Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 17

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

Movement to Impeach Liberals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Administratvie procedures were not followed. I put a hangon tag on then it was gone. Similar pages are allowed to exist on Wikipedia, such as Movement to Impeach George Bush and Movement to impeach cheney, and Global citizens movement. I was not even given enough time to finish writing the article. Ymous 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• do not overturn The article began "The Movement to Impeach Liberal Politicians was founded on May 17, 2007 by Wikipedia Editor Ymous." Enough said. DGG 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The article began "The Movement..." Damn, DGG beat me to it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So? How does that invalidate the fact that the movement exists? Explain. How does a left wing movement stay, yet a right wing movement does not? Explain the double standard. Ymous 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If the situation was reversed, a completely unsourced, unverifiable, POV, and original researched article to impeach Bush would be deleted just as speedily. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no basis for inclusion. The article failed in a way that any other article would fail if written in such a way, no matter the subject. DarkAudit 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. I am the source. I have verified it. And if Movement to Impeach George Bush has no POV problems, then why does Movement to Impeach Liberals ? Can you NOT answer that one single question? Or doesyour bias run too deep?

MORE evidence: The admin says this:

Movement to Impeach Liberals has been deleted per CSD A7. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a political battleground, but rather an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And in your own rules about Non-Criteria deletion, you say this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_deletion#Non-criteria

"Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" are not part of the speedy deletion criteria. However, these reasons can be given at AfD nominations."Italic text

McLellan was not right to delete my article for the reasons he gave. The proof is right there. Ymous 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• This might be one of the rare cases where the article not only does not assert notability, but even manages to establish non-notability. A7-super-double-plus. The rest is just trolling. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete Eh process normally is a good idea but unless what DGG quotes above ceases to be true, there's utterly no chance this would survive an AFD. Rules lawyering to force an AFD doesn't benefit the project here... just deleting the unencyclopedic article does. --W.marsh 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete. No chance whatsoever this would survive an AfD; whether process was technically followed or not, Angus did the right thing. Multiple policies would support him; notability, reliable sources, and WP:POINT is also an issue. Mike Christie (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Foul Mouth Shirts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This issue was never given a chance for discussion, and I feel it would be just to allow me a chance to plead my case. While I will not go so far as to say that this claim for deletion is outrageous, I will say that it is unneccessary and perhaps a bit unfair. The statement of my reference to the 1300 website references being solely based upon a statement made on the company's Myspace page is false, because those numbers are based upon information retrieved from Google.com. Therefore, the nature of Google.com makes this statement unbiased and based upon fact. I based the creation of this page on T-Shirt Hell's Wikipedia entry, and I feel it gives the same significant fact and figures that the entry for T-Shirt Hell supplies to viewers. I am a fan of this site and a consumer, and I felt that it was appropriate to put an entry to the Foulmouthshirts.com business onto Wikipedia. I did not believe that it was in the wrong, and I think that since it is a burgeoning business tha it should have an inclusive entry here on Wikipedia. There needs to be things such as this entry here on the encyclopedic forum because there are simply no other places on the net such as this where people can learn the history of places like Foulmouthshirts.com or T-Shirt Hell, because of the offensive nature of these businesses. I did my research and I found sources to supplement my entry when it was required of me. I know that the article is a stub article, but I was hoping there would be others out there who would know more about the subject matter than myself who could add onto it. That is what Wikipedia is for, is it not? A conglomeration of knowledge and ideas that a community can pool together for a complete record of fact, right? If T-Shirt hell is big enough to warrent a place here on Wikipedia merely on the fact of their size and sales record, than I truly believe that FoulMouthShirts should be included as well. If it is not included now, than it will certainly have the size and sales record to equal T-Shirt Hell eventually and will be included at that later date, so why not merit it's existance here on Wikipedia now? I'm fairly certain of these claims after the research I've done based on web-based t-shirt businesses for a college course. Please consider this deletion request carefully, because I really do not feel it is warrented. It would be a waste of the time I've put into writing it for an unwarrented reason. Thank you. Cannon 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• overturn. Speedy was unwarranted, since N was being asserted, the article wasn't hopelessly spammy, and it was ref'd,--there were 3 references in the text, though not in the usual format.. Any COI requires careful looking, but there was not anything unfixably wrong in this case. I think it's not wrong to re-create after a speedy, but bringing it here does have the merit of getting it resolved more formally & avoiding another possibly unjustified speedy. All contested speedies with any merit should be allowed to go to AfD if protested (that ones with real merit are of course a small percentage). DGG 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural overturn, yeah it asserted notability, although I'd have to say that I tried to find any of the mentioned articles and nothing turns up -- there's no mention of the company online from rollingstone, time out chicago, or any of the other sources I checked. I can't find any sources other than the company's own website on google or lexis-nexis, and this is not a topic where they'd be hard to find if they existed. So yeah, it claimed some small measure of notability, but the claim seems unsubstantiated. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:SNOW. From the cache, it appears that the article tried like hell to assert notability but was spectacularly unsuccessful. Mentions in media and (low) Google hit numbers. There is no way this could pass AfD, so why clog up an already overburdened list? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. No credible assertion of notability. Mentions <> coverage, and they have about the same number of inbound links as my vanity site last time I checked the count (which I rarely do). The desperate attempts to avoid WP:CSD#A7 pushed it into WP:CSD#G11, as well. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Second deletion was made by mistake Dear review team, I am turning to you for there was a consensus to delete the original article about IM+. The article was posted by another editor and might have appeared as spam. Before I started composing another article about the same application, IM+, I was aware that the previous one was deleted by AfD User:Mailer_diablo . But I was not sure if I should go ahead and write a new one or debate the deletion of the original. I am a newbie. IM+ is considered to be a useful application for users who use instant messengers on the PC. It allows anyone to stay connected with friends and family and even co-workers when away from the computer. I believe any notable and worth-mentioning information should be available on Wikipedia. There are quite a few feedbacks about the application on the web. The information I posted in the article was obtained after an interview with one of the representative from the company. It is plainly the history of the product. Strictly encyclopedic material.

