Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 2

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

MaNGOS is very important open source project for MMORPG game server core , it can simulate World of warcraft very smoothly, altought to establish a public wow server is illegal. actually lots of illegal wow server s are based on this project, regardless it breaches policy and license of MaNGOS. So please keep this article. This project is very interesting. Lielei 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I looked at this while it was tagged for G4 deletion. The only significant difference that I saw was this new link/reference. http://www.gotwow.ic.cz/, (World of Warcraft Emulation History v2.99|date=2007-08-29|accessdate=2007-10-31|author=Jan Josef Oudrnický), a PDF file to be accessed from that link rather than directly at it. I wasn't able and willing to open the file on this computer in this location. Even if it is a reliable and independent source (I think the second is likely, the first dubious), this would be only one reliable and independent source. I didn't do the G4 deletion because I hadn't looked at the new source, but I didn't see how it could possibly be a sufficient enough change to address the concerns of the AFD. I am thus included to endorse deletion, but could easily be persuaded to relist if multiple reliable and independent sources can be found. GRBerry 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion and the half dozen others subsequent - the Afd discussion generated no new sources; the one new one since is discussed above by GRBerry and it doesn't change anything - it too is not an independent reliable source. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• This project is bit different, in terms of independent source, there are many: [1], [2], [3]. There is one news article in Chinese website title is “Open source implementation of world of warcraft server” which is analysis of the structure and software architecture of MaNGOS server and also the legitimate issues. The links are (but in Chinese): [4], [5], [6], they are also adopted by google news China. Myself has installed different versions of MaNGOS and tested them which can validate the creditability of this article. However, the license of MaNGOS itself forbids your publicly discuss install MaNGOS as World of Warcraft server. That is why there are rarely good independent source to have serious discussion of its software and development issues rather than lots of installation guide. Underneath Blizzard Entertainment pressure, a few similar projects had been taken down. However the open source game server emulator is very interesting phenomena for both open source community and gaming community, in terms of software, legitimation and community ecosystem. Among them, MaNGOS is most famous project. If you ask any people who contribute open source online game project, they would know MaNGOS project. And if you know any people who setup illegal wow server, they will definitely tried MaNGOS. Another reason for me to protest is the previous deletion based on “no notability” which seems to be ridiculous. Although the developers deliberately keep low profile, but you can check the statistic of SVN commit out in sourceforge: [7] Every single day it has over 2000-3000 read transactions, which is obviously greater than some other open source projects which have names in wikipedia. I just feel a little bit arbitrary to close this item and feel sorry for that wikipeida doesn't include such interesting article. and some one may suspect Blizzard is behind this. - Lielei 09:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Lielei's notes about server hits etc are irrelevant to notability. The three links provided are simple how-to guides, rather than discussions or commentary on the significance of the software. (As an example of the trivilaity of howto guides when assessing notability, one small piece of utility software which I wrote a decade ago has three independently-written usage guides, because each of the three known users wrote their own notes on their very different configurations of it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and salt - The reasons you desire to recreate the article seem to be 1. The license of MaNGOS itself forbids publicly discussing installation of MaNGOS as World of Warcraft server, so Wikipedia should risk litigation and publish this information. 2. No reliable source has ever contacted people who contribute to open source online game projects and asked them about MaNGOS and this makes MaNGOS famous. 3. The MaNGOS topic is interesting and very important to you. The best way to get DRV to agree to recreate the article is to prepare a draft article in your user space using only information from reliable sources that are independent of MaNGOS. Then, return to DRV and request that the article be recreated using your draft as the next post. With six speedy deletes after a September 2007 AfD, the only way I see this article being recreated is with a footnoted draft. -- Jreferee t/c 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and salt per Jreferee's excellent breakdown. You can't go on "just ask anyone", because that fails WP:RS and WP:V. An argument that the RS don't exist is not only illogical (if it does have any use beyond this one "illegal" implementation, why doesn't anyone discuss that?), but doesn't really solve the problem of lack of sourcing. At the very least if it's this notorious you'd have articles ABOUT the secrecy. This is sort of akin to a certain businessman's DRV below in which he claims that the sources don't exist because he pays a PR agency to suppress publicity. Ohhhhkay. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - The reason for this decision is that MaNGOS is a free alternative to World of Warcraft service. The World of Warcraft article masquerades as an advertisement and as an soapbox for Blizzard entertainment products and services, see the pricing section in the WoW article which is blatant advertising (no pricing on MS Windows Vista). We will continue to see articles about the elite and commercial products covered more (see systematic bias) because the policies of Wikipedia support media bias towards affluent infomedia and entities of high authority who cater to other affluent individuals hence more bias coverage towards commercial products and services. MaNGOS is tied closely to the Warcraft universe, so any real official reporting would be self incriminating in the United States ...admittance to using unauthorized WoW universe content and breaking blizzard EULA admittance of using a WoW client to non blizzard server. Blizzard uses the EULA and scare tactics to force people to use their servers. Also when you read [8] (the http://www.gotwow.ic.cz/ article that covers some other emulators other than MaNGOS), it tells the story about the legality of emulators (DMCA) and how MaNGOS's leader trys to avoid legal conflicts with blizzard and the work that went into "the core" (software design) of MaNGOS. The deleters are only censoring the fact of the existence of this free server alternative (as opposed to blizzard's own servers) which users can use. Readers and researchers are left with questions: What exactly can a WoW emulator do? Is there any product that I can use to make my own MMORPG? How usable is this piece of free software to create