Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 9

WP:POINT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|RfD)

Note recent arbcom finding that such speedy closures are harmful.

Note WP:CSK, he claims #1 when I did not withdraw, then #2 when, even if he did feel the need to "question" that it was in good faith, it wasn't "unquestionably" bad faith as the criterion requires. He also leveled an absolutely specious accusation against me on my talk page.

RFD inappropriately speedy closed, un-closure reverted, false accusation of bad faith nomination Random832 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse my closure, based on the "evidence" provided in the RFD nomination, I had no choice but to question the faith of the nominator in this case. The user in question nominated it for deletion solely because he felt that the guideline the shortcut links to was being misused, and got no response to threads about it on the guideline's talk page. That in itself is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Coredesat 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you even read the threads on the talk page I linked? None of the three I linked were posted by me. Don't say 'based on the "evidence"' without reading the evidence. --Random832 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) And I did _not_ say the guideline is misused independently of the shortcut. The _shortcut_ is misused to misrepresent what the guideline says. --Random832 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• reopen as nominator. --Random832 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Note that the arbcom finding says that there can be "some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks." It is not a blanket "all speedy closures are bad." Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Misapplication is not a reason for deletion, and either way, it had zero chance of actually getting deleted. The behavior of the closing admin is irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There was only one person advocating deletion at the RfD, and that was the nom.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Effectively a WP:POINT nom of WP:POINT. Had no chance of success and virtually no chance of even a second delete opinion. WjBscribe 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Only one person initiated deletion, and there's a snowball's chance in hell that there would be a second delete opinion as above: read WP:SNOW for details. This discussion should really go to WP:BJAODN. The irony of a WP:POINT nom of WP:POINT is humorous. But still, that's no reason to list it here. --sunstar net^talk 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Just a parting shot here. It was not a WP:POINT nom, and you've just demonstrated the exact problem this shortcut causes. WP:SNOW is invalid per the recent arbcom finding. That said, I'm withdrawing this to try to get out with a little dignity. --Random832 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This page changed from a deletable entry to a valid article during the afd. Given that there was enough substance and precedent in category:Mailing lists it appeared that there was not enough reason to delete this. Perhaps those who voted for the original version under afd would have liked to rethink their own votes. Shyamal 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• RESTORE: I want Wikipedia Administrator help to restore this valid article about an important subject, as noted above by Shyamal, article improved in quality substantially and earlier votes became invalid as they had voted seeing a poorer quality article.

Famously contributing in saving the environment / planet makes the subject important enough to warrant an article in any paid Encyclopedia, leave alone a free web Encyclopedia.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, perhaps relist. The article significantly changed during the debate, and the count (5 deletes to 4 keeps) was hardly convincing to begin with. At least warrants another look. Trebor 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• make visible in its final for, per the above. Frankly, I doubt very much if this has any possible chance at being notable, but i cant judge without seeing. DGG 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deleteion. This seems to be a respectable list, but not notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. The article was full of "references", but none of these references established notability. The article tried to assert notability using these arguments:
  • the list has been in operation since 1995: that doesn't make list notable; there are hundreds of lists that have existed since 1995
  • it has been "recommended" by ESA, IUCN, and people such as Frederick Noronha: The references provided include pages that have a sentence or two about the list. For eg. the reference provided for Noronha's "recommendation" is a actually a "List of India-related websites", which consists of many non-notable websites.
  • Members of the list include people associated with groups such as WII and USFWS.: This doesn't establish the notability either. Me and my collegaues subscribe to many lists, and we work in one of India's top companies -- one can't argue that those lists are notable because people associated with India's top companies are the list members. The references provide for this are the messages posted or to the list.
  • Some bloggers and academics speculate that Arunachalam Kumar may have predicted the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake in a message posted to the list: This may be used to argue whether Arunachalam Kumar is notable or not, but doesn't establish the notability of the list. The references provide[1][2] just mention the name of the list once -- they don't assert its notability.
  • The existence of a new bird species, Bugun Liocichla, was first noted in a posting to the list: This can used to establish notability of the discoverer (Raman Athreya) notable, not the list. If such posts announcing discovery of new species were regular on the list, I'd consider it notable. One or two such posts doesn't make the list notable. None of the news articles that talk about Raman Athreya's discovery of new species talk about this list[3][4][5]. utcursch | talk 05:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Would find it easier to accept if the following articles did not exist - Computational Chemistry List, LinuxChix, Linux_kernel_mailing_list, Dead_Runners_Society, Cctech, Tolklang, FlyLady, Futureculture, The_Filthy_Truth etc. I do not think there are going to be many references which go around stating that a list is notable, all the more so for a scholarly list running out of Princeton University. While I do not think there were many lists dealing with any particular aspect of India that existed in 1995. AFAIK the Internet was only entering India and was only in large academia that it was in good use. It is notable within the India related ecology community and it unlikley that one can find independent proof for something like this. On the other hand I do accept that equally scholarly lists like ornith-L and entomo-L in similar fields have as yet not shown up on wikipedia. In general I imagine that scientific lists which are notable and respectable within the scientific community are not likely to be "notable" to the lay public in the manner of something like Craigslist. Notability = number of links ? or number of people (in the thousands [6]) ? Maybe a debate like this can make it "notable". Shyamal 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we are talking about a "scholarly list running out of Princeton University", let's consider the example of Humanist (another list at Princeton). Like nathistory-india, it's about a special branch of sciences and the lay public doesn't know of its existence. But the list is notable because it's it's published by ADHO, OHC, ACLS; it's allied with ALLC, ACH; it's used by humanities scholars as a digital resource internationally.

You rightly point out that the respectable scientific lists are not likely to be "notable" to the lay public and that there are not going to be many references. Similarly, number of links or subscribers don't necessarily determine notability (BTW, the nathistory-india doesn't have "thousands of members", it has 859). My argument is that how is this list notable? Somebody arguing that it is a "scholarly" list that has existed since 1995 doesn't make it notable. It's just one of the many similar lists (as opposed to a distinguished list like Humanist).

As about existence of other such articles -- if those are non-notable, they should be deleted as well. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Anyways, let me explain:

• LinuxChix is probably the most famous open-source women community with chapters in many countries (including India). It has been mentioned in hundreds of newspapers, websites and magazines(eg. [7][8][9][10]).
• Linux kernel mailing list (LKML) is the place where Linux kernel development community comes together (Google for "LKML"; you can also find it in the news[11][12])
• Dead Runners Society is not just a mailing list (it started as one, though) -- it's a multinational community which holds annual world conferenecs, and finds mention in media.
• FlyLady is not just a mailing list -- it's a group which has received coverage in a number of newspapers and magazines, including TIME[13] and The Guardian[14].
• The Computational Chemistry List article lacks references and has been tagged such. (Though a preliminary search indicates that it is notable -- it has received grants/sponsorships from NSF, ACS etc. It is registered as a for-profit LLC that sponsors events and offers job-listing service among other things.)
• I've tagged Cctech, Tolklang with {{cleanup-importance}} and will prod them after some time, if notability is not explained. The Filthy Truth is already tagged and somebody has already expressed concerns over notability of Futureculture on the talk page.

