Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 21

Balloon fetishism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV#1)

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

Well referenced article with community links, commercial websites and articles - a copy can be seen on my sandbox. The deletion vote processes (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balloon_fetishism) was plagued with WP:AADD without propper sources verification [1] [2] [3], insuficient discussion and consensus. Also consider other languages Wikipedia has articles about the subject as well like Japanese, French, German and Portuguese and Google returns 190.000 results. Thanks. Gothamelia (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - This is a request to restore the Balloon fetishism article using User:Gothamelia/Balloon fetishism (draft) as the next post. Related topics include:

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

{{sex fetish}}

DSM-IV Code 302.9 - Paraphilia NOS

-- Jreferee t/c 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Gothamelia, the balloon fetishism draft has been in your user subpage since 12 January 2007 and only two edits to the draft article have been made since then.[4]. Per Wikipedia:Subpages, you cannot use user subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Normally, you need to edit draft user space articles within two months or else it may be considered permanent content to be deleted at WP:MfD. You might want to close this DRV and edit your draft article to include footnotes to Wikipedia reliable sources. Google scholar and Google books brings up some information. Also, you might want to focus the draft article towards a medical sense (see DSM-IV Code 302.9). -- Jreferee t/c 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse, nothing has changed since the last DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think there might be an acceptable article on this topic, but the one on the user page does not seem to be it--the bulk of it is an unsourced discussion of the possible psychological origins of the fetish. I think Jreferee's suggestions for improvement are sound. DGG (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Democrat In Name Only (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is related to Republican In Name Only. It should at least be mentioned in that article if it is not worthy of its own article. A redirect could be of more use to a reader than a redlink. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some relevant articles:

Republican In Name Only (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

List of liberal U.S. Republicans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

-- Jreferee t/c 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• You do not need a DRV to create a redirect or to add information to another article. You can do the latter, and anyone with an account can do the former. Was there anything else, or any reason you wanted the AfD (which looks perfectly valid to me) reviewed? If not, this DRV can be closed. Chick Bowen 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as deleting admin. See my comments in the AfD for why. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). It failed during the AFD discussion due to a lack of reliable sources. No new sources have been offered in this request for review. Several options were offered during the AFD to turn this page into a redirect. If the community decides that's warranted, it does not require the undeletion of the pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist the issue was not raised of consistency. Its hard to argue for keeping RINO and not DINO. Its time we paid some attention to these things DGG (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • RINO hasn't been nominated for an AFD discussion since 2005. Consensus can change in 2 years. GRBerry 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per DGG, and because I find it hard to believe there isn't sourcing for this. I will investigate Zell Miller to find some. Xoloz (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment lack of sources alone sahould not result in page deletion. Sources are not difficult to find. If RINO is defined, then surely DINO is also defined. Just Google it, maybe you can find something. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Permit recreation as nominator per substantial new information (below). No AfD#2 is needed. Also, even though the article was a BLP problem magnet, it probably needed more supervision rather than deletion. Recreation does not require the undeletion of the page history (which is a BLP mess).

• Newsday (October 23, 1994) Campaign '04: Some Democrats in Name Only Many of Assembly's GOP incumbents face weak, poorly funded challenges in Suffolk. Section: News Page A55.
• South China Morning Post (July 24, 2004) A democrat in name only. Page 2.
• Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004) The Charleston Gazette Dinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
• Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005) The Hartford Courant Democrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
• Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005) The Charlotte Observer Out of the mayor's race, Cannon fires off shots. He criticizes Madans, McCrory, "Democrats in name only." Section: Local; Page 5B.
• Boston Herald (January 11, 2006) Editorial; Where DINOs now roam Section: Editorial; Page 28.
• Zremski, Jerry. (July 12, 2006) The Buffalo News At times, Higgins votes with the GOP. Record on key issues prompts liberals to attack congressman as "Democrat in name only". Section: News; Page A1.
• Ashby, Charles. (August 20, 2006) The Pueblo Chieftain GOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
• Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006) Times-News Many local voters are Democrats in name only.
• Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A rare bird joins the Washington Aviary. But will Jim Webb, a Democart in Name Only, turn out to be a dynamo or dodo? Section: Editorial; Page H3.
• Koff, Stephen. (August 16, 2007) Cleveland Plain Dealer "You're a Democrat in name only" Ex-candidate Hackett reveals Kucinich slam. Section: Metro; Page B2.
• Google books
• Google scholar

-- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with recreation, though I still endorse my original deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Croctotheface's arguments were at least reasonable, and prove that the term is not a random neologism. Those arguments appear to have had a fair amount of support towards the end of the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Recreation makes much more sense to me than restoring or relisting. The original article is full of unsourced, POV speculation about who is a DINO and who isn't. Jreferee has provided a great list of sources above. A new article should be started with those. Chick Bowen 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at WINO, someone asserted that it means "Whig In Name Only" as a disparaging term for members of the United States Whig Party. I'm not sure if that is true, but it seems that there might be a X In Name Only article that can serve as a master article on these topics. -- Jreferee t/c 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, possibly recreate Too much of the content is not permitted under WP:BLP. The article explicitly described the term as an attack phrase, and then went on to describe multiple living politicos as being one, without sourcing and while attempting to say why they are one, again without sourcing on the reasons why. This isn't a new issue for the article; it was part of the nomination reason in 2004, years before BLP existed as policy. Having concluded that the existing article should not be restored, I haven't checked the newly identified sources to see if they provide enough substance to allow recreation. GRBerry 03:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the issue with recreation is that a lot of the content is bad, why not just omit or delete that content and re-create as a stub? If people add new bad stuff, it can always be reverted. Croctotheface (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To avoid recreating BLP concerns, I think the DRV closer can restore the text that does not mention anyone by name. We can let the "naming names" start a new and monitor the situation a little better. -- Jreferee t/c 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, none of the original would be restored. The only source is a blog, Daily Kos. That's simply unacceptable for a controversial term. It needs to be restarted from scratch. Chick Bowen 23:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. The lead paragraph seemed to have some good non BLP information, but it probably would be better to restart from scratch and use reliable source materials. -- Jreferee t/c 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Recreate/relist/whatever the term is for having this article. I believe that this was, at the time, wrongly closed as a delete. I believe that my arguments were persuasive and caused a significant number of editors to support keeping the page, and therefore there did not exist a consensus for deletion. On the merits, I believe all of my arguments from the AfD stand--including those about sourcing, which Jreferee has expanded upon greatly, and regarding content (basically, remove bad content from the article, don't remove the article from Wikipedia). I fail to understand how Friedman unit, whose AfD looked similar except that there was much less robust sourcing, was closed as "no consensus to delete" when this one was closed as delete. "DINO" is a much more salient and widely adopted term than "Friedman unit", and it deserves an article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sky Eats Airplane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD) (DRV#1)

