we should cite not the yellow press, not the hoax reportes like UFO-nauts, but serious sources. While internet and e-mail spying is implemented in US and EU after September 11th, and everyone knows about that, we don't need to represent such an article about Russian using these dubious sources. If it would be an authoritative newspaper - that would be another case. (3) This article initially was created by Biophys in order to proclaim me (Vlad fedorov) and administrator Alex Bakharev, FSB employees for our position on some edits to the relative articles. If this article would be created, I feel that Biophys would behave uncivil to us and would continue his uncivil personal attacks. Vlad fedorov 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Vlad, just what the heck do you mean by those diffs??? If users are just requesting each others mails - do they conspire to break Wikirules? If they are writing each other - should they be punished only for this? Presumption of guilt? ADMINISTRATORS!!! THIS USER SEEMS TO BE CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP, SPYING AND POLITICAL PROFILING ON WIKIPEDIA! IMHO, HE SHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION A.S.A.P.!!!AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I speak Russian too. So you should be honest with the naive Westerners, and I'll be watching you :)AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a very naive Westerner:Vlad fedorovis of course very uncivil in his argumentation, but anyone who doubts that e-mail is being used by these people to evade blocks, to attack fellow Wikipedians and, (specifically the point Vlad wants to make but getting lost in indignation), to canvas for votes: [33]. --Pan Gerwazy 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-sense! How this new diff is relevant to discussion here? Your Vlad was talking of another editor and another situation! Please remove your post ASAP.AlexPU 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I've never received any mail or other messages about the article in question. BUT! Look what I got: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote." [34] They got a bunch of such reservations there. So, no rule for a decision huh? If you're against my admin POV, I'll invent a rule for you anyway? "Everything for my friends, law for my enemies"? Huh? My opinion: BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP! BTW, I should be reading rules regularly... Maybe some of admins that often block me would appear to be rulesbreakers themselves:)AlexPU 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user AlexPU. Please see the following discussion between Biophys (author of the article about Internet troll squads) and this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexPU#Could_you_give_me_a_piece_of_advice.3F . It follows that AlexPU was attracted by Biophys to this voting out of Wikipedia using e-mail.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! BURN A MAN IN BLACK AT THE STAKE!

Typically, vote counts are ignored when it's clear that someone is actively influencing the vote count. If the solicited users had come in with convincing arguments, that'd be fine, but closing admins typically ignore the mass of numbers when it's clear that someone was stumping for votes.

By the way, Ukrained isn't being blocked or anything (at least, not by me and not to my knowledge); the "votes" he stumped up were simply ignored except insofar as the users made convincing arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you name the users whose opinions you ignored, and provide the proof that they were asked by User:Ukrained to vote as they did?  Grue  20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reports of solicits in e-mail, in both the AFD and on ANI, motivated me to ignore the vote count entirely. If you're asking how many noses I counted, the answer is zero. I ignored everyone's "vote" since the vote was clearly tainted and evaluated the arguments. There's no reasonable way to figure out exactly who was solicited and who was not, nor any particularly good reason to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. The main argument still is that it is an attack page, and what is worse - the canvassing and the reactions of the people being canvassed prove that they not only want to keep it, but they want to keep it that way. WP:BLP and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --Pan Gerwazy 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Attack against whom? Original AfD nominator said: "Essentially an attack page against Putin". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_troll_squads. But it is not attack page against any specific person, as anyone can see looking at the article.Biophys 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should think about your trying to rig the voting in Wikipedia twice. Everything is evident about personalities of the individuals attacked from the Adminstrators noticeboard and your now deleted comments. I think that no one here would let you spit on the face of decent Wikipedia editors.Vlad fedorov 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. It is an attack page, a WP:OR galore and a WP:BLP infringement. We had enough problems with conspiracy pages (*cough* 9/11 *cough*) to not restart them. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The rationale was clear, and some of the above comments make it clearer. DGG 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Looks clear enough to me that. I agree with the rationale to delete.--Dycedarg ж 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per JzG and others. Unsubstantiated libels against active politicians have no place in Wikipedia. I am very surprized by the attitude of Grue, which I find rather unhealthy. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Important notice. User Biophys is going to make a new article on "Internet Troll Squads". Please see his stub here User:Biophys/tutorial.Vlad fedorov 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not want to get involved in this personal feud between you two (in fact, I find its very existence utterly abhorrent), but I would like to mention here what I mentioned on the talk page of that draft. I think the article may have a place on wikipedia if it is mentioned in the introduction that the existence of this is alleged, not an undisputable fact. I believe that it is notable (it seems to fulfill the primary criteria), but those sources, as far as I can see, do not conclusively prove it. It is notable for being an idea which has been written about and for being part of Russia's political landscape, but it shouldn't be presented as a fact. My main hobby is creating film articles, so I see no problem with writing an article about potential fiction, or even downright lies. That shouldn't be a consideration - what should be considered is whether this idea is influential. The sources seem to suggest that it is. As such, it should be written about from the perspective of not endorsing this accusation but of presenting it much as one would present the theories in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Note: I came to know of this article from Portal:Russia/New article announcements page. Esn 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to your comment:Yes and by making Wikipedia a storage place for the yellow press, X-files, allegations and hearsays, you also give to some crazy people ground to state that this Wikipedia editor is working for KGB. We would all thank you for this after someone here would be called KGB agent. The author of this article wasn't bothered for very long period after its creation, I never complained that this article was OR, or had unreliable sources. I complained after Biophys alleged and wrote section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he ignited discussion of the peronalities of Wikipedia editors. And this article was created by Biophys specifically for this purpose. I asked admins to check my IP and IP of Alex Bakharev, to confirm that we are not even from Russia. You, Esn, is not administrator and as such you cannot guarantee that Biophys and his friends won't start these violations of Wikipedia policies again. Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, that is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Second, what you are saying is factually wrong. It was an anonymous user who started that discussion, and I only reacted to his/her accusations. See: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration.Biophys 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, I would like to remind you that it is not wikipedia policy to prevent the creation of articles about notable subjects if those subjects are likely to be vandalised. If we start doing that, the vandals have already won. Courage is needed, dear editor, not fear and appeasement. If the article is recreated, I promise to put it on my watch list (as will many others, I don't doubt) and revert any attacks against you or other wikipedia editors that may pop up. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Further comment: Any accusations against wikipedia editors, be it Vlad fedorov or anyone else, must be removed from the article immediately. This should not be a consideration on whether the article is to be kept or not. It doesn't matter one single bit why the article was originally created - what matters is whether its subject matter could have a place on wikipedia. I'm not qualified to judge this, but I notice that it survived a deletion discussion on the Russian wikipedia back in January 2006, and that the "keep" decision was unanimous. Esn 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Russian Wikipedia is notorious for low quality articles, so don't advertise it here.Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Creation of the article, proposal for speedy deletion, vote on it, keep decision all happened on the same day. Most of the votes came after the article was marked both as POV and aa a Conspiracy Theory. Crucially: the very creator of the page (Jaro.p) provided a link to a Russian source calling it a dubious conspiracy theory. So there obviously was a willingness to make it NPOV. Note that the title of the Russian article is also far more neutral,a nd at one time had a interwiki link to "web-brigade" on English wikipedia. We are 1 year later now, the Russian article now has a chapter "Kritika", is still marked Conspiracy Theory, and I have not heard anything in the news all that time. --Pan Gerwazy 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• The article should remain deleted. It's clear that whoever was its author had a crucial lack of info on Runet, Russian segment of the Internet. ellol 06:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think last part of this discussion misses the point. How can this article be violation of WP:OR (the reason for deletion) if it cited the following multiple reliable sources: ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Not only this phenomenon is well known in Russia (hence the article in Russian Wikipedia and discussions of this subject in Runet by a Russian State official and numerous bloggers ^[4]), such teams have been reportedly created by departments of provincial and municipal governments in mainland China: the "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names" in 2005 ^[5]. Applicants for the job were drawn mostly from the propaganda and police departments. Successful candidates have been offered classes in Marxism, propaganda techiques, and the Internet. "They are actually hiring staff to curse online," said Liu Di, a Chinese student who was arrested for posting her comments in blogs ^[5]