my own MMORPG content? Why do I need to speed +$100 dollars towards Blizzard is there another alternative software/service I can use other than WoW. How better or worse is it compared to the "real" server? And the obvious, Is MaNGOS illegal and why? Deleters ignore the fact that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. To delete is article software, we do not provide a truly free alternative (to the fair use text on many blizzard WoW universe articles in Wikipedia) and only encouraging the monopoly blizzard has over WoW service. Also WP:CITE/WP:V only says for material that is likely challenged. As with notability, there is bias towards commercial legal alternatives and not free software...you can cite all the reliable self published sources in the world but not even close to the quality threshold. MaNGOS has been shown on YouTube but yet policy suppresses this. None of the material in this article is highly controversial and can be verified though the wowcz article. Also the motion to delete with 1 vote was not WP:CONCENSUS. The administrators are only based their deletion track record on the mistake of other admins who did not carefully check the reasons why for deletion (initially notability) are now formulating new grounds and reasons to delete now. Two of the admins play commercial popular games had a need to speedy delete MaNGOS article which left an impression of bias towards commercial games and misunderstanding of free software. - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very sharp and critical comments indeed. I wish I could write clear English as you. The main purpose of restoring MaNGOS is not because this article is important for me but is because wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia which allows people to freely, neutrally record important term/item which happens in our society. The legality involved in item/term/article itself can be questionable. But that should NOT prevent people from talking about it. The extreme example might be like "Wikipedia delete s Hitler Adolf because he is criminal". In this situation, wikipedia cannot keep MaNGOS, because the legitimation of this project is problem. Apparently, no notability is the direct reason for deleting this article, however, most people know MaNGOS is famous underground. And due to the reason you mentioned above. The are few sources which official discuss it because of avoiding legal hassles. This actually damages the impartiality of measurement of "notability". Since big company and business control the rights of voice. It appears the Cultural hegemony has polluted the freedom of wikipedia.Lielei 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice try, guys, but Wikipedia does not exist to promote free software just because it itself is a free information product. You are both imputing, without evidence, bad-faith motives of other editors, when the simple matter is that your software project falls short of our requirements for reliable sourcing. You offer reasons why the reliable sourcing doesn't exist, but no justification for this unsourced information being in Wikipedia other than that you think it's important. The one thing that is going to get this back into the encyclopedia is coverage in independent, credible sources. The day that happens, you are welcome to recreate or come back to DRV with a sourced draft. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and salt per Jref's well-reasoned comments. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment MaNGOS has been mentioned in the book "Exploiting Online Games: Cheating Massively Distributed Systems" authors "Greg Hoglund; Gary McGraw" publisher "Addison Wesley Professional" ISBN 9780132271912. Mention in sections "Emulation Servers (Private Servers)" and "Conversions and Modding". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was definitely a far cry from notability when first written; however, I substantially rewrote it and thought it conferred clear notability. I believe the closing admin either did not take this into account or chose to ignore it. may not have taken this into account. Apologies for assuming bad faith. GlassCobra 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment for closing admin I took into account all arguments raised and the additions made to the article after it nomination. This AfD was dominated by a family member[9]diff Infoguardian (talk · contribs), while this wasnt consideration for the basis of deletion Infoguardian comments needed to be considered within the boundaries of WP:COI. There was a number of comments by Infoguardian each comment was individually assessed as to what was being put forth. What it came down to was as per WP:NOTABILITY;

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined. emphasis add by Gnangarra

So what did I find, the subject wasnt covered in any significance, held office bearer positions for political subbranches, officer bearer positions with local community associations, failed political candidate end result was deletion. That said restoring for limited time period to user space to further address the issues raised in the AfD is a consideration, it would require the addition of more substantial sources. expressing my opinion based on what I've read in the sources I dont think that there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Gnangarra 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Gnan - I think GlassCobra's assumption of bad faith language in the above DRV nomination was inappropriate and I think you did a fine job on a difficult close. -- Jreferee t/c 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't read it as a bad faith comment more as reflection of my short closure explanation. Gnangarra 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. I don't believe any procedural issues exist, and it's pretty clear that while the subject is politically active, she falls short of WP:BIO in both inherent terms and general notability terms. The four sources provided (as visible in cache) are little more than evidence of that activity, but are not significant discussions of her or her influence. I am sympathetic to the related editor; my own mother was a politician at one time, but while I'm quite proud of her accomplishments I recognize she doesn't belong here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure/allow recreation - The reliable source material tells a story of an important person from an important family and there is enough new material (see below) for the topic to meet WP:N. There likely is more reliable source material in Muslim newspapers in New Zealand, which typically are not online. Here is some information: (1) Hoby, Hatherine. (December 10, 1998) The Press NZ land of milk and honey. Section: News national; Page 2 (article entirely about the Abaza family, including Ola); (2)Airey, Mavis. (December 10, 1998) The Press Pulse of a nation. Section: Features Food; page 14. (article entirely on Tarek Abaza and Ola Kamel's eating habits). (3)Waikato Times (April 29, 2002) Here's how they stack up. Section: News national; Page 2. (4) The reliable sources also go into detail that, from 2002 on, the New Zealand press often went to Ola to get her Egyptian view on relevant international matters. This lead to her becoming spokeswoman for the Muslim Association of Canterbury in 2003. Her resignation as spokeswoman made the news - (5) The Press (February 10, 2004) Kamel resigns. Section: News National; Page 3. - but she indicated that she "would continue as chairwoman of the multi-ethnic branch of the Labour Party." The newspapers continued to seek her opinions on Muslim issues and Muslim woman issues and by October 2004, the press was referring to her as Muslim community leader Ola Kamel. She began writing letters to the editors as early as 1998, but her letters beginning in 2004 receiving significant responses in the newspapers, likely because her opinion was considered important by the New Zealand newspapers and newspaper readers. There is an unrelated person in England going by the name "Ola Kamel Mostafa", whose real name is Mostafa Kamel Mostafa. -- Jreferee t/c 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm...do you have access to these somehow? Can we use these as references for the article? GlassCobra 17:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:African American baseball players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This doesn't look anything like a consensus to me, especially given that the nominator struck out his/her own nomination. This was then cited as precedent for eliminating all African American sportspeople subcategories, and this latter discussion had far less consensus to delete/merge than the first. Note that I didn't participate in either, but this just doesn't look right to me. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn both as keep/no consensus. Race has obvious connections to professional athletics (recruiting, international competitions, historical and arguably current discrimination, etc.). Not everyone who reads the Jackie Robinson article is going to want to trace every other black professional baseball player, but that's true of any category -- the links are fairly unobtrusive, so there's no need to hold them to very high standards. Rough consensus was that the categories should be kept. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse there is significant consensus that ethnicity + occupation is a trivial intersection; we went through this with German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and bunch of other ethnicities. All sorts of POV can be made about why some ethnicities' occupations are deserving of category status while others aren't, but alas it's just POV. For players prior to the integration of the majors, we have Category:Negro League baseball players. Afterward, African-American baseball players don't play baseball any differently than German-Americans, Latino-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc. We have no article African-American baseball playing as should be expected for this to not be WP:OCAT. Fundamentally, these race/ethnic classifications do a grave disservice to the encyclopedia - why should we be in the business of classifying people by race/ethnicity. And as I said before, these will inevitably be used to push various POV - like the "Executed illegal aliens" category now under discussion. If you keep this, how could you delete Category:African-American murderers, Category:Latino-American criminals and all similar ones other than pursuant to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can't. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• While German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and other ethnicities may not make the grade, the U.S. Federal, State, and Local governments are obsessed with all matters African American. Because of this, African American stats permeate all aspects of life in the United States, both government and non-government. This include African American baseball players. A Google web search for African American baseball players reveals significant hits. Also, take a look at Google books, Google scholar, and Amazon books. I agree with you on the German-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and other ethnicities, but African American is in an entirely different ballpark. -- Jreferee t/c 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Based on that you'll defend Category:African-American murderers and all other negative categories as the obsession runs both to the positive and negative. No thanks. What the US government obsesses over doesn't necessary merit Wikipedia categorization unless we'll soon be adding Category:Axis of Evil to Iran and North Korea, per the US government's obsession there, too. Another no thanks. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just because a category with racist implications (like your African-American murderers example) has implicit connections to identity politics doesn't mean that any category connected to identity politics has racist implications. It would be ludicrous to say that there's no difference between publicly portraying a race positively and portraying the same race negatively. The Axis of Evil example is also a false analogy since considering historical phenomena in assessing significance is very different from arbitrarily assuming that some assertion related to the phenomenon is true (e.g. we have an article on the historically significant axis of evil quote, but the article doesn't say "Iraq, Iran, and North Korea comprise an axis of evil"). — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Racist implications? You are the one wanting to classify people by race. That's the racist implication. Don't you understand that classifying by race means things that you (and I) don't like are (a) likely to be created, and (b) have little NPOV reason for deletion - there's always WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You think it won't happen, while I can WP:AGF that there was no ill motive we have the lovely creation of Category:Illegal immigrants executed in the United States and guess who that's supposed to get at? Hmmmm. If we classify African-Americans by endeavor, like we do Americans generally, we have Category:Americans convicted of murder we'll have the African-American one too, and someone will find some citations that the rate of violence in that community is noteworthy to justify that puppy. Carlossuarez46 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think I understand you entirely. My point is that neutral or slightly positive implications about a race -- like the message that a lot of black people are good at baseball -- aren't really racist. I agree that Category:Illegal immigrants executed in the United States and Category:African-Americans convicted of murder are (would be, for the latter) inappropriate, but I doubt that this category would prompt the creation of such categories (and if it does, they can be deleted easily enough). — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist, but only narrowly and after much changing of my mind as I read through it all. The consistent practice for a long time at CfD has been to require quite a high degree of notability for ethnicity-occupation intersections, primarily for the practical reason that these categories tend to proliferate, leading to category clutter on individual articles and to huge added complexity in the category tree. This problem will be resolved if/when we have dynamic category intersection, but we don't have that yet, so for now we have to carefully limit the number of intersection categories. Such categories are of course also assessed for the relevance of ethnicity in each case.