I have already discussed the issue with User_talk:JonHarder, User:Mailer_diablo and User_talk:Kinu.

Please find JonHarder’s comments below.

Shortly before you created the IM+ article, there was a concensus among editors that the topic did not merit inclusion in WIkipedia, as seen in this discussion. The editing patterns on the IM+ -related articles are typical of a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged and a factor in its deletion. Once an article is deleted through this process, attempts to recreate an article on the same topic are generally quickly removed without further discussion. That is what happened with your contribution. The deletion review process is the route to reversing the decision. In this case, it would be important to show significant new information has come to light since the deletion. Creating new articles about software is one of the most challenging ways to start editing Wikipedia because it can be difficult to adequately establish notability (see the proposed software guidelines) and to find the reliable, third-party sources required for independent verification of the material. One thing that might be helpful is to start editing a variety of existing articles, which will give you more experience with how Wikipedia works. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Would you please reconsider the deletion? Leanalove 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove

• Why is it that when a brand new user requests review of a multiply-deleted article virtually every edit and re-creation of which has been by other brand new users I feel my scepticism level rising? WP:USEFUL is not an inclusion criterion, and I see no grounds above to challenge the AfD decision. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

it's always worth taking another look at the article. Personally, I don';t think it was hopeless.DGG 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are Jeff Raymond and I claim my five pounds :o) Guy (Help!) 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• How many days do I have to wait for the verdict? I do realize that many skeptics would be alarmed to see several brand new users trying to post the article with the same name on Wiki. How likely is it for two people living side by side and not knowing/seeing each other, go to a little private school in another country and become friends. That actually happened with me. It may look weird...but I would like for you to review the article and let me know if it can be relisted. Most of the information was obtained from the website and an interview with the company. I hope for your understanding. Please review the article again Leanalove 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove.
• Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources is demonstrated to show notability which would justify overturning the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Please check IM+ in Google trands or type it in Googlesearch field. You will notice that as of this afternoon there were 1,470,000 links. I noticed that ebuddy, another great application is listed in wikipedia. In Google there are less links 625,000 for it. This is just some interesting information in case you are doubting whether or not an article about IM+ should be in Wikipedia. I can certainly redo the article to include the information that is publicly available with all sources cited. Or do you recommend posting a short article about IM+, similar to Agile Messenger or Mig33? if I redo it, where should I post? Leanalove 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove

Starslip Crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD| AfD 2)

One of the raft of webcomics deleted/redirected following the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards deletion. Notability was demonstrated in the original article by it's winning "Outstanding Science Fiction Comic", and multiple other nominations, however this was not considered in the AfD due to Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards having been deleted as 'not notable'. Considering that this was overturned, the AfD result is questionable. Should at least be run through AfD a second time. Barberio 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I added the link to the second AfD. As the second resulted in a redirect (which is, thankfully, unprotected), that's simply an editorial decision, not one for here. I support it not being a redirect, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

author not the same as subject. Hello, I am the artist Echo Chernik, the subject of a recent article. I am a well established, contributing commercial award winning artist. I received an email a few days ago that there was an article on Wikipedia about my work. Apparently, someone logged in using my name as a login, created the article, and was disputed because they chose the subject of the article as their login. I'm here to testify that I did not write the article - I use the login echox or echoxartist whenever possible, and none other. The article, I believe, is well founded (although slightly inaccurate in points - I dare not change any points though - instead, I sent a request to Elipongo for the one important point to change). Content-wise and reference wise it is also on par with being comparable to other contemporary artists who have the same number or significantly less references. Please feel free to email me or post with questions about my identity. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by echox (talk • contribs)

• Endorse Restoration- Not because the artist is asking, but I believe that it is well sourced. If the article is restored, please remove sources such as myspace.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question Firstly thank you for the very reasonably phrased request for review. There appeared to be two main concerns with the article - notability and sources. Notability can be resolved with details of the awards that you have recieved. Would you mind listing these and any links you can find to them. Secondly, and this is a major issue, any information in an article must be Verifiable. Can you offer any secondary sources that can help us do this? The AFD was closed with only limited involvement so arguably consensus is not firmly established. Subject to the nature of the awards and the sources, I'm initially inclined to suggest relisting or restoration. Nudge me on my talk page if I don't get back to reviewing this once you have responded. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay! Lets see what I can do to help resolve the issues. Thank you for being so clear on what you require! Let's start with Notability.... Details of the awards (feel free to edit - I'm not sure what format or details work - but here's the facts):