1. ^ Operation "Disinformation" - The Russian Foreign Office vs "Tygodnik Powszechny", Tygodnik Powszechny, 13/2005
2. ^ Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer. by Anna Polyanskaya, Andrei Krivov, and Ivan Lomko, Vestkik online, April 30, 2003 (English translation)
3. ^ Eye for an eye (Russian) by Grigory Svirsky and Vladimur Bagryansky, publication of Russian Center for Extreme Journalism [1]
4. ^ Conspiracy theory by Alexander Usupovsky, Russian Journal, 25 April, 2003
5. ^ ^{a b} China's secret internet police target critics with web of propaganda, by Jonathan Watts in Beijing, June 14, 2005, Guardian Unlimited

Biophys, these "sources" do not fall under the WP:RS criteria. They're all allegations, with some people thinking: "there is a discrepancy between people that should be present in the forums and views that people post, then basically these must be FSB agents in disguise). If this was a legal investigations (which it isn't of course), such an "evidence" would have absolutely zero value. "I heard someone saying..." stuff is nothing but conspiracy theories.

As for China, well, it's out of scope for this article. China filters Internet (and Wikipedia), Russia does not. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's discussed in newspapers, Wikipedia should have an article about it, even if it is a conspiracy theory. And looking just at the title of the article, I can't say why China is outside of its scope. Are you saying China doesn't have Internet at all?  Grue  15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember: "verifiability, not truth". No any court investigation or "evidence" required for sources in Wikipedia. Not only all these sources satisfy WP:RS, but at least two of them are notable (Guardian Unlimited and Tygodnik Powszechny) and the claims came from notable people: Grigory Svirsky and Liu Di. As for China, everyone can read the source and see what it says: "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names". Of course, this article was not only about Russia, and I emphasized this at the talk page during the deletion discussion. Biophys 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to repeat that again: verifiability, not truth. This is very important. If you will argue against this article, please base your arguments on wikipedia policy. If you don't like those policies, ask to change them on their talk pages. This is not the place for asking to change wiki policies. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm adding my vote to overturn or relist. I fail to see how this is any different than the 9/11 conspiracy theories article - same basic premise. As long the article is NPOV, I see no problems. It will be a target for vandalism - as all such articles are - but as I said previously this should not deter us. We must fight against vandals by doing exactly what they do not wish us to do. Esn 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Internet troll squads" gets a whopping 6 Ghits, nuff said. This being said, if someone is able to come up with a good NPOV version of the article (and NOT centered around Russia like the previous one used to be), then fine. But restoring the article as it is is just too risky imho. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. An article on the topic is possible but this one was unrepairable, starting from the title all the way to the content. When the deletion is debated, it is important to keep in mind that the issue is not whether the article about something along these lines is in principle possible, but whether the article at hand can be used as the basis for a possibly encyclopedic article this is to become. If the acceptable article would have to be written from scratch, the original article can be deleted no matter how encyclopedic the topic is. And it should be deleted if it looks like an ax grinding exercise created under deliberately inflammatory unencyclopedic and non-descriptive title. Users who keep repeating like mantra that WP:RM should not be confused with AfD or that the article simply needs an improvement and this is the issue of editing rather than of the deletion need first to see whether the article at hand is of any use for such hypothetically encyclopedic article. If not, than delete, even if the topic has a potential. Byophys seems interested in the topic. That's his right. He can write a new version under the new title and if he needs something that was in the article for his work on the future one, he can request any admin to restore it in his userspace. But no way that piece under that name could be restored. --Irpen 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So basically you agree that the topic can support a wiki article, but feel that it should be created under a new name? Wouldn't that be grounds for speedy deletion - the recreation of a previously deleted topic? Esn 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and rename. There was no consensus to delete, and renaming seems like the best way to address the problems caused by the rather unwise name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Sure, we can rename article as Internet brigades (as in Russian Wikipedia) or Internet squads (no "trolls"!) if you think this is better. I thought "squads" is better, because "brigade" is a large military detachment, and I thought "troll" is related to Troll (Internet). Biophys 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Question. So, can I recreate the article right now under a slightly different name and make it as neutral and encyclopedic as possible? Biophys 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Since this topic hasn't been closed yet (despite being moved into the archives), I'll add another comment. I must say that the article badly needs attention from someone - and prefferably someone who reads Russian - who will cut the bias out of it. It is still rather biased and inadequate, but in more subtle ways - for example, the way it's currently sourced makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to verify much of the FSB section. The "eye for an eye" source, in particular, is given as a source for a whole bunch of statements, but it is extremely long and made up of various sections. Specific sections should be given as a source, rather than the whole thing. Also, the name "internet brigades" seems like a neologism, so perhaps the name "secret internet police" (which was used in the Guardian article) would be best. I'm still not sure how much meat is there behind the allegations, but I would like this to be discussed (and prefferably for some time) because at least some of it is legitimate. Esn 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, trouble is that if you try to cut the bias, you will get reverted by Biophys and it will be another edit war... Besides, reading Russian, I can tell you that there is not much meat behind those allegations. Basically, it is no different from the yellow press idiotics about flying saucers, vanished civilizations, torsion fields and all similar crap. The main "argument" worth more than $0.01 is the supposed discrepancy between the social categories using internet and the views one can see on fora. Trouble is, no one did a serious study on a subject, therefore people like Polyanskaya implicitely suppose that everyone having Internet and commenting on Russian-speaking forums would necessarily be a partisan of liberal views. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, no! So far, I could negotiate changes with any editor except Vlad Fedorov who deletes well referenced texts. By the way, you Grafikm, made a couple of reasonable comments with regard to Boris Stomakhin, so I tried to reflect them in the article. So far, I inserted only one word in the changes already made by Esn. Anything consistent with wikipedia rules is fine.Biophys 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Don't mix things that shouldn't be. Boris Stomakhin is a real guy, sentenced by a real tribunal (rightly or not, that's another question), so everything is "real", so it is not surprising that I tried to settle the dispute between you and Vlad on sources, interpretations and stuff. Here, we're talking about a possible conspiracy that no one managed to prove so far, so it's not the same thing by a league. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