I don't have enemity with ecologists, but after reading the article and finding more about the list, I don't feel that this list notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. If this list is notable, the burden of establishing notability lies on the creator. As I've pointed out above, nothing in article established notability. Vague arguments such as "famously contributing in saving the environment / planet makes the subject important enough to warrant an article in any paid Encyclopedia, leave alone a free web Encyclopedia" don't help. utcursch | talk 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In principle I agree - but would like to see consistent logic and action on it. I am unable to see LinuxChix as notable, by the same standards. Ditto with Linux kernel mailing list - giving more google hits is not a great measure of notability. Linux is of course notable, but the list is probably not - at least not for an encyclopaedia by the same line of argumentation. Shyamal 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They can easily be backed with references, but feel free to nominate them for deletion, if you think they are non-notable. I assume good faith, but after reading User:Atulsnischal's message on the mailing list, this looks like a Conflict of interest case to me ("I entered our "Natural History India Mailing List" in the Encyclopedia (Wikipedia the free encyclopedia on the web) yesterday. Please keep a tab on the Article, after few days waiting time for new articles it will put the Wikipedia Article on our List on top in Google and other Web engine searches."). I've no problem with relisting at AFD. utcursch | talk 04:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. In fact I think an article being created to serve a particular interest such as making something popular (read notable) should itself make a case for deletion. In fact I just wrote about this on another case and on notability of living people as a rule. The creator of the article in this case, has not spent time on reading wikipedia guidelines, policies etcetera although I find this unimportant and in this entire deletion debate I have kept the focus on the article subject and the general perspectives on notability. I have no strong opinion and do not see anyone being unduly affected by the deletion of this article. Anybody doing work in a particular field, conservation included, would have little time or interest in debating about their notability or the email discussion groups that they belong to. Shyamal 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: There are birding listservs for all regions, and they do laudable work in coordinating conservation, counts, and discoveries. However, there are dozens, and they are all about the same age, about the same in accomplishments, about the same in membership per capita, etc. The point being that this one must stand out against that background (others of the type) as well as listserves (the type) to be encyclopedic. Since Wikipedia is not a web guide, even to the good listservers and good pages, and since the particular is not outstanding, it is not encyclopedic. Geogre 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As above, agree if consistent policy is applied to all list related article including those listed under category:Mailing lists. Shyamal 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If DRV is supposed to be primarily about process, then the above two comments appear to be focusing on the wrong issue. The AfD was pretty close anyway, and a couple of the delete votes were before the rewrite and sourcing; is that enough to merit a relist at AfD? Trebor 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hello, this is a list dealing with issues faced by Indian Naturalists, conservationists, and NGOs who network on it thankfully, including members of related Government institutions, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED WITH OTHER LISTS OF THE REGION dealing with similar issues and it stands head and shoulders above the rest, most of the top people in the field in the region are subscribers or know of its reputability. It is a notable achievement in India in its field, please digest that before you take the argument around the world comparing ORANGES with APPLES. Hello I need a wiser Administrator to assist with RESTORING the Article on this list. Atulsnischal 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• By the way The debate here is on the notability of the list and having an article on it in Wikipedia, any messages "one" user wrote elsewhere or his personal opinion (even if he happens to be the creator of the said article) should not count, other users routinely take the bias out of Wikipedia articles, which is ofcourse needed. The list will reappear on Wikipedia and many other places, I am confident that is why I didnt hesitate in providing the link to the message mentioned in the debate above: message on the mailing list. By the way lot of people write about things they strongly feel, that is common nature to us, if there is bias in the article and there is conflict of interest, there are thousands of other users on Wikipedia who over time will weed this kind of bias out. Kindly just keep your focus on the right issues and please don't continue to compare ORANGES with APPLES. Give a chance to others to assist in this review, I would appreciate if others can help too. It took me almost a year to write the article about the list after observing what goes on in it after becomming a member myself. Maybe I wrote the article on the list in the spirit of assisting in Conservation, and if there is any bias everybody is free to weed it out. This kind of thing should not warrant a deletion of the article itself Atulsnischal 09:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• overturn and keep Even the evidence presented here without seeing the list is enough to demonstrate likely notability. First, it has the highest quality sponsorship. Second, it is acknowledged to be a major list. Third, it covers important events. Fourth, even one of those urging deletion suggested its use as a R S. Fifth, if the !votes included mainly those based on an early version of the article which was then improved, then the closure was against the more validly judged !votes, and should have been relisted or closed as no consensus.
  • And, I endorse User:Atulsnischal's request for it to be restored during the discussion. Those of us who are not admins should have the same opportunity to see the evidence. We all should be equal here, and base our views on all the material. The nature of the article is relevant, for its been the basis of the previous discussion. Others are urging endorsing the deletion on the basis of their view of the article. This is basic fairness. DGG 09:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind a relisting at AFD, but which "highest quality sponsorship", acknowledgment, and "important events" are you talking about? utcursch | talk 10:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Fails WP:WEB and other guidelines. Never the subject of multiple reliable articles. Wickethewok 03:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I was the closing admin. I closed as delete because, i guess personally, DO NOT DELETE noms with no policy arguments behind it really dont jump out at me as a reason to not delete an article. The Delete noms expressed there concerns that the content was unencylopedic and the only response was "This was perhaps one of the first scholarly discussion groups that ever dealt with India." (not to discount this editors opinion). The argument did not strengthen the keep argument. keywords being perhaps, and being to specific, i.e. first group to deal with india? Where is the line drawn? does every group that is the first to cover a country or topic count as encylopedic? aside from that, the other keeps were based on sources added but did not seem to address the issue of it being encylopedic. If it was the first sholarly mailing list ever, that might have been a different story. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Content being unencyclopaedic is not a reason for deletion although subject being unencyclopaedic is. At first I had given a weak keep. Then some admin asked whether there were even any mailing list related articles, at which point I found that mailing lists of (arguably) equivalent notability such as Linux kernel mailing list existed. I also found the policies being cited and interpreted very variably by admins based on their personal fancy topics. Personally I would hope that admins can spend more time on making the policies tighter rather than merely follow slipshod guidelines. From my reading and understanidng of the guiding principles, so far I would not find a single mailing list worthy of inclusion in an encylopaedia including what is now being touted as notable such as LinuxChix and FlyLady. The creators of these groups may be notable and there merely needs to be one link on their page about these groups. That would only be fair in establishing enclopaedic guidelines. Shyamal 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• This article is about something more then a mailing list, it is often referred to as a NATURAL HISTORY NETWORK OF INDIA, it also serves as WILDERNESS TELEGRAM SYSTEM of sorts, the subject of this article has become an NGO in itself helping its members many of whom are grassroots workers in the field of Nature & Wildlife Conservation, students, scientists, prominent members of other NGOs, many "News Makers" in these field report directly to the NETWORK, simultaneously or before commercial news channels report on the matter, discoveries, poaching, habitat encroachments, proposed government protected area notifications and the unfortunate de-notifications, illegal wildlife trade observed, wildlife trade seizures, Endangered Tiger & Panther etc. etc. bone and skin seizures, proposed government policy changes affecting the environment before they come into effect, proposed dams which will submerge large chunks of the last remaining pristine forests etc are just a few things reported and debated by this NETWORK many a times bringing corrective action in time. Atulsnischal 12:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  Atul, would you please lump together your comments instead of making three different entries in this review? Thanks. --Ragib 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: Mailing lists are inherently unencyclopedic as a topic. That other such articles exist is not a justification to keeping a mailing list. There are literally thousands of mailing lists that are subscribed to by hundreds of thousands of people, and that are making huge impacts, but that doesn't make mailing lists a notable topic for inclusion into an encyclopedia. --Ragib 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist The changes were substantial enough to give this more scrutiny. This should've been relisted rather than closed as delete. ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hi all including the Admins I have a problem with Ragib, he has been systematically following the Articles I have worked on and undoing many of the changes, on the Admin board I was told he is doing nothing against policy, since he is dimost obviously discreminating against me can his votes be made void, when deleting this article and now in the review. I thought it best to let all know, kindly report to Admins on my behalf, I have already done so, but no body seems to care. Thanks Atulsnischal 07:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not really the place to make such a request. But in any case, I've replied in your talk page explaining this. Thank you. --Ragib 07:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like the folks at WP:ANI got that right. There's a reason every editor has a publicly viewable edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

North America (Americas) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• Incorrect interpretation of AfD debate by the Administrator. He gave the "delete" votes more weight than the "keep". The result should have been no consensus. A narrow majority (4 votes), is NOT consensus. The article was nominated due to the fact that it had few references, however it was a 1 day old article, under expansion at the time. However, more reliable, verifiable references were added in order to address this concern, expressed by the nominator. Another reason for the nomination was POV Forking. POV Fork article states that occurs when one editor decides to create a separate article about the same topic as a result of a disagreement, to represent a certain POV, or to avoid NPOV in a certain article. This article was not created for any of those reasons (e.g. there was no current debate/edit war on North America), but to provide a link to Template:Regions of the world, where the link for North America directed to the article about the continent (See Template:Continents of the world.