- Hype Girl (Gear Girl) - GOLD AWARD | Illustration Category - Portfolios.com 2006 Awards Show. This piece *also* was awarded HP's Best in Show [1] Scroll down to the Hype Girl Piece - or back out to see the main Awards Page. Here's a description of the competition:

The Portfolios.com Award Show is an international awards competition that recognizes outstanding work in the communications field. Entries are judged by industry professionals who look for companies and individuals whose talent exceeds a high standard of excellence and whose work serves as a benchmark for the industry.

- Hype Girl (Nascar Girl) - GOLD AWARD | Pin-Up - Aphrodisia II [2] The official listing on Aristata Publishing's website. ((Also published in Aphrodisia II hardcopy - let me know if you need the ISBN or a photo of the trophy)).

- Hype Girl (Gear Girl) - GOLD AWARD | Best in Region - the Create Awards 2006 [3] This piece was also chosen from all the winners to be featured on the cover of the awards issue (Nov/Dec 2006).

I'm also on the Invitational list to the Pixel show this June, in Lake Oswego, OR. I was chosen to be one of twelve best digital artists invited to exhibit and hold a demo in their digital only show.

Let me know if there is any other information that I can provide to help you out. There were several articles - one in Create Magazine, another one that was posted last month (I actually received a message on myspace with a request to link to it - after it was published...so it was not an interview - I didn't even know about it until after!) [4] Let me know if this is the type of information that you're seeking! Thank you! echo

(see Talk:Echo Chernik)

Verifiable - I'm sorry...i'm not sure what I'm supposed to be posting for this part. Can you help point me in the right direction? What sort of things count towards this? I'm not sure where the information originally came from - it's mostly accurate, so I'm sure it came from interviews, press releases or artist statements (i release those all the time as part of promotion), and sometimes people put their own spin on them or re-hash it for a review. I come across things written about my art now and again...most of it is okay (those that aren't, I send a note to the publisher). Are you looking for things written that I didn't know about until afterwards? Can you clarify what I can provide to help? Im not sure what we're looking for... Thanks! echo

• • Restore At least one of the awards is a professionally judged national award for published work so notability is established. What we need to work towards is finding independant multiple sources to verify any information included. Rather than stubbify why don't we restore this in my userspace and I can move it into mainspace once I have sorted that out. I can work with the subject to iron out any flaws before we do this and this will avoid any COI issued. Can a kind admin restore the thing in my user space and I can start? The only question is whether I need to bring it back to DRV once I'm done or just be bold?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I'm a bit sceptical about some those awards - they do not seem to be the kind where critics get together and decide what has merit, they seem to be the sort where you submit your own work. But the Google results do look significant. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The award shows cited are industry awards (for working professionals), and receive 5000-10000 entries. They're not works created for fun, but for industry use. I can post up more information on each, if you prefer. I receive solicitations for award shows - but these aren't PhotoshopUserAwards.com or such where anyone can enter. They are published pros only, with a large range of work submitted each year. Let me know if you need information about them?