              • It seems to me that the topic satisfies the general notability criterion. Wikipedia has articles on both UFOs and vanished civilizations because they have been written about by notable people, so it shouldn't be a consideration whether the allegations are true or not. This seems to be the case here - even if the allegations are false, they seem to have appeared in notable publications. What is real here is not necessarily the allegations, but that the allegations have appeared in important places. As such, it is my view (unless someone presents convincing evidence to the contrary) that it is not against wikipedia policy to have an article about them, as long as the article makes it clear that there is some doubt about their truthfulness. It would be helpful, for example, if some sources critical of this view were also found - they could then be added in. There's one currently (on the FSB accusations) but he's apparently a government employee (?). A rebuttal from a more neutral source, if one could be found, would be a good thing to add. Esn 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Smirking Chimp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The recent MFD discussion on GNAA's "war on blogs" led me to check whether several prominent weblogs I had heard of had been deleted as a result of such activity. I found at least two blogs that were deleted when, pretty clearly, they shouldn't have been. Note that these undeletions are not being proposed for personal political reasons; one of the blogs (Rottweiler) is far-right while the other (Chimp) is far-left.

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's deletion discussion appears to have a solid consensus... but it turns out a lot of those voters were actually GNAA members, some of whom (including GNAA founder Timecop) are now banned from Wikipedia. The discussion on AFD should be re-run and kept free of single-purpose or bad faith accounts. The existing discussion can't reasonably be said to reflect an accurate consensus of Wikipedia users.

Smirking Chimp's deletion discussion had two keep votes and two delete votes. That is far from a consensus to delete. It's one of the few redlinked blogs on the lists found on our Political blog article. There is a metric ton of Google hits.

At the very least, both these articles should have a real, full discussion on AFD before they're deleted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, smirking chimp is a favourite of mine, or was at one time anyway, but the article as deleted had only one source: smirking chimp. No prejudice against a rewrite which satisfies notability criteria by reference to reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse both deletions, reasons as given above. Additionally the AfD on the first mentioned article is rather old - perhaps it would be more constructive to re-create the article, properly sourced and written, starting from scratch rather than digging up old graves? Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I also just noticed that The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler was speedy deleted per A7 and G11 back in December. Without knowing what the content was it's hard for me to judge but that seems to reinforce the original AfD asserting a lack of notability and sourcing. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn both and relist. I am glad someone checked the list. It became clear that the deletions sponsored by this self-admitted cabal need review with more careful attention. DGG 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. One AFD result was influenced by sock and meat puppets and the other didn't have a concensus. At the very least they need to be given a fair chance. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist I'm not at all sure that either will pass an AfD, but they at least deserve a fair discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion --Tbeatty 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn on the basis of new information. Restore and keep for a few days (i.e., do not relist immediately) to allow for article improvement. Relist after a reasonable time if articles still are unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • At AfD, they get five days. I think that should be enough, if there's anything to justify a keep. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, definitely a troubling case, but AfD seems like the best way out. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Christina McHale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This information does validly cite its sources and there is no false information on this page. All information on wikipedia on Christina McHale can be found elsewhere on the internet so there is no reason to delete it. This is not an invasion of privacy because this information is already out on the internet and it was cited properly and posted on wikipedia for a biography. Please undelete this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitiful (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion. The main thrust of the requests was that the article failed to satisfy the notability guidelines, not that the article is false or uncited (which it must be as well). Also, "other people who know Christina McHale personally" does not constitute a reliable source. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Speedy close, review requested by a sockpuppet of currently blocked Worthadonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This AfD was closed and renamed to Arlon Lindner. I wish to contest this renaming as it has created a massive undue weight problem with the controversy being about the only element covered in this article. If this would be overturned, I would gladly contribute to an article about Arlon Lindner (the person), but I cannot salvage this into an article with a completely different scope. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's an issue for WP:RM if you don't want to challenge the "keep" part of the decision. ~ trialsanderrors 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to contest the result of the AfD. I was told this was the place to do so; sorry. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, we're only doing the "delete" part. Sorry for giving you the runaround. ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Cluj-Napoca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was OK and there was no problem reported with it. It contained the history paragraph of Cluj-Napoca article and wanted to develop that part. The article just disappeared without any notice. Roamataa 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I deleted the article per CSD G5 ("Pages created by banned users while they were banned.") Since the article was started by a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, it meets the criteria. Khoikhoi 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the text is still in the edit history of Cluj-Napoca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), no? ~ trialsanderrors 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, some of it, but that's because of the notes on my talk page ([35]) and at the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. However, since the matter has since been resolved (I've restored part of the article), you can close this if you want. Khoikhoi 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything's fine now and the article is back again. This deletion review can be closed. Thanks a lot. --Roamataa 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Closure comments: What I understood from this mailing list post is that the article will be reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff ASAP, and Bastique (an employee of the Foundation) has requested to us to not undelete the article in the meantime. At that time, the legal staff will give us a bit of guidance on the issue. To use DRV jargon, that guidance would be "substantial new information" that would definitely affect the opinions of several users.