There are several geographical models about the Americas, and every of the other regions in the models have their own article:

Linguistically:

• Latin America
• Anglo America

Continentally:

• North America
• South America
• Americas

Regionally:

• North America (Americas) <--Deleted article
• Central America
• Caribbean
• South America
• Northern America
• Middle America (Americas)

Middle America (Americas), Northern America, Central America and the Caribbean, all of these regions, in fact, are part of the North American continent. Some of the reasons expressed to delete the article were that it "duplicated the name of an existing article and duplicated the information", then, should we delete the articles about all those regions part of the North American continent and merge them into North America?. North America as a region, and North America as a continent (that includes Central America and the Caribbean) are two different concepts, and as expressed above, every region of the continent has their own article. In the case of South America, there's no similar problem as in North America. SA meaning the continent or the region, occupies the same territory in both geographical conceptions. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Aside from the facts that some of the sources listed do not support the content (e.g., Encarta; see AfD comments) and that this article did arise out of disagreement/inability to incorporate content where it belongs (North America), it remains a fork. As well (if my counting is correct ... someone please double-check), the result was this: 24 users voted to delete, 1 to redirect to North America, 11 to merge with NA, 19 to keep (a few of which had provisos to merge/delete if not improved) totalling 55 (excluding comments); it's also clear that 'redirect' and 'merge' do not mean 'keep'. Even with the vote-stacking/cross-posting throughout to 'keep' and the possibly confusing, repetitive comments/lists of a single user, a consensus ((24+1+11)/55 = 65%) has indicated that this article should be deleted, redirected, or its contents merged. Corticopia 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: Actually, there are 23 votes to "Delete" and 19 to "Keep", that's a difference of just 4, and a majority is not the same as a consensus You're counting one vote expressed as "Merge/Delete" as a direct "Delete". It is obvious that his first choice was to "Merge". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Comment I will leave it to someone else (as requested) to validate and interpret the tally; I apologise for any miscounts, but that doesn't fundamentally change the outcome ... particularly if you argue that the margin is 'slim' to begin with, ignore other integral flaws, or believe that 'merging' content from an article also illogically coincides with 'keeping' it. Corticopia 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, I'm not saying "merge" equals "keep". Also "merge" does not equal "delete". Otherway, then why one votes "merge" if they can choose "delete"? The point here is that the opinions were so divided between keeps, deletes and merges. No consensus was reached. And consensus is not "majority", since "AfD is not a votation/poll". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )}

• • • • • Comment I believe the point is that you're trying to push a point which even resonates through the article you created, and use the inequities of polling to draw out the topic. You say that AfD is not a votation (noted) but then assert that the fewer 'keep' votes (many of which were just that and canvassed) were unnecessarily deprecated. False -- yours sounds like a confirmation bias to me. Actually, you waffle and make little sense: a consensus clearly did not support retaining the article. One votes to merge content into North America (with no/few attempts beforehand to do so or with content already there, and where it should be), after which there is no need for its eponymous fork -- and that is the original problem with the article. Ditto for redirecting. This may not apply to other regional articles (effectively subarticles) which have unique points and reliable sources to round out content. This fork confuses the very topic it may be intended to clarify. Someone else can continue to argue with you, but I won't. And that's it. Corticopia 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment. I recommend you to read WP:POVFORK, there is the CLEAR definition of what it is. This article was not a POV Fork and you know it. When I said that the Admin did not give proper weight to the "keep" votes, I meant it was like he ignored them, because there wasn't an overwhelming majority of deletes, in order to say that "a consensus was reached". 23 delete vs 19 keeps? That's a narrow majority, not even close to a "consensus". Lastly, unfortunately, the article was unfairly deleted and the PEOPLE cannot see the sources, so you have the "advantage" to tag them as "no reliable". All of the references clearly defined the North American region. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment Uh-huh. As the nominator, I have fully read necessary content. Your 'interpretation' remains as clear as mud. Anyhow, end of this thread. Corticopia 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore the article as per above. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore A lot of people were in favour of keeping the article and there was nowhere near consensus for deleting so I am somewhat bemused that the admin should have chosen to delete in spite of this, claiming that it wansnt a ballot and therefore s/he had the right to delete anyway. This deletion was clearly out of process, SqueakBox 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse I'm not an administrator -- as neither of the two editors above are -- so I'm unsure of the utility of said comments to endorse, etc.; however, FWIW (and as the nominator of this AfD), I fully endorse the decision to delete this article and the closing admin was not in error (see tallies). Despite incremental editions and obfuscation during the AfD, the article did not change substantially from being a fork of North America, and a consensus of editors still asserted to either delete redirect, or merge it upon the AfD's conclusion. There remains no reason (if not already) why this information cannot be merged/expanded upon in North America. As well, note that many of the 'keep' votes are the result of canvassing of 'keep' votes externally by at least one participating editor (see AfD page; also brought to the attention of admins) and the author/challenger of the AfD was rebuked by at least two users (one an admin, from what I can tell) for related excessive cross-posting. Othrewise, I defer to my prior Afd comments. Corticopia 17:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Everyone can contribute here not just admins so if you want to keep the delete please put this at the beginning of your statement instead of the word comment, SqueakBox 17:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion - some of the keep votes were simply "Keep ~~~~". Others simply attempted to discredit the nominator. None of them presented any evidence in the form of reliable sources in order to meet the concerns of the nominator. The article in itself was also unsourced and appeared to be original research, and was a POV fork. --Coredesat 18:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Unsourced? Now, for sure I can tell you didn't read the article. How can it be original research, there are plenty of sources indicating the existence of North America as a region/subcontinent. In the geographic model that considers America a single continent, it is divided in North, Central, Caribbean and South. Unsourced? There were links to a site of the Government of Canada, Duke University, American University, The North American Institute, Encarta, etc. POV fork? NO way, (Read its definition at WP:POVFORK). The creation of the article was not motivated as a result of a disagreement about North America, but to provide a link to Template:Regions of the world (different from Template:Continents of the world), that already had a link to North America (but as a continent). As already said above, there was no debate/edit war in the article North America. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Those sources do not work - sources that just say "oh, North America is only such-and-such region" don't work out under WP:RS. Random links that say only that and nothing else are trivial sources, even if they're departments of universities. They do not establish or indicate that there is any sort of consensus that there is a region of the continent called North America. Barring those, yes, the article is unsourced. --Coredesat 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The references provided clearly indicated that North America is also a region, containing Canada, the US and Mexico. If you failed to see that, then I'd say you're clearly biased about the subject, and that you probably were not the indicate administrator to close the debate. There were also 2 books about the subject, both about North America as a region, again, clearly defining it as a region. More importantly, darely denying such a region exist, without even try to check if it really doesn't exist (in case you continue to say the references provided "don't say that"), is not just arrogant, but risky. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, closer's rationale looks sound. Fundamental problems were not addressed in the debate or in the content. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm afraid you can't say that, because you are not able to see the article. As I already said, it was a 1 day old article, and however, more sources were provided to specifically address this "reason" for the nomination. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse; as Guy says, the closing rationale seems solid. Many of the keep votes were not argued. Trebor 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist As I saw it, the result was no consensus. There were a number of !votes near the end for rationalising the group of articles with the different possible definitions. DGG 04:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually (if my counting is correct ... someone please double-check), the result was this: 24 users voted to delete, 1 to redirect, 11 to merge, 19 to keep (a few of which had provisos to merge/delete if not improved) totalling 55 (excluding comments). Even with the vote-stacking/cross-posting throughout to 'keep' and the possibly confusing, repetitive comments/lists of a single user, a consensus ((24+1+11)/55 = 65%) has indicated that this article should be deleted, redirected, or its contents merged. Corticopia 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Exactly I agree with you DGG, there are different geographic models used in the Americas. However, it seems that many people just denied to believe that the North American region exist, even with all the sources provided:

Linguistically:

• Latin America
• Anglo America

Continentally:

• North America
• South America
• Americas

Regionally:

• North America (Americas) <--Deleted article
• Central America
• Caribbean
• South America
• Northern America
• Middle America (Americas)

Again, (before somebody tries to make this "argument"), South America, defined as a continent (two continents) or as a region (single American continent), occupies the same territory in both definitions. As you can see, all of the other regions of the Americas have their own article. Central America, Middle America and Northern America, are also PART OF NORTH AMERICA AS A CONTINENT. Should we erase this articles and merge them into North America? AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, strangely, there does appear to be an article about Northern South America (with apparently the intent to create other articles for each of the cardinal directions), though I make no qualifications of its authority or content. Corticopia 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Consensus is not vote counting. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment True: I merely pointed out the vote tally for our collective benefit because the challengers are using the crutch that the 'delete' votes (et al.) were given undue weight while, all the same, the 'keep' votes (many of which were minimal) were inordinately being deprecated. At its face (i.e., based on mere count), a consensus does support the nomination and the closing admin acted correctly based on other factors too. Corticopia 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: True, and a narrow majority of only 4 votes to delete the article, is NOT a consensus. The opinions were very divided. Almost the same amount of keep than delete votes. So, there was no consensus about what to do. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This is dubious, confusing illogic -- there was not almost the same amount of votes. You first say that the 'keep' votes were not given due weight. You then say there was no consensus, even though almost two thirds opted to delete, merge content into North America, or redirect there (the last two of which clearly do not mean 'keep'). Even if the delete/keep votes were taken alone (24:19), that yields 56% for the former option (which is generally statistically significant). And, after all, this isn't just about the quantity but quality of comments, and many of the 'keep' comments were essentially user signatures which were mostly due to canvassing to 'keep' throughout. Despite repetitive listing to maximize position here and there (where a link to Americas (terminology) would suffice), the article remained a fork upon its deletion. Corticopia 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Actually, there are 23 votes to delete and 19 to keep. You're counting one vote expressed as "Merge/Delete" as a "Delete". AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Again, I will leave it to someone else (as requested) to validate and interpret the tally; I apologise for any miscounts, but that doesn't fundamentally change the outcome ... particularly if you argue that the margin is 'slim' to begin with, ignore other integral flaws, or believe that 'merging' content from an article also illogically coincides with 'keeping' it. Corticopia 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't take a stand in the AfD, though I commented extensively. Barring sock/meat/whatever puppets and canvassed voters, there was a fairly strong consensus to delete. And deleters did make stronger arguments than keepers. WilyD 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore: Oh really?, stronger arguments according to who?. The discussion wasn't finished yet, people were still voting, and it seems very convenient to me that they stopped it right when there was a slightly majority of votes for deletion. Supaman89 20:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment According to most, actually. And many of those that were '(still) voting' to keep the article were explicitly canvassed to 'keep' it (e.g., in the Spanish Wikipedia) by you. Corticopia 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not according to anyone - it's just a basic truth. With such a difference in article quality, and honest person can see that the delete arguments relied on facts, and were in accord with policy, while the keeps were essentially WP:ILIKEIT. For what it's worth, people were never voting, AfD is not a vote, and it seems like it's the singular fact that brings us here is the inability of some to grasp that. WilyD 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Question How are North America as a region and North America as a continent different? What would be included in one and not the other? -Acjelen 21:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the basic difference is that the North American continent includes Central America, and the concept of North America as a region specifically refers to Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico (and sometimes a few islands.) As the page stood before it was deleted, if I remember correctly, there was a map, several definitions of the region of North America, and a brief description of NAFTA. Confiteordeo 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment (general) That's just about it: the fork fixated on and sensationalized a single point of view about this nebulous region while minimizing others (like NA often being used to refer just to Canada and the U.S. as opposed to Latin America) and didn't contain a single reliable source defining "North America as a 'region'" as stated, compared to a plethora of reputable ones that indicate it is a continent or component of America. Besides: it contained nothing that couldn't be -- if not already -- in North America or elsewhere. Anyhow, of course the article couldn't benefit from various points of view because it wasn't discussed beforehand nor adequately sourced -- the article was created/flourished by one or two editors that decided to boldly go where the rest of us needn't, and who decided to not only fork content, but spoon-feed us a unique interpretation through straw man arguments. And all articles in Wikipedia are unfinished, but sometimes abortions early in the first trimester are necessary. Enough from me. Corticopia 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Many of the "keep" votes were either unexplained, simply stated things like "this is a good article," or agreed that the article was about the concept of North America as a region. Statements like that didn't address the concerns of the nominator, nor did they explain why the information presented in the deleted article needed to stand alone, rather than being included in one of the many articles we have on the different divisions of the Americas, such as North_America#Usage_of_the_term, Americas (terminology), and Americas#Usage. Confiteordeo 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the quality of the closing notwithstanding, it was a bad article. And as someone above said, "consensus is not vote counting." --Golbez 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original deletion.--cj | talk 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore I did not vote in a baseless fashion, nor did others voting in the AfD and I believe that the closing admin, who acknowledged that he was discounting many of the views expressed, over-reached. I am becoming more concerned that a cultural bias is at play here. En WP does not need to be about only things seen from a North American perspective. The notion that there is significant difference between a geographic continent and sphere of economic, political and cultural influence may not be obvious to the closing admin but he should be aware of the limitations on his point of view.Edivorce 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment 'Many of the views expressed' to 'keep' (and still outstripped by views to 'delete', 'merge' content, or 'redirect') were merely assertions (if that) and/or the direct result of canvassing by said editors to 'keep' -- one reaps what one sows. There's room aplenty for numerous viewpoints in Wikipedia, but the 'keepers' (as someone put it) have demonstrated either an unwillingness or inability to incorporate or enhance reliably sourced content and notions through reasoned discourse in the AfD and (in this case) where it belongs: in North America and related articles. And, unfortunately,accommodating various points of view does not allow for the bold forking of relevant content to achieve that. Corticopia 04:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • as you indented this comment beneath my own it appears that you are making a reference to my vote. A review of the AfD will show that this is a mis-characterization. Edivorce 05:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment To what are you referring? Mine are general comments that are intended to point out the vagaries or inaccuracies of your comments, so who is mischaracterizing? Corticopia 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  I did not merely state a position in the AfD. I backed it with arguements. My arguemnt addressed addressed WP:RS. You and more importantly, the closing admin, ignored this. Then the closing admin characterizes all keep arguements as baseless. Even one keep arguement with a basis is enough to stop the admin from imposing his will. I see this all the time. An editor states A. B and C in support of a position. Any one is sufficient to maintain the point. An admin says A and B are not good arguments. So you have no basis. Ignoring that the argument he failed to address is itself sufficient. An admin can close for delete lacking a clear consensus if there is no - that is not any at all- argument for reliable sources. He can not just impose his view to close because he thinks the close arguments are "better." Remember it is "delete" that has the burden of establishing a consensus to remove the article.Edivorce 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Arguably, a consensus of two-thirds already exists to delete, merge content, or redirect this article. In addition, your argument has not satisfactorily addressed WP:RS -- since these weren't provided in the article -- nor has it dealt with other points in/throughout the nomination (e.g., misrepresentation of source matter, the notion that this fork wasn't created out of a disagreement or discussion elsewhere). Simply put, your arguments and (especially) those of most of the 'keepers' are simply less compelling or rather willful. Relatedly, you also seem to glaze over the explicit canvassing of many of the 'keep' votes (many of which were just signatures), which cannot so easily usurp reasoned counterpoints. Corticopia 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Need the history restored to see the original article before I make a decision here. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment History restored behind protected redirect. --Coredesat 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore: Originally, I was going to endorse the deletion, but only because I didn't understand what this was about, and it seems to me that many people that voted for delete didn't get it. Outside of the US, there is a "one continent" model (we consider the Americas to be only one continent). In this model, America is still divided into smaller regions (or subcontinents), which are not the same as the regions in the two continent model (in this subdivision, Central America is not part of North America). The Encarta source clearly treats America this way, so the article was not unsourced, as has been stated by the administrator who deleted this.
  