• Relist Consensus not clearly established to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo Chernik. I do have to say that I am sceptical about subjects pushing to get coverage here, though. It would be better to let the discussion take place among editors not connected to the subject. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist for further discussion, AFD discussion only attracted a few eyes and it seems that considerable assertion of notability has been since introduced here. --Stormie 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I have been researching this for about a week now and have found many more sources that make this notable, in my opinion. See User:Eep²/The Photon Belt for my progress thus far. The admin who deleted it, User:Sandstein, has restored the article at my request so I may compare it to my version. I asked for input from other contributors to the original article but only one has contributed biased comments, which I have been researching/disputing accordingly. However, I feel there is now enough credible, reliable sources for this article to be restored. -Eep² 08:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse restoration. The now-found sources indicate that this is notable bollocks, although the article should make clearer that this is esoteric belief, not science. Sandstein 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse restoration notability established through research check and gathering.Goldenrowley 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Per Sandstein I'd like to see the Restored but the article first needs to be writen up to reflect the fact that this is notable nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nonsense" is not WP:NPOV. Yes, it's pseudoscience but it has SOME basis in science. I don't know German, and haven't read a translated version of Hesse's book to see what, if any, his references are. This may simply be a case of "lost in translation" that got warped and twisted. I have contacted Harrington about the Native American prophecy, and have been researching it myself, but haven't had much luck yet; this idea could be VERY old... -Eep² _(Talk) 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Cautiously allow this, as long as we can be certain that the article remains clear that no reputable cosmologist actually accepts this twaddle. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not very neutral of you calling it "twaddle" (another word for "nonsense", incidentally), Jz... -Eep² _(Talk) 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what neutral point of view means? Differing view points are given coverage weighted by their prevelance. If the predominant point of view is that this is nonsense, then the article is quite welcome to say that. --pgk 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, that is a completely neutral way of describing a theory founded on a number of premises all of which are known to be complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not neutral because I have seen sources (like LaViolette)[5] that specifically dispute the photon belt but recognizes its societal affect related to his own work. However, he never mentions Paul Otto Hesse who supposedly came up with the idea in 1949--30 years before LaViolette claims to have posted his "galactic superwave" theory. I'm still awaiting a reply from Harrington regarding his Native American prophesy, so this idea could be much older if it can be verified. Unfortunately, I don't know much about Native American mythology/prophesy and haven't had much luck researching this particular prophesy thus far (only an hour or so spent, however). But just outright claling this "nonsense", "bollocks", "twaddle", and other biased terms is NOT neutral. LaViollete calls it "absurd" and "ludicrous" but he's done the research--have you? I have to an extent and yet I am not calling it negatively (or positively)--I am simply providing facts. A decent translation of Hesse's book would help to decipher this further--and what references he gives, if any... I don't have a problem labelling it as pseudoscience and fringe science, but anything more negatively biased is against WP:NPOV and must be cited by reliable sources (not just some random message forum posting who thinks it's "bollocks", "twaddle"--or Wikipedia "consensus" thinks it's "nonsense"). However, even LaViollete's criticism needs sources; it may be common knowledge to him and perhaps other scientists, but not to non-scientists/laypeople. -Eep² ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Societal effect is irrelevant, reliable independent sources indicate that the idea is twaddle. It asserts, and is contingent on, a model of galactic structure which is contradicted by mainstream scholarship, including the idea that the solar system orbits Pleiades, which it doesn't, it asserts and is contingent on the existence of a photon belt, which is contradicted by the laws of physics as understood and lacks any basis in peer-reviewed science, it asserts and is contingent on that belt being of a truly remarkable size, yet ignores the fact that no cosmologist has observed it. In other words, it is complete bollocks. It has not been published as a theory in any mainstream cosmology journals. It is scientifically ignorable bollocks. But is is believed by a significant number of people, despite the total lack of credible supporting evidence, so it is notable bollocks. WP:SPADE. We have dealt before with situations where a theory has been propounded, but the scientific community has simply discounted it. If it has not been published in reputable journals, despite having achieved a certain prominence, it is fair to say that science discounts it. Like Time Cube. Bollocks, but notable bollocks. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for all of these criticisms would be appreciated, even if they are "laws of physics", is "scientifically ignorable", and where it has been discounted by so-called reputable scientists (which, if they have ignored it, might be difficult). ;) -Eep² ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was goign form the article. If you say those criticisms are not published and that there are absolutely no mainstream critiques of the theory, then it is obviously discounted by the mainstream and complete bollocks. It's a heck of a catch, that catch-22. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Non-acknowledgement is not discountment. -Eερ² ^(T|C) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse recreation per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Some of the delete !votes were on the basis of it being pseudoscience, which is of course not a valid reason. The justifiable reason was sources, and this seems to have been fixed. DGG 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  You are endorsing recreation, right? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Judging by AfD debate, fails WP:RS. dcandeto 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Allow recreation of this nonsense/twaddle/bullshit, but make sure that it doesn't promote pseudoscience as reality. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse restoration. Because a considerable number of authors have mentioned it (whatever it is real or fictional), it cannot be merged to an specific author or to an specific topic article. The specific article in question could be useful to link what all this author have said. --Legion fi 06:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV|AfD2)

User:Mukadderat and User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh deleted and protect the page to be restored because nonverifiable notability after the page have been restored by User:Trialsanderrors Now the notability of Sorin Cerin is verifiable http://sorincerin.lx.ro/SorinCerin_Coaxialismul_English.htm , where the book review of "The coaxialism" was made by a researcher of Romanian Academy. Coaxialismul was published in 2007 and deletion have been in 25 December 2006.Sorin Cerin is an important romanian philosopher with many books.He is the author of a new vision in philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircias (talk • contribs)