So, my closure is this:

• If the Foundation tells us that we can take action on it, then restart the DRV, or ideally, file a new one. Give it the full five days with complete information. (This is basically the entire reason for my closure - so it will be restarted once we know what the heck to do without being afraid of the world falling out on top of us.)
• If the Foundation takes action on the articles, this DRV will be moot anyways. Maybe they will decide to simply undelete it for legal reasons. Maybe delete it for legal reasons. Maybe WP:OFFICE. We just don't know yet.

I by no means intend for this closure to be permanent; I expect a vigorous debate when things are clearer as soon as the Foundation gives us the green light to do so. However, it is in their ballpark right now, and our [the Wikipedia community] actions could make things worse from a legal standpoint if we are not careful. Once we have all the facts, we can (and should, and most likely, will) revisit this. At the very least, consider this a time-out to think about arguments for that debate, and to determine how to bring the article out of WP:BLP concern territory, since at this time, there is no apparent consensus to keep it deleted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Subject of the article is apparently, per a post on the wikien-l mailing list, suing the Wikimedia Foundation. Drove some new eyes to the article, where it was then deleted by User:Doc glasgow per BLP concerns. Cache shows a pretty decently sourced stub with perhaps some debate as to whether the quote was appropriate, but the deletion appears to be a pre-emptive strike. Barring any Foundation-level intervention, this needs a full hearing, IMO. badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural comment Standing decision is the keep closure from June 2006, speedy deletion amounts to a de-facto challenge to that closure. ~ trialsanderrors 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to press coverage and the official docket, the Wikimedia Foundation and 14 other defendants were sued on Friday by the subject of this article. The Office has not yet had an opportunity to provide advice or instructions on what action, if any, should be taken. I strongly urge that no further action be taken on-wiki or comments made here until the Foundation has had a reasonable opportunity to provide input. I strongly urge that this review be closed for now, without prejudice. Newyorkbrad 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see no reason to stop discussion on the matter unless the office requests as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's Sunday. The Office may not be open. You really don't think this can wait a day? Newyorkbrad 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to, honestly, especially when it comes to silencing what could be productive discussion on the matter. The full deletion could have waited a day, too, could it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Probably, but that's nothing that can be addressed now. Newyorkbrad 18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - article failed multiple policies: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS and possibly WP:N, seeing as most of the cites were to her own website. In current circumstances this should not be recreated in the previous form: no prejudice against recreation, though. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Um, you might want to check that. Only two of the eight sites were to Ms. Bauer's website; the links support the statements that she has a literary agency and a podcast. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Suspend restoration per Newyorkbrad, but that doesn't mean we can't already discuss the merits of the deletion. On these, I'd say restore. This is not a WP:CSD#G10 case, the article is prima facie well sourced and not obviously derogatory. WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:N are not reasons for speedy deletion (although sometimes I wish they were... :-) Sandstein 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Suspend restoration, per Sandstein's reasoning. While I think Doc jumped the gun on the deletion, there's no reason to have a wheel war now while the Office catches up with things. The article was a good biographical stub, with a two-paragraph section about her agency. A bit of trimming might have been in order, but this ten-month-old article certainly wasn't a G10 ranting screed smear job. I assume someone's already notified Brad; he's still Foundation counsel until the end of the month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, since this will stick around for at least five days. Article seems well-sourced, and moderate in its critical coverage. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, I don't think the article was sourced that badly that deletion was the only solution. (But don't restore the article prematurely, and if the office steps in before the review has run its course, follow their lead. But I don't need to say that, do I?) -- Eugène van der Pijll 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. BLP doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. Probably sans the quote, which would appear the only real questionable bit. While I wouldn't say jump on it this red hot moment, and OFFICE actions will happen as they will, I would tend to hope that such systems aren't so fragile as to be really damaged by the normal process and discussion seen here. I don't see a reason, let alone benefit, to tabling discussion. Not like we're likely to be overruling an office action, eh? Bitnine 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do not restore yet I do see serious BLP and sourcing problems with the March 20 version in the Google cache, I haven t seen anything later, so what I am saying may be out of date. The damaging info about her agency depends primarily on http://www.sfwa.org/beware/twentyworst.html, which would be generally acceptable for many purposes but not sufficient for this sort of information. The quote in particular talks about "worst 10" and as mentioned above, this is simply not specific enough to be acceptable in an article about her. I do not immediately see a link on the page to anything more specific. except complaints on their blog, which are not RSs for this. Newspaper or other professional media stories are needed, so they can be quoted. There should be some, a/c NY Brad. If he adds them, and quotes from them to support the key material, then the article can & should be restored. The best thing to do right now is to get a good article ready without these problems. DGG 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my name is being invoked here; I raised only a process point (which is being roundly ignored), and said nothing about the specific allegations or sources. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment The article I deleted was a bloody disgrace of tittle tattle. I knew nothing about the legal matters - I nuked it as an unencyclopedic BLP violation. There was nothing noteworthy in it, and a lot of 'allegations' about what someone might have posted on a message board. And various criticism of her in undefined places. No reliable sources, no mainstream media interest. Whist we are not censored and all that shit, we are not a tabloid gutter medium. We simply don't need articles like this and there is no reason to upset the subjects. I stand by the deletion. Given the legal situation, I find the recklessness of asking for undeletion at this time unbelievable. If that's resolved, rebuild the thing - but find some evidence of mainstream encyclopedic value first.--Doc^g 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• No reliable sources. The Science Fiction Writers of America, a professional writer's organization which gives out the Nebula Awards, not a reliable source? Riiight. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. Doc Glasgow's pushing the panic button because the subject is SUING WIKIPEDIA IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY is a ridiculously pre-emptive overreaction, not to mention putting his personal opinion of the article above encyclopedic standards. As for the BLP issues, hey, the official opinion of a professional writer's organization (the SFWA is not some random bunch of wannabes) regarding someone in their field counts as a reliable source for me. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Try reading my post (only one above yours) before assuming my motives and then attacking them. The 'Trenton' quip isn't clever enough to justify ignoring the fact that I'd just said I had no knowledge of the lawsuit. Setting up straw-men to burn ill becomes you.--Doc^g 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I did read it -- notice that I quoted you, and isn't it weird how you feel it's okay to bray about other people jumping to conclusions while doing so yourself? -- and I stand by what I wrote. I read the article before your pre-emptive deletion, so I know what was in it, and I know you deleted it after I posted the notice about the lawsuit (a lawsuit, you know, mentioned in the article itself -- boy, how did you overlook that?), so let us say I'm skeptical about your claims -- both the content and your oddly coincidental timing. Got a problem? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. Understandable deletion, but I think cleanup is both possible and preferable in this case. The reference to the SF Writers of America passes a reasonable test of attribution even for WP:BLP, and whether the other source is good or not (it is asserted that the site is a notable and reliable source of such information) is an editorial judgement which can be hashed out in the usual way. I don't think we need be scared here, since we are republishing documented fact (i.e. that the SF Writers listed her as one of the 20 worst agents) rather than asserting as fact that she is one of the twenty worst agents. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: How do we get from "one of the 20 worst according to a list" to notability, though, particularly sufficient notability to sustain a controversial BLP? We don't typically have articles on literary agents for unknown writers, so far as I am aware. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• My personal opinion: focus your efforts on rewriting the article and not on this Deletion Review. Apparently, the article was bad enough as written to merit a BLP takedown. As an OTRS volunteer who deals with a lot of questionable content in biographies, Doc has some experience with articles that contain badly sourced or poorly sourced or content that doesn't merit inclusion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, nor is it an attack column. Cary Bass ^demandez 00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• If it will short-circuit this, I'm happy for an admin to undelete it - if they will go thorough it with a BLP blowtorch and make sure we've nothing there that's not backed up with a solid source. All that 'allegation' and message board stuff needs to go, though.--Doc^g 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. It should be noted that the Mystery Writers of America points their members to the SFWA's Writer Beware project. The MWA isn't exactly a group of wannabe writers either. St jb
• Endorse deletion. This article was saved from deletion months ago based on the idea that it would be cleaned up. The article remained a dump for comments from blogs and other unreliable internet sources. This has been a clear and persistent violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --JWSchmidt 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Delete - And contrary to Brad, endorse with with prejudice. --Tbeatty 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Without prejudice" was from when I thought we could wait 24-48 hours to have this discussion. (Silly me for expecting such patience.) Newyorkbrad 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. The version deleted was, IMO, not too problematic. The listing of her among the SFWA '20 worst agents' is from a notable organization in the field, and if she has an article it should not omit that information. I believe the quote is especially important since we're directly quoting the organization rather than using our own words. I do believe however that blog sources need more explanation of why they are notable opinions or sources - blogs can be acceptable sources if the author is notable/trustworthy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A Foundation representative has requested that this article not be restored until they have completed their review. This should occur before this DRV is scheduled to conclude, but please do not close and restore early, no matter what consensus may be arrived at here. (This is from a Foundation representative on the mailing list; I am merely the messenger.) Newyorkbrad 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore. More than a few editors (including several admins) worked for several months on this article, discussing the reliability and suitability of sources, adding as much positive and neutral information as possible, rewriting, negotiating, sometimes reverting, meticulously citing what was deemed appropriate by nearly all editors involved and deleting the more problematic ones. I realize it may seem distasteful to mention anything negative about a living person, particularly one whose notability stems largely from the controversies involved. However, it was all well sourced and carefully worded in as NPOV a fashion as possible. It deserves more than a superficial glance before judgment is rendered about its appropriateness and adherence to policy. For those who can see the history, I would direct you to the Talk page discussions, particularly with respect to the RS used and good faith attempts to verify positive claims about the subject. I would also refer you to the content of edits by User:Cannoliq, presumed by other editors to be Bauer herself. Finally, I would agree with Calton that it is not a good idea to summarily delete an article in the face of a legal complaint, providing that the problematic material is well-sourced - which this was. If Wikimedia Foundation decides, after a good look at the article, that it is indeed unsuitable, then fine - but it should not be done on the basis of a cursory glance, or the mere presence of negative information. Indeed, part of the notability of the subject is a history of apparently ill-founded legal threats, many of which were not mentioned in the article because they were primarily reported in blogs and on message boards. Thank you. Karen | Talk | contribs 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. As several other editors stated, the article was properly sourced with references to pages held by notable organizations and individuals in the writing field and was the result of extensive discussion amongst editors. The legal threat may be part of the reason this was deleted, but deleting articles based on spurious legal threats sets a bad precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and not for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Doc^g 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravitational attraction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

You redirected to Gravitation a page that would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It was about Einstein's presently valid theory that implies that Newtonian gravitational attraction is an urban legend. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying general relativity (which then might be a 15 year project). And so to understand why Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real and why since Einstein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for.

The reality of gravitational attraction, despite being not supported by science, is still very popular among non physicists and even many physicists and consequently they try to push their Newtonian POV, by using sentences like: "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases" (emphasis mine). This is what was done in Gravitation page and that's why redirecting Gravitational attraction to Gravitation that wrongly declares in its first sentence that "Gravitation is a phenomenon through which all objects attract each other" (emphasis mine) while according to contemporary science they don't attract each other, is like redirecting a page Origin of species to Scriptures since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures.