Junto a Centroamérica, las Antillas y Sudamérica, Norteamérica constituye el continente americano.

Next to Central America, The Antilles and South America, North America comprises the American Continent

and

Norte America, subcontinente que abarca Canadá, los Estados Unidos de América y parte del territorio de México.

North America, subcontinent that covers Canada, the United States of America, and part of the Mexican Territorry.

--Solid Reign 15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment While one cannot deny other continental models, the above is a very selective, narrow interpretation of the source ... which is part of the problem. Let's clarify, shall we: the Spanish Encarta article clearly indicates that North America is a subcontinent(e) including Canada, the US, and part of Mexico and also includes Greenland, St. P. & M., and (in Spanish) Bermuda; these entities -- together with Central America, the Antilles (West Indies), and South America -- comprise the American continent(e). It does not specifically indicate NA is a 'region' (see below) and elaborates (roughly) that "North America is sometimes defined to include Central America and the West Indies, which are treated separately in this encyclopedia." Throughout, NA is just a subcontinent(e). Conversely, many English and other sources unambiguously indicate that CA and WI are included in NA, and no one has yet successfully argued why the content in this article cannot be dealt with in the NA article.

The Spanish Encarta article for Central America goes on to say that it IS a region of the American continent(e) and is "defined by geographers as part of North America." The same is essentially said in English for both NA and CA, except it substitutes 'subcontinent(e)' with 'continent' and 'America(n continent(e))' with 'Western Hemisphere.' Also, in English Encarta, all of Mexico and Bermuda are included in NA, and (in both) CA geologically begins at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. There is nothing new in this information, which harks of the nomination and is dealt with (or should be) in North America (see also South America), and it still doesn't justify the fork. Corticopia 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, READ WP:POVFORK, it clearly indicates what is and what is not a POV fork. The creation of this article was not a fork, so please, I invite every reader to take a look in to the POV fork policy. Repeating it was a "fork" won't make it a fork. Secondly, just because a valid geographical model is not the primarly taught in your country, it doesn't make it less valid nor "selective". Thirdly and most importantly, Encarta was not the only source provided. Two books and several other sources (some of them by a Canadian and an American University) clearly indicate and make North America as a region, their object of study. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Continual 'sophistry' aside, the sources you provided are substandard, some of which do not support your assertion or are ambiguous: see AfD comments. You also maintain a confirmation bias despite being unwilling or unable to discuss and incorporate the topic matter regarding this nebulous region (despite protestations otherwise and minimizing other perspectives) in North America (so you can take your own advice and read WP:POVFORK); you also seem to be in denial of explicit canvassing/cross-posting that you partook in to support this fork, which many (if not most) of the commentators in the AfD also mantained was a fork. And, I'm sorry, but denial is in another continent. That's it. Corticopia 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Undelete, as I've said before it is not about the continent, it's about the region ! Cavenba^{talk to me} 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment- No one is denying that that was the subject of the deleted article. Since this is not AfD, would you please comment on the interpretation of the votes and the debate, or at least address the concerns of the nominator? Confiteordeo 00:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, simply because 65% is not consensus. The decision to delete was done hastily without allowing the parties to reach a consensus amongst themselves. This issue was treated as a simple voting system in which the "will of the majority" prevailed (i.e. democracy, something wikipedia is not), and not as a mechanism through which a consensus would be reached through dialogue. If 19 users voted against the deletion, the admin should have payed more attention to their concerns and should have encouraged both parties to debate. That 65% majority was far from a consensus and far from rough consensus (2/3). --theDúnadan 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it wasn't merely a 'votation': the tallies merely further solidified a consensus to delete, merge, or redirect this forking of content. Said commentators are unwilling or unable to acccept or integrate that many of the 19 'keep' comments were simply that and not argued and were explicitly canvassed by the main supporters of the article. Despite this imbalance and said tactics, the debate was quite extensive (and repetitive), and a perusal of the AfD reveals that -- the 'keep' commentators were given all the attention they were due. No one has satisfactorily addressed -- or just avoids -- why this redundant information cannot reside or be dealt with in North America. Moreover, I'm not sure what system of mathematics you're using, but (strictly by the numbers) 65% is a hair's length diff from 66.6...% (or 2 over 3) and definitely more than the 60% which is the minimum required for consensus in Wp. And if one continues to glaze over these arguments (et al.), I'm getting off of this bus right now ... Corticopia 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - closing admin took all arguments into account and exercised discretion properly. This was a procedurally sound close. Metamagician3000 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - the article North America can easily address the issue of whether the continent includes certain territory or not. -Acjelen 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - As Metamagician points out, this is a valid admin closure, and I can see little or no discussion addressing this, as opposed to re-debating the merits of the article. - David Oberst 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: The nominator of this deletion review has canvassed (link) the talk pages of those who voted to keep the article on its AfD. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: It is not canvassing since it is only an invitation to express their opinions again. However, Corticopia, the user that nominated the article for deletion in the first place, did the same check here (Link) before I did. That's why I also started inviting the editors to express their opinions again, since he only invited those who voted "delete".

What I found really weird/surprising, is that you noticed my "canvassing" while not noting that Corticopia, in fact, did it first. However, I don't think any of us are doing such a thing, since we're inviting again those who already voted with a neutral message. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, eh? And incorrect. There's a difference between your actions and mine: I have invited a variety of editors, administrators, and (earlier) commentators at other articles (e.g., Talk:Canada, Geography wikiproject) -- not just those who opted to 'delete' -- to weigh in. Also, your message is hardly neutral since you clearly bolded text and pointedly stated the decision to be "wrong". Imitation is flattery, but you seem to have a penchant for pointing the finger when you need to look in the mirror first. Corticopia 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even with all your verbose talking... inviting people that you know will "vote" in a certain way, is considered canvassing. However, you're being hypocritical, since you started "inviting" people to "weight in", those who voted "delete" and perhaps some others. By just checking your contribution list and the AfD anybody can see it. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no response for continuous sophistry, but do apologise to others for any real or imagined breach of protocol. Corticopia 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Trying to resurrect this issue by discussing the merits of the deleted articles is NOT the point of deletion review. As the closing admin pointed out a large number of those wishing to keep the article did not cite any reasons for keeping it, valid or otherwise. The nominator of this review, also the creator of the deleted article, seems to have taken the issue extremely personally, and the whole issue has escalated into what feels like a personal dispute between him and the nominator of the deletion discussion. The closing admin did the right thing in realizing that consensus was reached to delete the article - please let the issue die in peace and don't relist this one. Arkyan 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and request - I don't know if I am out of line here, but may I humbly ask Corticopia and AlexCovarrubias to cease disrupting the discussion? Your points have been made again and again, and the back-and-forth between you is doing nothing to add to the discussion at hand. If you have a fundamental difference of opinion you want to hash out, please take it to your talk pages. The heated debate bewteen you two was overwhelming on the original AfD and it is beginning to overwhelm this discussion as well. Arkyan 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Noted. Corticopia 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Couldn't agree more with the closing admin.--Húsönd 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I don't see anything here to make me think the closure was unsound, or to make me reconsider my original opinion (I almost said "vote", but AFD is not considered a majority rules plebiscite). 23skidoo 23:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The rationale for deletion was sound. older ≠ wiser 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. I still can't see why the article couldn't be left alone and stand by itself. After all, we have the article on United States, which talks about its history, population, culture, demographics, economy, and also, its GEOGRAPHY, but, hey...! There's also another article called Geography of the United States, which... wow! Talks about the Geography of the United States. Redundant...? NO! ...It's just something called expanding information, just as the deleted article intended to contribute to Wikipedia.
• Comment. I don't necessarily agree with the admin per se, in that keep votes should be disregarded (at least thats how i saw it worded). Keep OR Deletion OR Merge votes that do not offer something to say (or, if you agreed with someone, that would, I suppose, be acceptable) should be disregarded. After looking through more of the content... I still think it should be merged (but I'm not really sure if I can suggest that in a deletion log), only because I think that this information SHOULD go somewhere (probably the North America article). Just weighing in here. Disinclination 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I commented extensively in the afd in favor of deleting, and I would just like to add that in my humble opinion, POV FORK concerns have been denied but not clearly addressed by proponents of this article. Likewise, the contention that one North America article could cover all of this information was not disputed with any clear reasoning. Certainly no one tried that option. Much of the afd debate consisted of voting, which we know is not grounds for either keeping or deleting. Therefore, the deletion was in accordance with consensus. Feeeshboy 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Even if the deletion was in accordance with consensus, and is a final irreversible decision, no steps whatsoever have been taken by either party to comply with the numerous requests to merge the information that was therein contained into North America. --theDúnadan 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - There is a certain amoutn of discertion left up to the closing administrator. I agree with their decision and agree that any information in the article could probably be contained somewhere else. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:CopyrightByWikimedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|CfD)