  There were were indeed some strong arguments made for keeping the category as one of the rare ethnicity-occupation intersections, but none of them offered any evidence for the assertions on which those arguments were based. Without evidence, such assertions amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and without evidence that African-American baseball players are a significant cultural topic in their own right, I would usually have no doubt that "delete" was the correct way to close this debate, which was why my initial inclination was to uphold the closure.
  However, in this case the debate itself seems woefully substandard: not one of the participants even mentioned the relevant guideline WP:CATGRS, relying inside on the highly condensed summary of it in WP:OCAT. This isn't good enough: WP:CATGRS is one of the more complex and subtle guidelines on wikipedia (probably matched only by WP:NOTE), and it is complex because it provides an WP:NPOV framework for assessing subjects where there are several conflicting principles and where passions can run very high on both sides. It seems to me that neither side satisfactorily engaged with the issues, but that even so the deletionists did narrowly have the balance of arguments in their favour.
  I come down in favour of relisting for one reason only: that this debate involved a heavily-populated category and its outcome is being used (not unreasonably) as a precedent for other deletions of many other heavily-populated categories, and it is far too weak a debate to serve that major purpose. It should be relisted, and both sides encouraged to consider the issues more carefully than saying "don't meet OCAT" or asserting its cultural importance without references. I suggest letting the debate run for longer than usual to see if consensus can be reached, and to reinstate only if there is a consensus to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - African American has a special importance in the United States, and African American baseball players is no exception. Seemingly endless reliable sources categorize African American baseball players - See Google web search, Google books, Google scholar, and Amazon books. Wikipedia's Category:African American baseball players is a reflection of this. The delete reasoning did not overcome reliable source use of African American baseball players categories. Thus, the consensus could not have been delete. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply' The evidence which you cited was not offered at CfD, so is not relevant to what the closing admin found; the admin noted the consensus as was, not as it might have been if the participants had dome some research. You have now brought forward new evidence, which may be grounds for overturning the closure, but that doesn't change what the consenus was in August. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. The decline of the number of African-American players in baseball vs. other sports is an important discussion in American sport and race relations. Corvus cornix 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. It is, simply put, overcategorization by race. I'm not sure why this is ok some of the time, but not all of the time. Might be time to list WP:OCAT at WP:MFD. --Kbdank71 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist - As several editors have already pointed out, this CFD is being used as a "precedent" for demanding (and ratifying) the deletion of other related categories. It was closed shortly after the nomination was withdrawn, at a point when the discussion was really gathering steam. I did my best to make the case for retention, but I was far less familiar with the fine points of Wiki guidelines than I am now. Because of the very serious implications for all other ethnic-related categories, this really calls for a much more broadly-based and thoroughly debated discussion. Cgingold 16:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per BrownHairedGirl. Once upon a time, this was a defining characteristic, but not any more. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm, BrownHairedGirl asked above for the category to be relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: (I already !voted above) - this shows why this category is important. Corvus cornix 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Set for speedy delete, responded, deleted anyway without comment Kingdaddy8 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I originally posted this article, a link to my own blog, because a colleague's blog had appeared on Wikipedia. We both use our political science backgrounds to comment on current affairs. His blog, Fruits and votes, focuses on electoral systems; mine, Arms and Influence, focuses on terrorism and guerrilla warfare. We're both the same type of blog; in fact, Matt Shugart, the author of Fruits and Votes, credits my blog (which antedated his) as part of his inspiration for Fruits and Votes.

I started writing Arms and Influence several years ago because I wanted to make a significant contribution. Even today, public commentary on guerrilla warfare and terrorism is extremely poor, overlooking the past history of similar conflicts, and often not mentioning the principles of military strategy at all.