The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page Gravitation itself since there are so many people who believe in real existence of the "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them, and not wanting to engage in an edit war, to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (reliable published sources). After deleting this page there is no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple (scientific) explanation for the illusion of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead.

So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus (9:1 for deletion), since as Wikipedia's policy says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. [...] The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

A main part of discussion about the deletion in which all concerns against the page were answered and none of mine (as you may see) is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational attraction. Jim 11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to do here. Redirecting is an editorial decision, not governed by AfD results. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect. We're reviewing whether the AfD was properly closed as redirect, and it was, by plain consensus. The submitter's argument as to why his gravitational theory should have an article is beside the point; we're not discussing the article on its merits here. Sandstein 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't? I want to create a separate page since Gravitation to which it is going to be redirected does not respect reliable published sources on the subject of the issue of existence or non existence of gravitational attraction in nature. So IMO it is better when Wikipedia has at least one page with POV supprted by reliable published sources than none and is pushing POV that is outdated for nearly 100 year as it is now. And as I mentioned before, improving the Gravitation page is too tough for the amount of editors with a lot of free time who fight for it. So let them have their (non Einsteinian) gravitation as they understand it intact and Wikipedia would have one suported by reliable published sources for those who are interested in real gravitation and not only in a "model that works in most cases". Jim 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you care that Wikipedia supports an outadet for almost 100 years Newtonian view over Einstein's that is still a leading theory of gravitation? Accidentally I'm using Einstein's theory in my PhD thesis but it has nothing to do with the issue. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable published sources and right now it is not. So it is a matter of merits and Wikipedia's policy which is ignored. Jim 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not discussing the article on its merits here. Please read the text at the top of the page:

"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time)."

If you want the topic to have an article again, write it in userspace, address the issues raised in the AfD, then submit it here for review. Sandstein 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I am not happy with the AfD, which is mostly devoted to attempts at explaining why the theory is wrong. Wrong it is, no doubt, but that is not for an Afd debate to determine. There is no requirement that a WP article be correct, just that it be N, sourced, and not OR. The real reasons to delete the article is that it is 1/ 100% OR, 2/no notability is shown, for there is no evidence that it has ever been discussed anywhere, and it is 3/ totally unsourced, except for a general reference to one standard advanced textbook, which I doubt supports any of the material in the article. There is no reason to have another AfD is spite of what I think were altogether irrelevant arguments in the AfD, as it will surely be deleted again. OR is not among the reasons for speedy, or it would certainly apply. Sandstein's advice to try to write a sourced article is the best way. DGG 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment jim has also edited Total energy -- apparently to conform with his theory--as stated on that talk page, and expert attention might be needed there.DGG 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Myg0t (August 2004, delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination) (March 2005, delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April) (DRV April 06, undelete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myg0t (May 2006, delete)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May) (DRV May 06, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second) (DRV May 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July) (DRV July 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August) (DRV August 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September) (DRV September 2006, endorse deletion)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7 (DRV March 2007, speedy closed due to spurious "new" evidence - note: this is pretty much the same "new" evidence as presented below)

New sources have been both uncovered, discovered, and/or published since the last DRV which contest the previous decision of non-notability. The current sources are listed below.

• Rolling Stone Magazine - article scan here.
• PC Format Magazine - article scan here.
• PC Zone Magazine - article scan here.
• Computer Games Magazine - article scan here.
• Church of Fools Incident - none of the articles mention myg0t by name but a forum post has recently been uncovered that shows the planning of the incident before it actually occurred and before the articles were published.
  • Forum post dated 5/16/2004 - located here. Registration is required to view, use username/password combination of wikipedia/wikipedia
  • The Lexington Herald-Leader covering the Church of Fools incident - article scan here.
  • BBC News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
  • CNN News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article here.
• Cartoon Network's Adult Swim show parodied myg0t's self-produced flash video "pwned.nl" on their show Robot Chicken with a word-for-word quote - comparison video here.

As per Wikipedia undeletion policy, this DRV should remain open for a minimum of five days after the date of this signature. cacophony ◄► 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article space isn't protected, there is no restriction to recreation. DRV decisions aren't challengeable, if you want an article, write one. ~ trialsanderrors 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation, but only after someone presents us with an article in userspace that contains not one bit of information that is not sourced to these sources, and is willing to patrol it for crap indefinitely (perhaps aided with indefinite semiprotection). Judging from the logs, this topic seems to attract a lot of crap, even if the press coverage above indicates that the group appears to be notable enough. Sandstein 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Against my better judgement, allow recreation of article As long as the user can create a subpage (you can use User:SunStar Net/Myg0t if you wish) which uses these sources only - then I do not have a problem with recreation. Per the fact Wikipedia does not work to deadlines, I have no problem with this. --sunstar net^talk 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate. Would have to say recreate. Has more notability then a lot of articles on wikipedia. Can't deny just because some people don't like them. OverlordQ 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate. Finally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate. - Denny 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand what you mean here, could you elaborate? cacophony ◄► 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Recreate. Clearly notable -- Jmax- 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: As far as I am concerned, only the Computer Games Magazine article serves as a reliable source, as all of the other scanned articles are merely tangential references. Corvus cornix 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. What has changed in the last two weeks since we last endorsed this one based on precisely the same sources? In what way are we supposed to allow for sources which admittedly do not mention this group? As before, only one of these references is anything other than a trivial passing mention, if any mention at all. Several do not even mention the group by name - the whole Church of Fools thing is blatant original research, a novel synthesis from published (or in this case published and self-published) sources. One is left with the overwhelming impression that absolutely nobody else in the world shares this group's belief in its own significance. Nothing has changed, no new information, speedy endorse. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Church of Fools incident is not original research, it is reporting from notable sources regarding an incident that involved myg0t. To say that the incident was nothing more than a synthesis from published stories is an outright lie, I have laid out irrefutable evidence of the event occurring in the manner I have described it as occurring. cacophony ◄► 02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of getting myself involved in a topic I don't much care about, I am reopening this DRV to permit continued discussion to take place. I have made this choice for a number of reasons:

1. It appears consensus on the merits of the arguments presented is forming that the article should exist.
2. The closing admin in this instance is the same admin that closed the previous case
3. While the previous DRV was valid, it was closed more on the merits of the argument and the arguer (the SPA) then the merits of the evidence.
4. This DRV is needed to recover the deleted content (to satisfy GFDL) since the new article would be based on that content.
5. Consensus can change... and if the response this DRV has been getting is any indication, it appears it might be.