• do not overturn The source cited says "This book represents an audacious contribution to contemporary philosophy"-- that nobody else has noticed it in print, and that's what's needed for an article. DGG 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Is many other articles in print about Cerin.The book have been published in April 2007 and AfD2 been in December 2006.Do you have degree in philosophy?The article was printed in Romanian Revue of Philosophy.I respect all decisions but I make an appeal to reason.Why should to be deleted Cerin?Just because the webpage does nothing alleviate the neutrality problems?Which neutrality?RespectfullyMircias 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse AfD2 An effusive review on the subject's webpage does nothing to alleviate the neutrality problems with this article, i.e. it doesn't show that anyone other than a partisan minority wants to have an article on Cerin, nor does it demonstrate that his new vision in philosophy has garnered notable attention. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn There seems to be an article well-written in Romanian Wikipedia, so I assume it has its merit to be kept. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm professor of philosophy in a university located in Bucharest and not a wikipedian until today,because is first time when write here.Is awful and absurd to not restore and overturn the article about Cerin,who is an important romanian philosopher.Why for romanian wikipedia is good and for en.wiki not?Any envious vagrant can take a secret username and to write here,so the revange begin.I don't know who is the names who doesn't agree Cerin, but I know who is Sorin Cerin.DPhilro 12:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
• OverturnRomanian Academy is the most important cultural and scientifical institution from Romania and not a fancy club or pub.In December when I ask to be keept Cerin was in vain.Maybe now somebody here me.This was the reason because my work with en.wiki was stop.In en.wiki is a lot of people so called philosopher without works,or significant works like Cerin.L.Marchis 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse AFD2, no evident problem with process and no new evidence presented. As noted, subject is a determined self-promoter, there does not appear to be any proper claim to notability which does not trace back to that self-promotion. Note that the Romanian Wikipedia has an article, which may or may not also be vanispamcruftisement, but the sources cited are predominantly in Romanian - a problem for verification in the English Wikipedia - and I can't find any significant neutral coverage of this individual. Note also that the requester has no edits whatosever other than to this request. Accusations of "cowards" and "cliques" are not terribly persuasive, and the existence of a book review is not quite the same thing as multiple non-trivial independent sources. The 115 unique Google hits for this individual is around the same number of hits I get. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Unbelievable.If is not cliquism is very serious!I'm doctor and suggest you to find a very good doctor,psychiatrist because Romanian Academy doesn't make self promotion,and all from above talk about the new book of Cerin,"The Coaxialism" who been launched in April 2007 and AfD2 was in December 2006.If you ask Endorse AfD 2 please tell me what links find you between bicycles and philosphy?New evidence?New evidence is the Book Review of Romanian Academy from April 2007 again and again this Book Review have been released after 5 months when AfD2 been related.I hope in honest peoples not only in cowards or in cliquismL.Marchis 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Without the ability to read Romanian, the Romanian sources linked at the Romanian article don't help. I note that none of the English language sources there are reliable sources by standards here. Consensus was quite clear in AFD2. We need independent and reliable sources to have a case, and the nomination does not offer any that meet those criteria. So I endorse deletion, and suggest that any attempt at a new version be done strictly in accordance with the recomendations at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and RestoreI am romanian and have the ability to read in my language.The romanian site with Sorin Cerin is very serious and have a lot of reliable sources about Cerin.Romanian Academy and Romanian Revue of Philosophy is most important publication of philosophy from Romania.If you need we can sent to you a scan image with revue,or date,number,tom,etc,of publication.Sorin Cerin was a marginal writer before "The Coaxialism".I beleive in a possible self-promotion in english,but the state of affairs is change,and Cerin is an important romanian philosopher now.The old article in english must to be completely restored to show what represent Cerin in philosophy and not about other sources of notability which Cerin don't have.Indeed,AfD2 was before to be recognize Cerin.Marianas 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• RestoreDelete all article and then re-write in accordance to what means Cerin now.He is important only like philosopher and nothing else.The author of Book Review is reliable.Search on Google and see.She wrote hundred of articles about philosophy.AfD2 was right because in that point in time (December 2006)Cerin doesn't represent anything,possible only self-promotion.Marcuvas 08:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• OverturnWhy delete article and re-write?AfD2 was right? Who sign in AfD2?I tell you.First is a salesman from Bucharest who try to change entire romanian history together with Irina.Second boy is a mobile phone dealer and MP3 salesman who ask about money from people who wish to have a site here.Another one is a school student who don't know where is Romania located.The whole kit who decide in AfD2 if this philosopher can remain or not in en.wiki.This people are more reliable like Romanian Academy in the eyes of a BS in mathematics from MIT?Romanian site about Cerin is very serious.Go to inform there.Secretloan 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I believe there is an easy solution to issues raised in discussion Andywo 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note: I have moved this from Content Review above.

First, let me copy/paste from the resolution: "The result was delete. Comment on lengthy discussion: the two independent references may possibly cover the concept, but the do not cover the term (simply because they predate this neologism). Therefore I am sorry to conclude that the discussion didn't sway the opinion of the majority of voters. `'mikka 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

mikka recently added to content review above (I'm copy/pasting with no alteration):

• • Below is the complete list of references from the article in question. "Wood A." is user:Andywo. I fail to understand the alleged error. The article lacked any secondary sources, i.e., 100% OR of Woood A. `'mikka 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wood, A. (2005). "What happens [in Vegas]": Performing the post-tourist flâneur in "New York" and "Paris". Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 315-333. ([6])
  • Wood, A. (2005). "The best surprise is no surprise': Architecture, imagery, and omnitopia among American mom and pop motels. Space and Culture, 8(4), 399-415. ([7])
  • Wood, A. & Todd, A.M. (2005). "Are we there yet?": Searching for Springfield and the Simpsons' rhetoric of omnitopia. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(3), 207-222. ([8])
  • Wood, A. (2003). A rhetoric of ubiquity: Terminal space as omnitopia. Communication Theory, 13(3), 324-344. ([9])
  • Augé, Marc. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London, Verso Books, 1995.
  • Robert Venturi, D. Scott Brown, and S. Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas, MIT Press, Boston, Mass., 1972.