If the administrator who marked the article for speedy deletion thinks it's really not noteworthy enough (but not a near-identical blog?), I guess I understand. However, I tried making my case before it was auto-deleted, and it was nuked without any response. I still think it's a noteworthy blog; however, I'd at least like someone to tell me why they think it isn't. Kingdaddy8 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)}}

• Endorse own deletion - To say I deleted it "without comment" is a tad incorrect - I noted in the deletion summary, "CSD A7: no assertion of notability...". Our articles on web content are required to state how exactly the content in question is notable, backed by references from independent, reliable sources. Just stating the blog's writer and its subject does nothing to establish its general notability. No sources were given either in the article or the talk page, hence deletion. Resurgent insurgent 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) Articles must assert notability, backed up by reliable sources, to be kept; from the deletion log, it would appear that the administrator who deleted this felt there was no assertion of notability present. A quick Google would suggest that the phrase "arms and influence" gets a lot of hits, but the blog doesn't appear to receive much in the way of coverage or outside references. Endorse deletion - the speedy delete was appropriate, from the looks of things. For the record, I've just proposed Fruits and Votes for deletion, as it doesn't appear to assert notability either. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. I have looked at the deleted article, and it contained neither an assertion of notability nor evidence of it. I personally find the blog very interesting, but (per WP:ILIKEIT) that's irrelevant to its deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PS If and when your blog starts getting serious mentions in WP:reliable sources, and it thereby meets the criteria of WP:NOTE, I'm sure that someone will write a wikipedia article on it (though per WP:COI, you shouldn't write the article). But we're not there yet :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't delete Fruits and Votes. I didn't start this discussion so that I could drag down that article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdaddy8 (talk • contribs)

• Comment If the blog fails our criteria, it should be deleted regardless of your intent. It shouldn't have been here in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Whenever anyone makes a What about article x? argument, the x article usually does not meet Wikipedia's requirements and is deleted. -- Jreferee t/c 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No notability asserted or attributed to independent sources. Being a "noteworthy blog" seems to be a claim of interestingness, not notability. Notability is established by external sources with credibility. Even writing on a narrow subject is not by itself notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I didn't find any independent write ups of the armsandinfluence blog. Has your blog ever been written up such as in an alternate newspaper or military publication? -- Jreferee t/c 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Previous AfD did not address issues with notability. All sources given in article are primary. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is presented. The AfD should probably be relisted for discussion about notability. Subdolous 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, Relist. There is nothing preventing relisting at AfD. This DRV should be closed. Smashville 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Legend of the Green Dragon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Failed notability requirements which would exclude not just this game but also the entire genre MightyE 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) The criteria used to execute the delete is that it lacks reputable non-primary sources. There are actually many non-primary articles:

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 8, 10

I have avoided adding those articles to the Legend of the Green Dragon article because policy forbids me to edit an article on a subject in which I am personally invested. If these aren't considered notable, then the entire genre is considered notable since they are the only sources which would discuss games like this. In which case, the genre should be purged, including all of the related articles, which also fail the same notability requirements. (Battrick Cthulhu Nation Cyber Nations Earth: 2025 Hattrick Horse Isle Informatist kdice Kingdom of Loathing Jennifer Government: NationStates NukeZone Ogame Orion's Belt Game Planetarion Popomundo RuneScape DragonSpires Shadowmere Stellar Crisis Stick Arena Travian Urban Dead Utopia X-Wars) I'm not asking that all of these articles be purged. Instead I'm suggesting that in notable but not-well-established genres (especially up-and-coming genres like browser based gaming) will not have secondary sources which pass muster with the recently delete happy nature of Wikipedia since secondary sources are now considered the primary indicator of notability. In this environment, rather than being a compendium of human knowledge, Wikipedia will become only a compendium of pop culture, and a history book. The rules for what is considered notable should be more relaxed on works in progress and active cultures and genres which are still in the process of establishing themselves, than they are for now-dead cultures and genres. People are drawn to such scenes specifically because they are not pop culture. Once they become pop culture (which is what is necessary to get secondary sources that Wikipedia now obligates), they lose what made them appealing and what got them to that status, they become a different genre, and if all you document is after this conversion, then you lose what made it great, and you might as well be a wiki version of Entertainment Tonight. -- MightyE 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from Closing Admin. Oh look another case brought to DRV without doing the closing admin the courtesy of discussing it with them first. Having read the above I am not actually clear what the nominator actually wants from this drv since they say they don't want the information purged. The article was redirected per a clear consensus at the AFD and the material can be merged by anyone who cares enough to do this. So what exactly are we being asked to do? This certainly isn't the place to discuss notability policy. Concerning my position, as usual I couldn't care less. I'm always happy to have my admin actions reviewed. Feel free to do something else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• (1) "I am not actually clear what the nominator actually wants from this drv since they say they don't want the information purged" - I'm requesting that the article be restored. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (2) "Oh look another case brought to DRV without doing the closing admin the courtesy of discussing it with them first." - Sorry if those of us who don't live and breathe Wikipedia aren't familiar with what is and is not considered courteous; I followed the guidelines as they were described on the Deletion Review page. Maybe I missed something, I haven't done this before. (3) FYIW, the criteria used to determine lack of notability were WP:Fiction. From that notability guideline, "Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of characters, items, places, and other elements within a work of fiction," which does not describe the article in question. The article was not about elements from the work, but about the work itself. The title of WP:Fiction is not indicative of what it is meant to address. Additionally, the target article, Legend of the Red Dragon also fails the same notability criteria. MightyE —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• The guidelines do say "Consider talking to the admin who deleted the article (or otherwise made the decision) first. There could have been a mistake, or there could be some miscommunication or a misunderstanding, and a full review might not be needed." It's an academic point now, but for the sake of future reviews... --W.marsh 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Props for not bad mouthing the AfD closing admin in your DRV request (as most new requestors seem to do) and for responding with the assume good faith reply "Maybe I missed something, I haven't done this before." You seem to have a good temperament, so once you learn the Wikipedia ropes, you should be able to accomplish what you want within reason. -- Jreferee t/c 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Delete per lack of enough coverage from independent, reliable sources also would have been a reasonable close, but the closing admin did interprete the debate correctly. To my surprise, while there are no independent reliable source coverage of Legend of the Green Dragon, there is plenty of coverage for Legend of the Red Dragon going back to at least 1995 (See, Macon Telegraph archives, search "Legend of the Red Dragon" for the May 7, 1995 Macon Telegraph article "All Aboard!" by Robert Goon.) Go figure. -- Jreferee t/c 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is not my intention to say that closing admin misinterpreted results. The notability requirements leveraged are for fictional entities, and the article is about a fictional work (it is not covered by WP:Fiction, in spite of the name of the notability guideline). It's also my intention to say that under the notability requirements being presented, the entire genre, with its hundreds of thousands of participants fails to be notable. Further, the Legend of the Red Dragon article fails to provide any secondary sources (the same criticism leveled against the original Green Dragon article, and maybe this is pedantic, but the Macon Telegraph article is not about LoRD, it's about a BBS operator; I don't intend to debate the notability of LoRD, but I do think it's an excellent example of the selected notability criteria being insufficient to determine notability, even though the two games are not even the same genre except in a very broad sense). If it is indeed the case that the entire genre is non-notable, then the entire genre should be purged, and not selected articles. Of the articles in this genre, the Green Dragon article was one of the better ones. MightyE 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• For deletion purposes, there is no requirement that an article actually include references. So long as references are reasonable available, the lack of references is not a basis to delete an article. As for the other matters, there is Wikipedia importance/significance notability and Wikipedia reliable source notability. Even though the topic is fictional, the independent reliable source coverage needs to be real. Also, check out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including What about article x? and All or nothing. If you think Legend of the Red Dragon does not meet Wikipedia's article standards, please follow How to list pages for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 16:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• The most persuasive argument you can make at DRV is to present a draft article posted in your user space and say "this is what I want to post in article space." I suggest writing a draft Legend of the Green Dragon article in your user space at User:MightyE/Legend of the Green Dragon (draft). Use only material from reliable sources that are independent of the Legend of the Green Dragon and anyone having a relationship with those connected to the Legend of the Green Dragon. Footnote each sentence to a reliable source, then return to WP:DRV with the draft and request that the article be recreated using your draft as the next post. Just about in every case, a well written, sourced, draft userspace article presented at DRV zooms to Wikipedia space. -- Jreferee t/c 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the biggest concern here is the lack of independent, reliable sources from not only this game, but everything else from this entire genre. If we were to get CNN attention, I do not believe we would be discussing notability requirements in this deletion review. The fact remains that most of this genre, if not all, does not get the kind of coverage that is required to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, because Legend of the Green Dragon is the sort of game that gains notability through word of mouth, not through main-stream media sources. While I do not advocate the deletion of articles under this same genre, I do feel that it is important to readdress the notability requirements in light of the genre, and decide whether or not browser-based games in general should fit inside the scope of what should stay in Wikipedia. If it is, then it might be useful to reconsider what constitutes a reliable, independent source. Finally, I would like to point out that the issue of deletion on this article was brought forth before, also on grounds of notability, but the decision to delete it was overturned purely based on the number of active players who were present in this game's various servers. I do appreciate the question wwwwolf raised - "Plus, do we even have notability criteria for online games, anyway? Especially MUD-like systems?" -- X-Kal 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse No reasoning given that would cause us to overturn a perfectly reasonable AfD closure. The "articles" you give are perfect examples of the kind of stuff we don't consider to be reliable sources: blogs, user-submitted blurbs, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD#1 | AfD#2 | MfD#A | MfD#B | COI)

completely revised article at User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac needing to be transferred into mainspace with blessings

Hello reviewers. Historically, first attempt at article was a train wreck, with no citable references, crashing and derailing everywhere in its flow, and then rightfully, AfD decision was delete amongst some controversial debate. Deleting admins suggested I should look at a complete rewrite or WP:STUBbing article and inviting others to expand it, which is what I did, and again, it got nominated for a second AfD. The result, again, delete was more for a reason that the stub really lacked any information that proved notability, as I concentrated on only 2 achievements that were more to do about an event or company and not about the person. Again, it was a right decision, and based on such I fear contributing here, especially when it comes to the work I have done on getting this notable Australian Businessman wiki'ed.

The reason why I have bought this article/subject to deletion review is not because I disagree with the deleting admins closing comments in both cases. Its because the article has been rewritten according to deleting admins thoughts and I fear the wrath of salting or anything else to happen to my efforts to add the complete article back into mainspace. The only area that I believe that the article falls over on is providing more citation for claims, which would be easily fixed in the short term by adding a "citation" banner at the beginning of the article.