One person requested that this be renamed to Category:Images copyrighted By Wikimedia Foundation (a reasonable title), but the other two participants in the CFD decided they didn't like the existence of a seperate category for WMF materials and now there is no categorization of the hundreds of Wikimedia images used on Wikipedia (see: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Copyright by Wikimedia). That two people, on a CFD with all of three participants, can decide to decategorize hundreds of images strikes me as utterly ridiculous. WMF images are a special class of materials on Wikipedia and deserve to organized as such (whether or not the category is renamed). Dragons flight 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Technically shouldn't it be Category:Images copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shrug. Whatever one wants to call it, the point is that the category deserves to exist as long as the images do. Dragons flight 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• relist - even as one of the delete voters, i don't feel consensus was reached. But, as for "WMF images are a special class of materials"? Why? They're unfree, invalid or no attempt at fair use rationales in many cases, and deserve to be treated as such. Wikipedia is not just for us. --Random832 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And if they are going to be used on Wikipedia, having them seperately categorized would make it a lot easier for reusers to remove them. The issue of whether the images ought to exist at all is, in my opinion, an entirely seperate issue. Personally, I do find it fairly ridiculous that the Foundation has never issued formal guidance on the use and reuse of most of their logos and materials. Dragons flight 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to list exactly the reason they are a special case, they are unfree. They shouldn't form part of the real content of wikipedia, just the branding and project stuff (the project does belong to wikimedia, the resultant encyclopedia content does not). Most reusers would rebrand to meet their own needs.
    • But they're not a special case. They're no different from any other unfree media - well, except for the fact that they're almost universally lacking in fair-use rationales. I still say the best course of action is to delete 99% of them, reclassify the rest as fair use, thus depopulating the category, which would then be deleted. --Random832 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Except they are different. Since the Wikimedia Foundation owns them, it means that Wikipedia can't be sued for using them. The Foundation knows they exist (having been asked repeatedly for specific use guidelines), but has never acted to delete them, which could be regarded as tacit permission. I realize that with permission images are normally banned, but this class of images have been a part of Wikipedia from the beginning and changing that would require a much broader discussion than afforded by a single CFD. Not to mention that the whole issue could be settled overnight if the WMF ever got around to really addressing the usage rights for such images. Dragons flight 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn seems no-consensus to me. --pgk 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Re-list. Almost all image copyright tags have a category, this one should too, but there is not consensus as to what that category should be. Maybe Category:Unlicensed images copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation? That might be too long, but it certainly is descriptive. --Iamunknown 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist obviously there is a need for further discussion.DGG 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Images using Template:Copyright by Wikimedia are now uncategorized.--Jusjih 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist--but suggest it be renamed exactly as the same commons category CopyrightByWikimedia, the fountainhead source of all these. Note also, {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} just updated for interwiki compatibility. Only Wiksource, Wikiquote, and Wikimedia (no surprise there on the last!) do not have this Meta-tag. There is no sensible reason to have two names, and the commons categories can then be linked with {{Commonscat1}}. // FrankB 00:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The term "CopyrightByWikimedia" is totally non-descriptive. So what if these images are copyrighted by Wikimedia? Every textual contribution to Wikipedia that I submit — this one included — is copyrighted by me. But this and every other contribution I make is free because of the licensing (GFDL). We are not concerned that the images are copyrighted; every other uploaded image — except for those ones in the public domain in jurisdictions that recognize the public domain — is copyrighted; we are concerned about their license: that is, the fact that these particular images are unlicensed, the fact that you must ask for permission from the Wikimedia Foundation to use them. Why name the category with such a non-intuitive name? So what if the Commons category is named the same? Name it differently. --Iamunknown 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Since I'm the closing admin and there's an unanimity here, I'm overturning my decision and undeleting the cat. I think it may be useful to change the cat name on the template and perform a series of null edits, but I'll leave that be for now. >Radiant< 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Steak and Blowjob Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Last removed in June 2006, it has grown exponentially in notability since that time. Some points of evidence for this: during the last deletion review, over 40,000 hits were retrieved. "Steak and a Blowjob Day" now returns 224,000 hits. Shirts and greeting cards (cites one vote for deletion: "When we start seeing holiday cards for this, then sure, we can have an article on it.") can be readily found for purchase, and I've encountered in discussion that I've not started. Facebook currently has 59 groups for the "Holiday", the largest holding 6,049 members. While it's considered not notable to plenty here on Wikipedia, it's clearly notable to enough people to keep coming up in discussion, and to have had another recent spat of creation attempts. In my conclusion, it has an obvious and citable history, enough mass to be notable, and given a stub article to work off, I'm sure I can string together a wiki-standards article. Autocracy 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Counting google hits isn't terribly useful. If you want to successfully make your case, you'll have to provide reliable sources. —Cryptic 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Some sources: Wired Posts This, The UC Davis campus newspaper: The UC Davis campus newspaper (publishing to a student body of near 30,000 enrollment)included this last year as well. Autocracy 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: "Steak and BJ Day" gets under 1000 ghits. "Steak and Blowjob Day" has 20,400, but I cannot find anything that this is on the levels of anything other than some radio gimmick, unlike Wintereenmas or Chrismukkah. Unless a decent third party reliable source (the Times, the Post, USA Today) has something about "Steak and BJ Day", there is no reason that the article should be undeleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are some articles for which certain 3rd party sources are unlikely to ever publish. Notoriety should be clear from the collaboration of many other sources. Quoting WP:RS, "How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another," and what should be held as reliable for the OJ Simpson trial is a higher standard than this. Autocracy 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Jokes get passed around the internet. Sex-based jokes get passed around a lot. That doesn't mean they are appropriate for the encyclopedia. Reviewing the sources above, I don't find any that would support a neutral, fact-based article about the joke - they merely confirm its existence. Blogs, campus newspapers and joke-shop printers won't do it. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Sorry, I don't see enough reliable sources to write an article from. I understand that the BBC is unlikely to cover this, but we still need sources with editorial oversight, which blogs don't have. — coelacan — 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endore deletion. per Ryulong and Rossami. They sum it up quite nicely and anything I would add would just be repetitive. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question What level of verification do we need that it exists? What metric do we use to gauge its popularity? Are the references for International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day of sufficiently higher quality to warrant itself in comparison? Autocracy 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I exist, and I've got reliable newspaper articles specifically about me that verify this (and a few other) fact(s). However, I don't get an article because I'm not notable. And I'm OK with that. Rklawton 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yes, what is a reliable source varies with subject matter, but blogs are never a reliable source. And verification of existence isn't enough; we need to be able to write an article. -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not a gathering ground for every piece of crap off teh internets. No reliable sources = no article. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - per JzG. Lack of reliable sources, lack of need for article. Blogs are not RS, google-counting is on the ILIKEIT list. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: "It exists" is not sufficient. I'm sure the joke exists. I'm sure that there are many references to its existence. The question is whether it is significant, notable, persistent, and substantial -- whether or not it is, in short, encyclopedic. No reason to overturn the closure. Geogre 12:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. significant, notable, persistent, and substantial may be demonstrated without "reliable sources with editorial oversight". I would think Google hits are evidence of those 4 things.
• Endorse deletion - As has been previously said, yeah it exists, but who gives a crap? No reliable sources, that's for sure. The Kinslayer 14:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. A lot can change - it got significant mention in the Village Voice in a piece by Rachel Kramer Bussel, another mention in Vancouver, the Aggie's been mentioned, a note in the Portland Mercury, and who know swhat else is buried under the blogs. It's worth another look, and appears to meet our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. The judgmental tone of many of the deletion votes indicates a bias, and few want to sift through all the thousands of Google hits to find a RS. "piece of crap" and "ludicrous concept" are irrelevant. If there are not sources for it now, there will be.
• Endorse deletion. Sources do not agree on origin or date. Appears to be a non-notable Internet meme. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, because it's arguable as to when it started. It's not, however, an internet meme, it started on the radio. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, Guy pretty much hit the nail on the head here. --Coredesat 20:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reliable sources, it does exist in a series of blogs and forums which are not good sources and Guy did make a good point.-- Dakota 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Points have been made, and consensus achieved. I am in agreement. Please close this AfD review. Autocracy 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator of AfD review)
• Endorse closure the fact that there are people who will go to the mat to defend the existence of such a ludicrous concept makes me weep for humanity. JuJube 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The band has been active since more than four years and they always had a busy schedule of live performances all over the States, see [15] for 2006 and 2007. Google gives 20,600 hits (!) for them, supporting their notability. Only three users had voted for deletion and judged the band by criteria that more apply to mainstream studio pop music. Their third album is scheduled for June 2007 at Ramseur Records. The article has been stripped of several external links before the deletion, including the links to the band's website and to album reviews, leaving only a link to their myspace page. Cacycle 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close but allow re-creation based on possible additional notability based on events between November 2006 (date of AfD) and the present. If necessary, can then be re-listed on AfD for discussion with hopefully more participants. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse but allow recreation per NYB. The close was correct based on the input. However, finding something like this (from just over a week ago) suggests that it may well now be attributable. If a sourced article is created, then it should be taken to AfD, not speedied. Trebor 23:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rites of Ash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Since Rites of Ash has been deleted, the band has composed music for (and has aired on) nine MTV shows, including, "The Real World," "Next," "Pimp My Ride," Gauntlet 2," "Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat," "Island Life," "Livin La Haina" (MTV South America, etc. Also, Rites of Ash has collaborated with international DJ Paul Edge and Pablo Manzarek (son of Ray Manzarek of The Doors) on a remix album, and U.S. DMC Supremacy Champion DJ Idee on his music video "Eclectic Dreams" (which will air on MTVu and MTV2).