--

Here's the error in a nutshell. The deletion discussion reveals that the addition of two secondary sources, which exist right now, would resolve the problem. This edit would take all of a few moments. However, rather than address the merits of that solution, an administrator summarily eliminated the entry.

Here are the details...

First, please review the discussion on this case [[10]]. Reviewing it, you'll note plentiful references to two essays that are clearly not written by Wood [me], that have appeared following the four peer reviewed journals. Here's a copy/paste from the discussion:

"Omnitopia research has also been cited in another journal from another discipline, representing an engagement with the topic as a serious idea [11]. It has also been cited in a master's thesis [12], appearing on more than ten pages of that work and reflecting emerging knowledge that has passed its own rigorous peer review."

I also proposed:

"If the only issue is that these two non-Wood citations of omnitopia -- Mark B. Salter's (University of Ottawa) International Political Sociology essay and Richard Scot Barnett's (North Carolina State University) master's thesis -- need to be integrated into the entry, I have no problem with either (1) doing so myself, (2) inviting another person to do so, or (3) awaiting that revision with no action done by me."

There was some discussion about whether citing a master's thesis would be appropriate, but there was agreement about the validity of the Salter piece. Indeed, a person who led the debate changed his opinion, stating:

"I think notability has been satisfied on this page (though not in the article as it stands); there are four published articles focused on Omnitopia and at least one other independent, non-trivial, published source. (I don't know if Master's theses count as published sources for Wikipedia. Someone should check.) I think the article should be kept with input from the new source or sources. Jordansc 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)"

After Jordansc changed his vote to "keep" I reiterated:

"I suppose a useful next step is to revise the omnitopia entry to include that independent non-trivial published source. As I've mentioned, I'm happy to do so. But if the group prefers, I'd be just as happy for someone else to take on that edit."

Thereafter I waited for some response. No one else said anything, leaving me to presume the Wiki-policy that silence equals consent [13]. However, mikka simply eliminated the entry. I read his rationale and found virtually no engagement with the substantive issues raised in the discussion.

I request reconsideration. Andywo 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Pretty much as the deletion it appears to be a neologism coined by the author (hence most of the sources are his own work), the two independent sources apparently (I haven't read them) don't make use of the term. All they do is confirm the basic concept exists, wikipedia is not the place to reinforce new terminology at best this could be moved to a different title for coverage of the underlying concept. --pgk 07:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two issues, pgk: Until you *read* the two non-Wood sources, how do you feel qualified to evaluate their handling of the term? More importantly, all this talk about "independent sources" is sidestepping Wiki-policy, presuming omnitopia to be OR.

Here is a copy/paste from Wikipedia's statement on OR: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion."

As I stated in the original discussion, a reasonable inference from that policy is that publication in peer-reviewed journals constitutes a warrant for Wikipedia to report about the work. Omnitopia research has been published in four separate peer-reviewed journals, representing two distinct disciplines. These journals have editorial boards that represent the contemporary state of their respective fields; they are clearly *independent* of their authors. The pieces have been evaluated by anonymous experts in the field prior to publication. And they endured "merciless editing" (as per Wiki-parlance) of more than a drive-by quality.

Any participant of this discussion who has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal would know that.

But let me say it again, just in case I'm being unclear: Anonymous peer review means that published research represents more than the author's opinion.

The entry cited those pieces, making them available to any reader who takes the time to peruse them and evaluate whether the material is verifiable. Omnitopia research has also been cited in another journal from another discipline, representing an engagement with the topic as a serious idea [14]. It has also been cited in a master's thesis [15], appearing on more than ten pages of that work and reflecting emerging knowledge that has passed its own rigorous peer review. If that doesn't reflect a "part of accepted knowledge," I don't know what does. Andywo 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Mikka generally gets it right and the closure clearly falls within the closing admin's discretion. Neologism by definition don't justify inclusion unless there are multiple third party contemporary references. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to sound snippy but "Mikka generally gets it right" and the previous "I haven't read them" leads me to the conclusion that stated policy, evidence, and reasoning do not count for much in this forum. Read your response carefully and notice that you failed to address the substantive issue raised by my response to pgk or mikka: anonymous peer review [[16]] ensures that published research represents more than the author's opinion.

Is this how consensus is established in Wikipedia? If so, don't be surprised that this site is increasingly abandoned by editors with professional expertise. Andywo 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I, too, believe there is an easy solution, and it is to endorse deletion of this vanity article. It's not a neologism, its a protologism, and Wikipedia is being abused in an attempt to popularise it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now there is no doubt. Following Wiki-policy and demonstrating an ability to follow the details of debate are not valued in this forum. It is clear that administrators need not possess anything more than an internet connection and some spare time to conduct drive-by editing. I presume I don't have a vote in this forum, but I recommend that this debate be closed and the entry be deleted. I'm available through back-channels but I have no more time for this silliness. Andywo 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• endorse deletion unless it can be shown there is substantial discussion of this in the two very general books.DGG 19:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2|DRV|AfD3)