I really want to move on and have this article out of my userspace as it should be an item or work for other people to contribute to, and if its in my userspace its not a place where it can be exposed to further collaboration easily by people that I do not know of yet that have further information pertaining to subject. The main source of the article I have rewritten is an interview I did with the subject of the article and one of his colleagues and is about to be released in credible media publications. I do understand that it still lacks sources for absolutely everything apart from the "horses mouth", but I believe the current list of sources in references is sufficient reason to have this complete article here at User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac out of my userspace and into mainspace. It will most likely get others to contribute by cross referencing with media articles that pre-date the late 1990's and others who will see and concur with the article and information from the subject himself, and may add or edit it themselves as well. Considering that once this article moves from my userspace I will promise to continue to track down and add more sources to the article to concur with its contents, I thank you all kindly for the time and effort in your review and help in moving article to mainspace. regards, T--T3Smile 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - Rdpaperclip (talk • contribs • logs), T3Smile (talk • contribs • logs), 60.241.91.14 (talk • contribs • logs), and Achidiac (talk • contribs • logs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• This might be helpful... first AfD and second AfD. -- Ben 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD was a sockupuppet and personal-attack-filled mess, but consensus was perfectly clear: this was, and still is, a grotesquely puffery-filled vanity article about a thoroughly non-notable person. WP:COI by itself isn't reason to delete an article, but blatant spam / hopeless self-promotion is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - There is no reason to move WP:OR to article main space. Restructure the article using Template:Biography, use only material from reliable sources that are independent of Anthony Chidiac and anyone having a relationship with Anthony Chidiac, footnote each sentence to a reliable source, then return to WP:DRV with the draft and request that the article be recreated using your draft as the next post. -- Jreferee t/c 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was only able to find a few blurbs on Australian entrepreneur Anthony Chidiac. However, there is a lot of information on Florida, United States obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Anthony Chidiac, so please feel free to rewrite the article to be about Dr. Anthony Chidiac. The information I found on Australian entrepreneur Anthony Chidiac is: (1) ITNews.com.au October 24, 2001, (2) Press release November 13, 2001 (3) Internet.AU July 2, 2002. The collective of this reliable source information would support a statement in the Opulent article that Chidiac was Opulent's CEO in 2001. That's about it as far as mentions of Chidiac within Wikipedia. -- Jreferee t/c 15:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Smashville 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hi Andrew, others, look you need to drop this claim of WP:COI, or monster.com, self-promotion, spam, or anything that is controversial - its just not true, and no proof means - well, you should drop it as proof without evidence. Traceys request, is a simple request from a wikipedia enthusiast as she is scared of being bold to publish something that is of encyclopaedic value, as the methods in the past that some admins are using on this article are more "last resort" than friendly, hence the flare up of personalities, all directed to the people involved (new contributors at the time) and no assistance was given to the article itself. Wikipedia is a "reference to references" (quote from admin FT2), and Tracey has done a good job in tracking down such references to cover a fair bit about the article on me. I did make it hard for her though. My career feats were mainly achieved in the 1990's - an age where internet was in its infancy and print copy ruled over internet. I don't pay her or others to do so and I could point to sources that would make the article stand up for itself, but it hasn't been my idea to put an article here and its a lot of fun to watch some people behave and only one or two clammering to find source material to back the interview I gave to Tracey and the group. On my request my PR followed through and gave tracey and RP a shoebox full of some material, but there is a lot more I have. You will have to look for it in a place called a LIBRARY :). Its a nice little exercise for the lazy to source material that is not of the internet as some events pre-date it, just like the height of my career in the Music and TV Industries. Some notable others in the hard copy articles are now deceased, and were controversial in the industry. I kept out the controversial pieces to ensure the article was written without such. A quick clue to the intelligent is in the interesting deletion of material in the TV show published on YouTube. I think thats enough clues sherlock. On a constructive/informational note - the Anthony Chidiac in Florida is not me, there are a few Anthony Chidiac's out there - Ones I know are 1) Me (Australia, Melbourne) 2) Sydney, Australia (a Maronite Priest) 3) Montreal, Canada (A Pilot) and 4) Florida (The gyno who got arrested for suspicion of being a terrorist as he was speeding to a hospital to deliver a baby - highly controversial). Tracey mentions above that the article in her userspace lacked sourcing from the internet but a lot of sources came up when the article was put into public space, when others helped out - and thats her point. I did mention that in the past that I had paid a PR Agency to curtail any media reporting about me in 2002 as I didn't like the media circus it was generating and invading my private life. I've only given the ok for Tracey and the uni folk to publish a wikipedia article for encyclopaedic reference, and would appreciate it being neutral in its tone. After all, what is there to promote about me now? - I'm happy with my golf and laid back life and occasional public speech. I have been asked to engage in some big projects post the "convergent cafe" project but its not because of wikipedia. I prefer to stay out of public life too. If this study/media/whatever group want a reference of me on here, then just provide her with the help needed to do such. I'd be amused to see the press articles and references come up again. Can't wait for someone to find that embarrassing pic of me with "MC Hammer" Pants and the one with the "Gods Property" fluoro Blue shirt! Thats when I'd be nominating for an AfD!! The lesson I learned is that you can't pay a PR company enough to kill all media articles. Somewhere, someone still has them. The group only want to share what I did in the past that shaped the industry. I could pay my PR to raise a lot of press again and I could do something that is industry breaking again, but, as I said before, my life priority has changed and sharing the knowledge for the kids sake is more rewarding. Sorry about the heated conversations in the past, but understandably, people got mad because they thought it was a vote and nobody engaged in constructive conversation that shaped an article into a quality one. I fear that this effort of Traceys is going down the same way again. Gosh. Its a reference of references