This is a real band. An abusive admin deleted their page, but they are legit. check www.myspace.com/skyeatsairplane, these guys deserve a page, just like any other band. Deletion appears to be due to someone not liking the band. -- 63.228.207.219 (talk • contribs • logs) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - While there might not be enough reliable source material to include a Sky Eats Airplane article, there still is reliable source information that could be included in a relevant, existing article. See dailypress.com. (Post copied from here. -- Jreferee t/c 19:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, dallasnews.com, Newsday, daily press. -- Jreferee t/c 19:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse again as per discussion in prior DRV. If there is enough content for an article, write one. The old thing was not a viable Wikipedia article. GRBerry 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Salting Deleted four times between Feb and May 2007 by four different admins, before finally being salted by User:Eyrian. I'm visible as the final deleting admin because I later converted the page to cascading protection, but I did not do any of the content deletions. Given the history of repeated recreations, I would really prefer to see a version created in user space that passes WP:BAND before the salting is lifted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Whether the band exists is not the crux of the deletion argument. My left foot exists, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But we do! (Sorry!) Chick Bowen 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Come back when you can have a sensible discussion that does not involve the usual argument of "an abusive admin did x,y or z". Nick (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I sincerely regret your decision of deleting the article about Megalithic geometry, because I believe Alan Butler's now 8-year-old amazing theory deserves at least an article here. His hypothesis, again, has been covered by renowned British and French media. What is more at least 3 people in the Wiki discussion (apart from me) supported the idea of merging the 3 articles into one rather than deleting the whole. Maybe 366-geometry is not as famous as UFO's or Nessie, but still, here it is, whatever we can do or think. For example, as far as I'm concerned, I came to know about it back in 2001 - six and a half years ago (!) So why not merging the articles into one, for example by deleting the superfluous and adding more details of the hypothesis? And may I stress that Butler's theory is very convincing. What is more it seems (to my knowledge) unassailable. In Britain, for instance, it counts many supporters. So what we have here is a coherent, well-supported, covered-by-reliable-and-independent media (such as the London Daily Mirror, Radio France International and the Guardian) hypothesis that offers a plausible explanation of the origin of geometry (366-day calendar giving birth to 366-degree geometry, later transformed into 360-degree geometry). I'm sorry to say that none other single theory I've read either on Wikipedia or in countless historical mathematics books seriously explains the origin of the 360-degree circle. So again, why not leave at least one article on Wiki? To sum things up very clearly: Butler's discoveries look more than NOTABLE, hence my appeal.--Snicoulaud (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I read "I believe Alan Butler's now 8-year-old amazing theory deserves at least an article here" some place else on Wikipedia, but can't seem to locate it. I thought it was at a prior DRV. On a different note, the topic seems to have sources Google books and Google scholar. There is a 1986 Journal of Archaeological Science article entitled Stone circles and megalithic geometry: an experiment to test alternative design practices. It might be wacky math, but that is not a basis to prevent an article from being written. -- Jreferee t/c 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• We also have Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to assist in keeping fringe throries in balance. -- Jreferee t/c 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also a full Wikipedia article on the Megalithic yard with plenty of references to 366-degree geometry in it. The Megalithic yard being cardinal in Butler's demonstration, there is absolutely no valid reason to dismiss an article about 366-degree geometry (again, to state it clearly, the Megalithic yard is only part of the 366-degree system: to be clear, divide the 40,009-km polar circumference of the Earth in 366 degrees, each of these divided into 60 arc minutes, each of these divided into 6 arc seconds, and each of these into 366 equal parts, you end up with a length of... exactly 82.96 cm, the exact value of Thom's Megalithic yard).--Snicoulaud (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Background - A megalith is a large stone which has been used to construct a structure or monument, such as at Stonehenge. Megalithic geometry is a geometry system based on the stone dimensions and their use. It is based on a belief that the cavemen didn't just cut big rocks into rectangles and place them in circles, but did so based on math principles that are different than modern math principles. -- Jreferee t/c 00:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until a rewritten, evenly balanced, NPOV draft is created. The problem here isn't the notability of the topic, it's that the original article was pushing one particular theory (the same one being aggressively pushed in this DRV). Reliable sources do exist to create an article with this title, but it would have to give equal space and weight to all notable theories on the subject, not just one. Chick Bowen 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Didn't mean to sound aggresive. Just didn't understand why the article was deleted whereas Megalithic Yard wasn't. I think someone else than me should write the article, might be the best thing, don't you think? --Snicoulaud (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Megalithic yard has never been listed at AfD. You also might want to check out Pseudoscientific metrology AfD and Standards of measure in Medieval Europe AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I've now redirected Meg. geometry to Meg. yard, as that seems to be the most sensible current solution. Chick Bowen 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
        • So shall I add the paragraph about Megalithic geometry within the Megalithic Yard article?--Snicoulaud (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and redirected. There is no new evidence offered to overturn the AfD. Xoloz (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was deleted citing CSD:A7 - I feel that it was unreasonable to delete this article (as well as Runnymede Hotel) as they have been live very little time and have had no time to evolve. If the article needed more development I think that this should have been flagged instead of choosing speedy deletion. Is there any way that this article could be restored? The content on this page could possibly have been seen to be limited but it was factual and I believe that there is a good reason to have this information available trough the Wikipedia as many other related hotels have their own pages. As I am fairly new to making edits on the Wikipedia it may be that I have misunderstood the reasons for deletion and - if this is the case - perhaps it could be made clear why the page was deleted without discussion. Thanks, Jonathan Ellis (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article had been there for 6 weeks at the time, which should have been enough to say something substantial and find some reliable source for it-- if there was something to be said. If there is, re-creates in user space, and come back to show us. DGG (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete - The article did not indicate importance/significance. WP:CSD#A7 applied. -- Jreferee t/c 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As the deleting admin, I endorse the deletion, but am more than willing to help the editor by shifting the information to their personal sandbox for work. :) Jmlk17 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. Can I ask that the content from The Athenaeum Hotel and from Runnymede Hotel is moved to my sandbox so that I may work on it? Jonathan Ellis (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, see User:Jonathan.ian.ellis/Sandbox/The Athenaeum Hotel and User:Jonathan.ian.ellis/Sandbox/Runnymede Hotel. --Stormie (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Contested Prod --evrik ^(talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