• Can you provide non-trivial, independent sources for any of these claims? --Coredesat 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You can see our credit for the music video here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_I-Dee
    As for song credits, most of the MTV online archive for our credits have since been taken down. I could only find this site with credit of our work: http://www.mtv.com/#/ontv/dyn/realworld-season17/episode/featured_music.jhtml?episodeId=96397
    I have the signed MTV contracts right here. We have numerous press releases and related materials on our websites: www.ritesofash.com -and- www.myspace.com/ritesofash
    User:ritesofashritesofash 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Self-published materials do not meet the independence requirement for sources. Wikipedia entries also fail since they are edited pseudonymously. Can you point to substantive articles, books or journals verifiably written about you by other people?
      To be honest, you really shouldn't try to promote yourself or your group through Wikipedia. It's not good for the encyclopedia and it's rarely good for you. See WP:AUTO for more on autobiographical works. Rossami (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I'm convinced of notablility, but no reliable sources seem to be forthcoming. -Amarkov moo! 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for now, the notability needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. They have not yet been provided. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question - was this a valid speedy? Can we get a history undeletion on this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Every deleted revision (and there are a lot of them) except the first two are copyvios from [16]. The first two are mirrored here. —Cryptic 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that makes this whole exercise rather moot, eh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the relialbe source thing. The Kinslayer 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Most of those involved in the discussion agree that the term "University of Wisconsin" by itself is in fact ambiguous Orange Mike 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't believe that the results of the AfD were interpreted incorrectly, but it seems that some of the people involved in the previous deletion debate have changed their opinions. Some of the votes to delete interpreted the deletion as a consensus to recreate the dab page at the plain title (University of Wisconsin, currently a redirect to University of Wisconsin-Madison). Further pages have also lengthened the hatnote on University of Wisconsin-Madison. The information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new disambiguation page. Mailer diablo is unavailable for comment. See this part of my user talk and Talk:University of Wisconsin for more information. Dekimasuよ! 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As a UW system student, and a transfer from UW proper, the official name of the university is the University of Wisconsin. However, I'm generally in favor of more disambiguation and not less. However, in this case, I don't see University of Wisconsin as being a common search term for someone looking for say Eau Claire or Whitewater. What's more, the deletion seems to have been done in process and on consensus, so I'm not sure what the grounds for undeletion are. Wintermut3 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wintermut, I used to work for the Wis. Department of Public Instruction, and for a member institution of the UW system. The official name of the place in Madison is the University of Wisconsin-Madison, not "the University of Wisconsin" or "UW proper"! Check the webpage for the school in question (among many other places). This kind of Madison-centric misinformation is part of what we're dealing with.--Orange Mike 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting comment, and highlights the problem: Many if not most of the students and alumni of UW-Madison do think that University of Wisconsin is its official name, and many of the remainder are very strongly of the opinion that it should be. But as far as I can tell, it hasn't actually been the case since 1956 - a significant date one might think, but one currently missing from University of Wisconsin-Madison#Timeline of notable events. This omission may be another indicator of the problem! Andrewa 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As Dekimasu touches upon, one of the pro-delete voices thought that by deleting the disambiguation page, we would be creating a redirect from University of Wisconsin to University of Wisconsin system, which was his favored solution. Instead, we have the misleading redirect to the UW-Madison article. People outside Wisconsin are likely not to understand the way the Universities of Wisconsin are governed, which is part of what the disambiguation process is supposed to deal with. (And as Miaers among others has pointed out, from 1956-1971 "the University of Wisconsin" legally meant all two, then three, then four campuses, before the creation of the University of Wisconsin system.) --Orange Mike 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with the disambig page lies in the title and what will be linked to it. As long as University of Wisconsin continues to redirect to UW-Madison, I have no problem with recreating it. However, I think you run into trouble when you change the redirect to point to the disambig page. As Wintermut points out, no one searching for UW-LaCrosse or UW-Oshkosh will type University of Wisconsin in order to find it.

Additionally, Dekimasu has exhaustively shown that University of Wisconsin almost exclusively refers to Madison in each instance it is linked on Wikipedia. By reinstituting the disambig page and changing the redirect, the meaning will be lost with hundreds of links originally meant to point to Madison. As I said before, recreate the page, but leave the redirect or you're preforming a serious disservice to Wikipedia.