Original Request

• I want to add the following article: [17] (if there is a better way to show the original article please let me know)
  • Website notability has been proven with Spider-Man 3 controversy an Gamasutra article

• Notability concerns:
  • Review archive: nearly 1,300 reviews, 33rd largest (all print and online sources), 21st largest (active online) [18]
  • Gamasutra article where content from website is compared to content from GameSpot: [19]
  • Articles where it is primary subject: Joystiq [20]; BBPS [21]; Videolamer [22]
  • Mentioned in high-profile websites: Penny-Arcade (who also devoted 7 minutes of its podcast to the website) [23]
  • Reviews syndication on: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Gamerankings, GameStats and Gametab
  • WEB #3: 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

* PGNx Media's content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes, which is well known, owned by IGN Entertainment (whereas PGNx Media is owned by PGNx Media, Inc) and qualifies as an online publisher --> three requirements for WEB #3

• Deletion process concern
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PGNx_Media_(3rd_nomination) showed no users in favor of deletion; excluding sockpuppets the results were Weak Keep: Just H; RockMFR; Andrew Lenahan - Starblind | Keep: Falcorian; Jcuk; Tarinth (Just H was later found to be a sockpuppet in an unrelated incident)

• Note: This deletion review proposal has been linked to on the talk pages of the closing administrator, those who participated in the latest articles for deletion discussion, as well as those who participated in the article's talk page.

Arielguzman 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note by closing admin Arielguzman (talk · contribs) is in all likelihood a sockpuppet of Infomanager (talk · contribs) (RFCU) and therefore afffiliated with PGNx Media. The prior DRV and the AfD3 were marred by sockpuppetry, so the AfD 3 was cancelled. I have no problems if an unaffiliated editor in good standing writes an article that alleviates the problems brought up in the prior AfD, but as Mikkalai posted on my talk page: "Massive longtime sockpuppetting with commercial purposes is a grave violation. It is not, like, teenagers trying to bend rules of adults. This person must bear full responsibility for his acts. The article must stay deleted until independent request." ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That is certainly fair though it seems like a matter of politics. Arielguzman 05:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Final note: Editors, please feel free to use my talk page as a starting point for this article. trials seems to be okay with the subject matter so long as an established editor writes the article. Go ahead and make it your own, though, since I would really like to see this article published in some form. Arielguzman 05:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Being picked up by sites which indiscriminately collect reviews is trivial and not notable. That aside, should the sockpuppetry case be confirmed (is the copy at Arielguzman a duplicate of PGNx Media?) then this should be closed as quickly as possible as disruption. Phony Saint 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think you can include Gamasutra with "sites which indiscrimately collect reviews."[24] Further, as the PGnx article is but one of three that I've essentially rewritten in the past week I don't see why it would be a cause for concern. In any case, no the article is taken from here[25] which I believe was the same article found on Wikipedia before it was deleted (though I have essentially rewritten the notability segment) Arielguzman 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah it's a modified duplicate. Also, I'm not "ok" with the subject matter, I have no opinion on the subject matter. I have an opinion concerning spammers who use lies and deception to push their commercial content onto Wikipedia, and it's not a positive one. ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I don't see much evidence of support for this other than sockpuppets. At the very least we should wait a while to let the dust settle. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I would be more receptive if this had been a ground-up rewrite by an independent third-party editor, but the current effort to resurrect this article reminds me too much of the previous attempts to abuse the AFD and DRV processes. Once bitten, twice shy. --Alan Au 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion recommend investigation of user who brought this to DRV. Clearly a sockpuppet by edits, behaviour, knowledge of wikipedia procedures, etc.--Crossmr 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry other than an interest in an article that previously had sockpuppets. Is there a rule that wikipedia procedure is so complicated that is is impossible to understand in a week? Arielguzman 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Your edits show a particular obsession with this topic, almost immediately attempting to undelete it, this is an amazing edit for your 4th edit [26]. This text doesn't appear in any google cache, so I'm sure the resemblance to the deleted article is purely coincidence. especially since it includes images that were deleted months ago [27]. Immediate fixation on a deleted article known for many sockpuppets, pulling up text which doesn't seem to be cached, it only leads one place.--Crossmr 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The old article, made in Jan 2007, can be found here: [[28]. I feel like you're making unsubstantiated assumptions you begin making statements like "show ____" and "_____ known for many sockpuppets." And that is all. I've no interest in getting into an edit war with you. I will continue to work on this article with people who haven't already made up their minds to delete it. Arielguzman 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Close, but no cigar. The version you immediately posted was properly linked and included images deleted months ago. That version doesn't. There is no way you dug around and found the exact names of images that were deleted months ago, in fact that would be a likely impossible task unless you were an admin who could see the old version and find out what the old deleted image names were. While the about us article was likely a cut and paste from here cleaned up to use their images, your addition wasn't a cut and paste back, as well it included the previous table. The only way you mimic that is by having a copy from having previously worked on it and saving it when it before it was removed.--Crossmr 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't help that one of the original sockpuppets was named Guzman too. Really, we expect a bit more creativity here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you serious? You do realize that Guzman is one of the most common hispanic last names, right? This is similar to saying "Oh yea, one of the last sockpuppets had the last name Smith... they MUST be related." Arielguzman 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Quite serious. I've already pointed out you created content that you couldn't possibly have access to if you just showed up at wikipedia when your account was created. Given the fixation on an article know for sockpuppets, the fact that you have material that isn't cached anywhere, and the similarity in names to a previous sockpuppet its quite obvious.--Crossmr 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Given your fixation on me, and given trials', and given the similarities between the two names (both have 2 Ss), I guess you two are both sockpuppets. Its quite obvious. In any case, please see my comment below.Arielguzman 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
              • What makes it obvious is your creation of long deleted and non-cached content. Had it been recreated as an exact mirror of the article you claim it came from, that might have passed and been non-obvious. But since you chose to recreate the article from the deleted copy which isn't available anywhere, including links you couldn't possibly have known about if you were a genuine new user, then it makes the puppetry obvious. The copy you created only comes from someone who saved the previous source of the article--Crossmr 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion: Normally, if this was an AfD I'd probably vote keep or weak keep given the sources presented (I don't have the anti-blog bias that most other editors; Joystiq is an example of a multi-contributor blog that's quite well regarded in the industry). However, the infiltration of sock-puppets of the article's creator in the previous discussion really destroys any of my sympathy. I'm an inclusionist by nature, but these discussions need to be kept totally above-board. I'm not against seeing this article return at some point in the future, but I'd suggest to the article's creator that it really needs to establish some sources that nobody will question. Tarinth 12:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am no longer interested in having this article restored. I will be working on a completely new article under the supervision of Wikipedia editors who weren't previously involved in the deletion of the article. Thank you. Arielguzman 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just Tah Let U Know (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Single by famous rapper Eazy-E, charted on three separate charts during its 1995 release in the United States alone, speedy deleted completely out of process by User:Mel Etitis. badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, completely pointless trying to apply Articles-7 to songs by obviously notable artists unless there's so little content it meets Articles-1/3 - which this doesn't (although after we remove the link of dubious copyright status, which must be done when/if it's undeleted, it's close). Redirecting may be preferable but that's outside DRV's remit. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restored. Singles by notable musicians are generally considered notable, so being an Eazy-E single is a claim of notability in itself. Blatantly invalid A7. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added additional information. It was the last single with his name on it to chart. Final song of a notable artist is pretty notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