I am not taking a stance in this debate one way another. I may be consisted nutral. If anyone has any questions, feel free to shoot me an email, contact me on my talk page or leave a message here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Discussed on my talk page. DRV closures are not appealable. Barring substantial new evidence once a deletion has been endorsed the next step is to create a new article and to present it here for approval. As Guy pointed out, there is no new evidence, so repeat nominations will be speedily closed. ~ trialsanderrors 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't hide my comments and I would also like if you didn't treat me like a common vandal. Using a template to force the end of a conversation is inappropriate. Especially since there is no other venue to discuss the merits of inclusion of this article. I don't want this to turn into a circus... but consensus for inclusion or exclusion needs to be built somewhere. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• No new sources since last deletion review, which closed earlier this month, several of the purported sources do not even mention the group and almost all the rest are passing mentions, the DRV request is almost identical to the one which closed only very recently including these self-same sources, there is absolutely no need to reopen it however hard they are trolling for it. The list of people who think Myg0t is significant but are not themselves members is very short indeed, and does not appear to include external commentators. No other venue for debate exists because none is needed. We keep discussing it (because they keep asking us to) and we keep coming to the same conclusion. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian Peppers in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Wikipedia must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an argument from authority. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy-deletion. I am trying very hard to assume good faith in the face of what appears to be a WP:POINT violation. This is not and never has been a "prominent Internet meme". Rossami (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I call 221,000 Google hits prominent.
2. You still haven't explained what specific policy the article violated. If you want to claim that an accurate, neutral, sourced article should be deleted, you ought to explain why. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• • This is the sort of erroneous belief that is why we don't have a Peppers article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This is an attempted recreation of a deleted article - this is really no different than just Brian Peppers. Its deletion was endorsed through DRV before and I see nothing new that should lead this to be overturned, there are no new sources. Wickethewok 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and protect - Brian Peppers is a recurring meme in popular culture? Sounds like another grasping-at-straws attempt at recreating an article that should not exist. This repeated AfD/Deletion Review/Wikipedia Process mining is way past the point of being disruptive. Thunderbunny 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We don't have an article on Brian Peppers himself so obviously we shouldn't have an article on this. --Folantin 09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obviously, per Folantin. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion. Brian Peppers does not and will not have a place in Wikipedia. Get over it. MER-C 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Ruiz III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

UNDELETE_Notability Nick.ruiz 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetngs administrator,

Please reconsider the following deletion for undeletion. Further, since this discussion between the administrator and I began, it appears that the adminstrator has additionaly taken the egregious liberty of deleting every external link I have entered for the journal Kritikos. I have only entered the external link on pages of relevance (e.g. postmodern literature, postmodern, critical theory, etc.) This additional action by the adminstrator is exceedingly unethical and unfair. The discussion link follows below. Many thanks for your consideration.

User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III)

• Endorse Deletion very low notability, not covered by a reliable published source and it is a violation of WP:COI; given username of creator. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. If you think you are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, you really should wait for someone else to write the article. Autobiographies are bad for the project for a number of reasons. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deleting admin; WP:CSD#A7 and WP:COI; see detailed discussion on my talk page at the link provided. Sandstein 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- Addendum: Oh, and I have not deleted any links. It was Hatch68 (talk · contribs) who correctly reverted the linkspamming for Dr Ruiz's journal. Sandstein 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept the decision. However, Kritikos is an open acess journal, indexed in university library datatbases all over the world. Placing such a link in the appropriate article, as I have done, is a reference for further research--not linkspamming to a commercial site. I kindly ask that these links be restored. Thanks again for your consideration. Nick.ruiz 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unlikely, adding external links to the same webpage, when done by an editor with no other edit history, is most likely done for the benefit of that webpage, and not for the benefit of Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Duck on a Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The deletion log says only "notability" - but this game is considered to be James Naismith's inspiration when he invented basketball. This should be sufficiently notable! (As well, I might have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an AfD for this article.) Ckatz^chat_spy 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I can't see the article or find a cache, but there would be no reason this article would have been created without mentioning that point. Even if that were the case, games cannot be speedied due to notability issues, so it was invalid no matter which way you slice it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, abject nonsense on a stick. Also fails WP:NFT and WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The second is not a speedy criterion. The third is patently false if it inspired a major sport. The first is certainly not nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, abject nonsense' is a speedy criterion, failure to assert notability is a speedy criterion (and this actually asserted non-notability, which is worse), and WP:NFT means it would likely fail at AfD even if we did waste our time by sending it there. What do you make of this: [..] It was returning to the throwing line with his or her dump, they became the guard. The guard could not tag anyone until he picked up a dump at his feet, nor could he chase anyone until he put the drake back up on its platform. Recent findings believe the bible may be based on this game. However, it does seem that the problem here was that it had been vandalised, and that was the cause of the deletion. An unvaldalised version exists below the delrev text, and that is unproblematic, so that can be restored. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. This wasn't nonsense (so that's out), not everything that fails to assert notability can be speedied (please read A7). That? That's a game, so it can't be speedied as either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Except that the version I saw was nonsense. The problem was numerous successive vandalistic edits. And anything that fails even to assert encyclopaedic notability is fair game. Wikilawyering and rule mongering just wastes everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Again, it would be nice to be able to review the article and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the text. The notability, however, is undeniable, and WP:NFT does not apply. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Total contents of the page at deletion time was "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children’s game.", and a {{stub}} template. Nothing more. - TexasAndroid 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And I will note, I likely should have PRODed it instead of Speedy. But still, there was not even the slightest assertion of notability. Looking back through the history of the article, it appears to have had more information in older versions, but to have been slowly chipped away by anon edits until it reached the version that showed up on the Short Pages list and got my attention. Not sure why I did not notice the older versions in the history, I'm usually pretty thourough about checking them for vandalism. But still.... Anyway, I have no objections to it being overturned at this point, especially if someone will also restore the older versions that do have the notability claims. Not sure if I should do it myself, given that it's under review, so I'll leave that to someone else. - TexasAndroid 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Texas. As the creator of this article, I would be happy if you would be willing to close this thread and bring the article to AFD. That seems like a good consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Worth noting that this still doesn't meet any criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per JzG and TexasAndroid. Textbook speedy. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've undeleted the article up to the version of February 16, 2007. That version is sourced and asserts notability. Since then, it had been vandalized down to a substub, but we don't delete articles just because they've been vandalized. --Carnildo 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn - I created this article originally from an AFC request. As you should be able to see from the page, it is mostly certainly sourced with no less a source than ESPN; so I'm not sure how people can say it's "utter nonsense". What's more, the notability concern do not apply, as A7 only exists for people, clubs, and organizations. I beg of you to at least give this article the chance of an AFD and not to go rouge on us and decide to delete it without community consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear what happened: some anons nibbled away at it until it was a short unsourced paragraph of nonsense, then someone converted it into a substub consisting of the sentence "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children's game", at which point it was deleted. I've seen this sort of thing twice before, where an article was slowly vandalized to the point of being a speedy-deletion candidate. --Carnildo 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore currently available non-vandalised version. That version is not patent nonsense. Sandstein 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I think the version of Feb 16 will need some expansion, but I agree with Sandstein that it is potentially interesting enough to be used to build on. DGG 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This entry is well-sourced with not just one but two sources, one of them ESPN. Notability and WP:NFT concerns do not apply. I concur with Carnildo's assessment about what might've happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that is I think what happened. Previous versions going back some way were vandalism. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retarded Animal Babies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