GOOOH - Get Out of Our House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Originally deleted for lack of verifiable citations. Since then a book on the subject has been published and made available on Amazon and Barnes and Noble called Revolution! A New Plan for Selecting Representatives by Tim Cox. There has also been an article on the movement published in the Austin American Statesman with a WebCitation at Liberty Hill man wants to shake up politics . There many recorded radio interviews listed at the GOOOH web site at GOOOH in the News. I've perused other articles on Wikipedia with less references than this so I would request a List or an Overturn. Bogdan Odulinski (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Permit recreation - Substantial new information. -- Jreferee t/c 06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy but send to AFD. While there is new information which defeats a G4 speedy deletion, I am still doubtful that the subject is of sufficient notability to have an article. If restored, move to either GOOOH or Get Out of Our House with redirects from the other and the current title. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse my deletion. I am not really competent to judge, I am apathetic about British politics and care even less about American politics. However, I do recognise blatant COI when I see it. Bogdan's profile on the GOOOH website. I also note that they have 26 members signed up - which don't exactly bode well for notability. (There is also a fallacy in the whole concept: it don't matter how you elect them - they will still turn into politicians once they get to Capitol Hill!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as recreation is premature. Especially with the COI issue, I would really want to see the revised version before it is restored. Suggest a withdraw of this DRV, userfying the old version, and then a new DRV once a well sourced and NPOV version has been created. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  People might not want to devote time to writing a full version of the article until it's been established that the subject is inherently notable enough to merit one. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist per new information. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Send to AFD. I think that the addition of some sources (and the increased notability they imply) is enough to re-list the page at AfD, rather than speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. (That being said, if this were an AfD discussion, I would go for the article's deletion.) Bluap (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I had speedily deleted the page as a recreation of deleted content, but I hadn't looked too closely at the differences. The article is not written in an encyclopedic style and reads more like an ad than an informational page. ~MDD4696 20:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Send to AfD it's worth the discussion at least, and the closer agrees he's not competent to judge. sure, it is about as stupid as possible but perhaps that's the reason for the attention. DGG (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The Google book by Cox is a party pamphlet, the Austin Statesman article mostly furnished by information from Cox. I don't see enough new independent information to overturn the clear and unanimous Afd. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Trialsanderrors. As he says, there is new information, but it stems from sources highly likely to be unreliable. I don't think this provides sufficient weight to overturn. Xoloz (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Article appears to be untrue after further investigation. The discussion on AfD was frozen by non-admin shortly after it was started and the decision was keep. I researched this dialect and found nothing of substance to corroborate it. Most of the links are misleading and deal with Islam or a connected word in the article's title not with a possible Indian dialect. Also, several individuals from this region of India have chimed in on the Afd page and on the article's discussion page and said this is not a dialect. I know people in this region of Kerela who also said this dialect does not exist. There does appear to be an Islamic (Arabic) connection in the region but it does not claim to have its own dialect from what I can tell. There is a connection between the Arabic (Mappila) community in Kerela, and the actual language of the people Malayalee but I feel the primary contributer is a bit confused on this being an actual Indian-Arabic dialect , using original undocumented information and not substantiating the article. He is choosing to list multiple links to the Islamic faith unrelated to the article. The article looks good in format but is basically not true. Either further research is needed or the article and links to it should be deleted Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Based on what I can see this looks legit... but it is an area that I am unfamiliar with and not going to spend an overt about of time to fully investigate.Balloonman (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• The early closure was executed by a non-admin. While the current weight of opinion was in favor of keeping, the discussion did not meet the strict speedy keep criteria for early closure. I have administratively re-opened the debate. In my opinion, the length of time that the debate was closed is not enough to justify resetting the clock on the discussion. Let the reopened discussion run it's course. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note : In the Malayalam wikipedia, there was an article named Mappila malayalam, which was redirected to Arabi Malayalam ("Arabian malayalam"). The discussion in the talk page seems to indicate that nobody there is aware of anything called Mappila Malayalam (but that a version called called Arabi Malayalam does exist). I'll drop a word in the talk page of a few users there. Tintin 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