There are only two votes in the AfD. The proper course of action would have been to relist it. dcandeto 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunate endorse unless you can provide some sources. It seems like the issue was a lack of those, which are important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If there are only two votes in an AfD, there is not a clear consensus. The AfD should have been relisted, not closed. Also, the claim of a conflict of interest in the AfD (namely, that he was editing the article about him) is demonstrably false. dcandeto 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's pretty clear, really. There's no such thing as a quorum here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There's no consensus in the AfD, either. (If you need more evidence that it was done hastily, note that the other two articles mentioned in it still exist and have AfD notices on them.) dcandeto 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It wasn't particularly hasty. There was a full week to add sources. If you have new evidence, or any reason for undeletion that wasn't considered originally, then provide that. Otherwise 3-0 (counting the nom) seems plenty clear when the lack of sourcing isn't in dispute. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Your saying otherwise doesn't change the fact that that's not true. For a low-traffic article with two votes, de facto protocol was clearly breached by not relisting. Consensus was not reached. dcandeto 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • To clarify: I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, just that the deletion was done improperly. I'm just saying that the AfD was closed as if there was a consensus when there was not. The admin who closed it didn't even read the whole AfD—and didn't delete any article except for Hampton Catlin. There was no discussion on either of the other two articles, which were summarily deleted without discussion. As it stands now, the other two articles weren't deleted via the AfD, and as such could be recreated at any time; they would not fall under CSD, either. dcandeto 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. How many people participate in an AfD is irrelevant if there is no coverage in reliable sources. If anyone else had come along and participated, either they would have said 'delete', or they would have said 'keep' but been discounted for handwaving if they didn't provide any evidence of notability, or they would have been able to provide such evidence, in which case, bring it up here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The other two articles included in the AfD (Howdtheyvote and Haml) weren't deleted, and are still sitting there with AfD notices on their pages. Someone should take care of those. WarpstarRider 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article was deleted per consensus on the basis of no WP:RS, which looking at the last version seems appropriate. This deletion review has not provided any information indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This article falls under speedy deletion A7 criteria (non-notable person).--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote, it is a discusison. The minimum participation for an AFD is 1 nominator + 1 closing admin, provided it ran at least 5 days. This ran 7 days. No new information presented in this nomination, so no reason to overturn. GRBerry 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the number of people participating in a discussion is irrelevant; the issue is the strength of the arguments. There was complete agreement, with no dissent, that this is not notable and there were insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:V. The fact that people didn't bother to pile on and repeat those same arguments over and over is good, and has no bearing on the outcome. The fact that nobody disagreed is what's important, and how we can judge this to be a consensus. If you want this undeleted, address the concerns that were raised, rather than trying to find procedural excuses to ignore policy. Xtifr _tälk 04:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)