There is no logic behind deleting it in the first place. The entire argument around deletion seems cenetered around wether or not the product has recieved notable reviews via newspaper, television, and other such media. Wether or not it has is irrelevant, as Retarded Animal Babies does in deed meet the criteria to have a Wiki site regardless of the content of ANY newspaper. I quote the third rule on Wikipedia's page for notability criteria. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Newgrounds.com is in fact an online publisher and it is in fact both independant of the creators of Retarded Animal Babies, and quite well known. It's also been featured in G4's "Late Night Peep Show" in an episode that originally aired on 7/18/2006. 69.235.157.150 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse, valid AfD just closed, no new information presented. Not liking the result is not grounds for overturning it. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted without any discussion or attempt to rectify anything which may or may not have been objectionable. Also it had already survived a nomination for speedy deletion. The controversy centers around 1.) Some find the humor objectionable. 2.) Similarity between B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A and a well known encyclopedia of similar name, ignoring the fact that the encyclopedia is spelled differently and is not an acronym. The Artical is not an attack on a competitor, nor is it a violation of copyright. Also The acronym appears on other pages without problem and is not deleted. The article was clearly marked as humor anyway, and there was no reason at all to delete it. If push came to shove it's not like the acronym couldn't be changed anyway. I'm sorry if the article offended an administrator, but I didn't make the acronym up, I was simply using an acronym that has already been in use on other pages. This Humor Piece was never given the five days of discussion required in the rules.Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cris! I withdraw the objection. The page just isn't that important. I would hope that somebody will move the page, undelete it, or at least allow me to change it, but what I won't do is make a spectacle of it, or myself. Do with the page as you will, I trust your judgements. I will go back to patrolling new edits, and when I become bored, perhaps write another article. Be well everyone, and thanks for listening. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• WTF? patent nonsense and/or trolling. Not remotely funny. We really don't need to debate this - take it away.--Doc^g 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:W.T.F.?. I could move it back to user space, seriously, what was the point of sending this to WP space in the first place? ~ trialsanderrors 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That will be acceptable- it was moved to WP because ALL of the humor pages it links to and links from are in WP space. As I pointed out, this is not a solo-page, or a solo-acronym, there are about 15 other VERY SIMILAR humor articles written the same way, and with similar content. My thinking was that if THEY are all in WP space, then so should this article. Move it to user space if that will save it from deletion, but I would much rather that the article get the same considerations as the other articles. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Unless it really is utter nonsense, I suppose it could peacefully co-exist with the rest of Wikipedia as a userspace sub-page. (I say that, as I got told off for using the word "userfy" earlier this week, silly me.) Chris cheese whine 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• WP:NOT The X Factor. There's no need to make a spectacle of it. Chris cheese whine 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• E.N.D.O.R.S.E. deletion, valid rationale for deletion. It's either G1 or G10. --Coredesat 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Not as funny as Sue thinks it is, sadly. 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Deletion endorsed As per Doc glasgow, the content appeared to be patent nonsense, and even borderline trolling. Humour is subjective. The deletion was valid. --sunstar net^talk 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Airforce-ti.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|IfD)

This was a free public domain image, published by the U.S. Air Force on their official website, of a female Military Training Instructor at a graduation parade. Image was used for approximately two months in the articles Drill instructor, Recruit training, and History of women in the military. On 22 March, the image was deleted pursuant to a WP:OTRS complaint. According to the deleting admin, the complaint originated with unspecified "people from the Air Force"; its general nature was that one of the persons depicted had undergone disciplinary action since the photograph was taken (explained in the edit summary of this diff by the deleting admin). This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the Air Force has since removed the photo from their official website as well.

I've been over and over the image policy and can't find a policy justification for the image's deletion, unless it's WP:IAR. The image was in the public domain and did not contain any negative information about the individuals depicted. The deleting admin did not specify whether the complaint came from Air Force personnel in an official or unofficial capacity - either way, I can't find a policy supporting an undiscussed deletion for these particular circumstances.

I'm no attorney, but I guess the question comes down to this -

1. If the request was made by the Air Force in an official capacity, can they withdraw an image from the public domain once they have already released it?
2. If the request was made by Air Force people in an unofficial capacity, who simply have some objection to the person depicted in the photo, can they have the image deleted without discussion via a WP:OTRS complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)