This page was redirected to his brother, Ryan Leaf, who was an NFL quarterback. Brady Leaf was the backup quarterback for the Oregon Ducks football team, but since a recent injury to former starter Dennis Dixon on 11/15/07, Leaf is now the starter. Oregon remains a top 10 team in the NCAA football polls--this will result in increased notability of Brady Leaf; by way of comparison, all the other starting quarterbacks in the top 10 have their own articles. In addition, the starting quarterback for #10 Oklahoma was injured and replaced by backup Joey Halzle, who has a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I propose that this article be once again created as an independent page. --Esprqii (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note that the page is currently a protected redirect with all history undeleted. This is a request for unsalting. GRBerry 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support the redirect college players, even if they are on top 10 teams, are generally not notable. Being the brother of a notable person does not change that fact.Balloonman (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse AfD/unprotect/allow recreation - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. No reliable source material was presented in the request so there is not anything new to review. Protection seems a little harsh, so unprotect. -- Jreferee t/c 06:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I revised my position to allow recreation per Scientizzle's post. The AfD was four Wikipedia years ago (3 months = 1 Wikipedia year). Since the AfD, there has been substantial new informaton (per Chick Bowen), at least enough to justify getting a fresh AfD on record. Permit recreation and let the chips fall where they may. -- Jreferee t/c 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unprotect Change of status makes an article at least feasible. If there are still notability issues they can be discussed at Afd once the article is written. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but unprotect and allow recreation. There's no suggestion the original deletion result was wrong - it was over a year ago and nobody has challenged it. But circumstances change, so decision should not be indefinitely binding. We normally allow good faith recreation of articles and do not speedy if anyone can overcome the original reason for deletion. In practice that may mean that any admin should feel entitled to send the contents to a recreating user or restore the article if asked reasonably for GDFL reasons. Page protection (after editing contents, a no-no) is a bad administrative call because it circumvents this process, and should be immediately lifted. Wikidemo (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect and allow recreation. Circumstances have changed since the AfD. Here are some good, independent sources from the last few days: [5], [6], [7]. Chick Bowen 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The first one source linked is a blog, and the last one is a local opinional, not reliable 23:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret (talk • contribs)
    • I assembled them fairly hurriedly. But columns in independent student-run newspapers (i.e., the last one) do meet our reliable sources policies. There are briefer discussions in non-local papers, and many lengthy discussions in Oregon papers. Chick Bowen 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's the newspaper of the University of Oregon themselves, isn't indpendent and college newspapers are rarely reliable, and normally biased This is a Secret ^account 03:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect & allow recreation...There appears to be plenty of sources now and the AfD was over a year and a full season ago (and I question whether the folks participating knew anything about either Leafs (Leaves?) since they all called Ryan Leaf "Bryan"...amusing at least). I really don't understand why the protection was ever necessary. — Scientizzle 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unprotect Recreate. Per above, but also seems to pass notability. Jmlk17 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt. This seems to have been protected recently based on a rather old AFD, and I'm not sure it was warranted. If he's going to be starting for a highly ranked 1-A team, I think that's significant enough to allow an article to be created. If he stays in the slot for long, I'm sure sources will show...otherwise, well, the redirect can always come back. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)