Finally, its not "Madison-centric" thinking you're "dealing with", its standard useage. Cheers, PaddyM 02:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I did not mean my previous statement to be taken as any kind of an endorsement of changing the current redirect to anything else. I would be fine with having the hatnote on University of Wisconsin-Madison change to a redirect tag for a dab page, but we shouldn't be trying to do any sort of out-of-sight content dictation here. Undeletion of the disambiguation page has little to do with the current setup of the University of Wisconsin redirect. Dekimasuよ! 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The dab header at University of Wisconsin does the job. No reason to recreate this. ~ trialsanderrors 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the AfD, given the input it seems reasonable. But is this really a deletion issue? If there is consensus on the talk pages, then I don't see anything wrong with reinstating the dab and using it as the primary redirect. Trebor 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn (and revert to the previous three-way disambiguation as a basis for further edits). The decision was bizarre, and contrary to both policy and logic. There is strong evidence, throughout the discussion (and now including the above), that University of Wisconsin does mean different things to different people. Ummm, that's one reason we have disambiguation pages! Which is why I created it in the first place. To argue that the term is not ambiguous shows at best a lack of understanding of what the term ambiguous means. Andrewa 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn: It's not that "UW" is ambiguous in searches, but that Wisconsin, like Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and others, has gone to a multiple university system, all designated as UX at Y. In other words, "University of Wisconsin" refers to "University of Wisconsin system" within the state's own sponsorship system. It's not, in other words, a question of popular confusion as much as legal/state definition. The "UW" article should be "UW system" with links to each of the campuses. ... I'm not explaining this well, I fear, and I can imagine any non-US citizen being totally baffled, but no help for it. Geogre 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • University of Illinois (disambiguation), University of Michigan (disambiguation), University of California (disambiguation). Quick search tells me that dab pages are used are when the institutions have similar names but are otherwise unconnected: Queen's University (disambiguation), American University (disambiguation). In the cases of multi-campus university systems the disambiguation can be done in an editorial context: Indiana University, University of California. Not to mention that you have nothing to offer why the closure was invalid. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. "University of Wisconsin" is 2 different things and thus should have a disam page. In Wisconsin, we almost never refer to UW-Madison as the University of Wisconsin. But I have heard it as referring to the system itself. And we have precedent for this. The University of California page is not a disam per say but it's more of a disam than a non-disam. I think the disam is necessary. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another AfD rerun comment. Also, Berkeley is never considered the University of California except in athletics, which is why the UC article is about the system. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, University of Wisconsin means three different things: From 1956 to 1971 it was the official name of a precursor institution to the UW System, see University of Wisconsin (1956-1971). It seems agreed that this is now a rare usage, but it will occur in historical contexts and especially in documents from this period. It was the discovery of this third meaning that convinced me that we should try a disambig page. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell that's the same Chapter 36 institution as the current system, with the WSU system merged into it. The fork article is barely longer than the summary in the System article. So because of this string of poor editorial decisions we need to run a deletion review that has yet to offer an argument why the closure was improper? And people wonder why Wikipedia is going down the shitter. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have a strong feeling that we agree about the editorial decisions you mention. However, this debate is not out of process; invalid closure is not the only reason to come to deletion review. Per the top of the page, "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." I think I mentioned in my first statement above that it would be useful to see what the disambiguation page contained. Regardless of the valid closure, the page is likely to be recreated due to the lengthened hatnote. Recreation doesn't require a deletion review, but to ask to see what the dab page looked like before is a valid request. Mailer diablo was not available to help with this at the time the deletion review began. Dekimasuよ! 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, the full text of the page is:

          University of Wisconsin may refer to:

          • University of Wisconsin System, the public state university system of Wisconsin
          • University of Wisconsin–Madison, the largest university in this system
          • University of Wisconsin, a former institution formed by four campuses in Wisconsin, later merged into the University of Wisconsin System

          And the dab footer. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

      • It would have been most unwise IMO to recreate this page without DR. It's been a frustrating discussion. One of the hopes of creating the disambig was that it would provide a neutral target for University of Wisconsin and stop the related edit wars and repeated WP:RM requests. Obviously, this didn't work. Andrewa 06:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • On the topic of whether it's the same Chapter 36 institution, I think philosophically there are many ways it can be argued. I don't know what Chapter 36 means in this context, and neither does Google. And that's the whole point: The purpose of a disambig page is to get people to the right article, no more nor less. Few if any of the UW community need it. So they are not its customers, and it shouldn't be designed for them. Andrewa 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Antonella Barba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Currently a protected redirect. While the AfD was valid then, she has skyrocketed in notability since - #1 on search engines, in the media everywhere. Now meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (Others, 5). I think she is now notable and the redirect should be unprotected, but a decent article (not a stub) should have to be made. CrazyC83 03:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well she didn't make the top 12, won't be notable a week from now, endorse redirect Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• It shouldn't be a redirect, because that means there's a self-referencing link in the semifinalists page of the American Idol Season 6 page. I'm not sure about the policy on articles linking to themselves, but I personally hate that. Therefore, I vote that either there should be an article (preferably not a stub), or the page should be deleted, but not a redirect. Im.a.lumberjack 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Take that to redirects for deletion. That is not something we handle on this page. We are just looking at making it an article, not deleting the redirect. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The right answer to the circular link is to unlink the American Idol page, not to delete a potentially useful redirect. Personally, I endorse the redirect but might be willing to reconsider if a high-quality draft were prepared in the userspace. Rossami (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect, seems unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect redirect. A redirect is an editorial decision, not one governed by AfD. Protection is improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with this logic has already been shown. I unprotected the article and almost immediately, it was made into an article. So now we get to vandal patrol yet another page. But. Consensus rules. But hopefully you guys will watch the page and help out. I still don't see how a classic 15 minutes of fame deserves a full article. Yes Corey Clark has a page but I think that was bigger than this is. It could've gotten Abdul fired. This is just a college girl who posed topless a few times. Not exactly rare. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't have unprotected it until this was over, but I decided to get a well-sourced article without all the blog links in before someone else could since you unprotected. If you want to AfD, I can't stop you, but based on our standards, it appears to be unproblematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect redirect per Jeff. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect redirect. I still feel that redirect is a valid outcome, equivalent to "delete but make the page title useful", but the arguments here are enough that it should be unprotected. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain but WP:MUSIC Others, 5 does not apply here. American Idol is not part of a subculture, even, unless we're using a definition so broad as to render that criterion useless. I highly doubt she meets WP:BIO independent of her Idol involvement, but I abstain because I can't be arsed to actually check that fact. GassyGuy 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's tough to say. Her photos added some extra publicity beyond normal Idol contestants who fail to make the final twelve, which indicates to me that we should have an article on it, but there was never an AfD on her specifically to begin with, so who can say? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• I decided to be bold and unprotect the article due to the sentiment here and elsewhere. I'd also recommend that people add the page to their watchlist as I suspect it will be hit hard by vandals. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect redirect as per Jeff, which I see has now been done. She certainly is notable in her own right, for instance I came about this page due to coverage in the NZ Herald. [17] Mathmo ^Talk 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirect or deletion - not really notable. BTW, article has been recreated. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect redirect, without prejudice for deletion in the next few months, since she's notable today. Maybe in a few months she won't so lets do the deletion process for that by that time. --Howard the Duck 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott McGregor (television presenter) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Met WP:BIO and WP:BLP of an Australian actor who has been prolific on stage and television from 1980 to the present. There was no debate or request for cleanup and nothing left on my talk page. Thin Arthur 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; significance clearly asserted in the "Acting career" section. Tone's deletion is understandable, however; the preceding and following sections make the article appear, at first glance, to have been written by the subject. —Cryptic 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree to overturn. But the railways part can easily be omitted. --Tone 08:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as above. Catchpole 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Um. Bit of a curate's egg, that one, isn't it? The author clearly either is or knows the subject. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that relevant? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:COI --Iamunknown 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Right, how is that relevant to the deletion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not the guy to ask. I could conceive an argument, which I at times vehemently argue, that pages developed solely by people who clearly satisfy the criteria at WP:COI should be deleted. But, despite the frustrations I experience trying to clean up after people with clear conflicts of interest, my arguments are to no avail. --Iamunknown 02:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not nor have I ever met the subject. Thin Arthur 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another overturn per above. Trebor 23:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry - I saw this as a redlink in Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), so had a look, and it was a clear-cut overturn to me. I wasn't aware this discussion was happening until afterwards - but it appears that 'overturn' is the consensus anyway. -- Chuq 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)