people, not a vote for a president! I'll be back after going to cafe (Mzolis?) for a steak. Scuse the length. --Achidiac 03:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The subject has been pushing hard to get his article here and that makes protestations that the lack of sources results from a desire for privacy somewhat difficult to swallow. When I see claims like he Popularized American R&B throughout Asia by way of producing two series of TV shows, I see resume puffery. The encyclopedic statement is "He produced two tv shows, which according to credible source X, popularized American R&B throughout Asia". Pretty obviously that credible source making the link from accomplishment to notability does not exist, even if it is by design or desire of the subject. This makes the claim insufficient for our notability purposes. I've commented in the AFD on how the Gates video claim really isn't all that significant. I've been the tech rushing to produce stuff for a sales presentation and believe me it's hard work, but it is crucially unsung. It's great for a resume but it isn't the kind of thing that makes one significant. This isn't a matter of "shaping an article into a quality one", it's an article that does not have the substance to be a quality article to begin with, and the sketchy and limited sources that are brought forth to bolster the tiniest corners of it don't at all address the central question. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion This article is written as a puff piece and the references seem rather weak - especially the total lack of inline citations to make it clear what evidence supports the claims made. --Nick Dowling 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi all, I don't think I should be voting because I have looked at other articles here in this area and they all just mainly endorse deletions, interesting observation is that User:Jrefree notes in article above this one "an article does not need to have references" but then in this one to "quote citable references". I would assume in this case that each article has its own set of rules - where are these rules? User:Starblind, with a fake "interlocutor" picture in his profile, claims chidiac article as "puffery". If I had to vote I would say that the article be overturned, and only the six main points in first paragraph on userspace at T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac moved into mainspace, plus current references, and the article STUBBED, with a banner above to get more citable sources for four of the 6 points. FYI, there were not 2 TV Episodes, the first series was 6 episodes, the next series another 10, and the 3rd series had 4 episodes, the 4th episode of the 3rd series did not go to air in Australia. The sources I quote here - SKA TV (St. Kilda Access Television), OptusVision, and ABC Australia Television TV Logs. You would also find it on Wharf Cable (Hong Kong) logs, and if you check the list of Australia Television rebroadcasters througout Asia that took on the Palapa Satellite feed you would surely find broadcast logs of such back then too. I would say that once Tracey visits the libraries and searches through archived magazines and trade papers that she will find the supporting documents. I also believe the Australian Film Archives may have the masters of the series, or it still might be in South Australia at the TV network there (10 Network?) Easier still others who discover the article will be able to reference it with something they read as well, somewhere making it easier on the one person who "owns" the piece for now. Tracey has an eloquent way of writing - sometimes so good it sounds too good but its just good writing skills. She was even honest in her above appraisal of her work. The rest of the article south of the main points she is presenting is long-winded and "storytelling" rather than referencing and could definitely be shortened. But if the stub goes to mainspace (the first section only - leave the pic out too just the facts and the references) then we all can add the references and do in-line citation. Its just too hard to improve an article when it is in someones userspace as it is not easy for others apart from this little group of ours who know what we are looking for. I note that none of the above editors have even tried to edit the article to conform - understandably chidiac himself wont touch it purely because he intends to avoid adverse claims. My projects I set up for my students try to re-address the imbalance in wikipedia of reporting more than just Americans and American Technology as pioneers in the field. This is such an example of the imbalance, and us aussies loathed the World Book and Encyclopedia Brittannica for the same. Chidiac isnt desperate to have an article here (noted above), Tracey is: as she's stubborn to have her first one she started on published. I believe she has made other contributions and new articles on here too. Fact is, Mr. Rove McManus presented chidiacs show back in the channel 31 days, and I'm sure someone could dig that vision up for YouTube fans, it was in a primetime slot! --Rdpaperclip 14:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I posted above "For deletion purposes, there is no requirement that an article actually include references. So long as references are reasonable available, the lack of references is not a basis to delete an article."[10] which you quoted as "an article does not need to have references."[11] I find it ironic that you set you set up projects for your students try to re-address the imbalance in Wikipedia of reporting. In regards to the merits of your comment, the difference between Legend of the Red Dragon and Anthony Chidiac is that I personally have seen enough reliable source material outside of Wikipedia for Legend of the Red Dragon to meet WP:N and I was not able to find enough reliable sources for Anthony Chidiac for the topic to meet WP:N. I listed everything I found for Anthony Chidiac. To move me to agree to change my position on Anthony Chidiac, someone will need to create a draft article on Anthony Chidiac using reliable sources that are independent of Anthony Chidiac. Requesting a draft article to review is common at DRV and is the best way to overcome a deletion. I don't think it is possible to create a Anthony Chidiac that meets Wikipedia's article standards, which seems to be why no one has made any efforts to create such a draft article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Having a show hosted by Rove McManus doesn't matter as Wikipedia notability isn't inherited. If the author of this article is longing to see their work on Wikipedia then they should write about a different topic. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you shouldn't be "voting" anyway as we don't voting here; we discuss. Additionally, it would be nice if you would stick to one account and one account only. These multiple accounts are tedious and blatantly obvious.Sarah 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and endorse the decision to delete. The userspace version needs to be deleted as well, now that this has been through deletion discussions so many times. This article is a vanity puff-piece and the ever-present blatantly transparent sock theater is making it extremely difficult to assume good faith. User:Achidiac wrote above, "I did mention that in the past that I had paid a PR Agency to curtail any media reporting about me in 2002 as I didn't like the media circus it was generating and invading my private life." This claim of a "media circus" in 2002 is unsupported by the actual media. On Factiva there are 16 articles that mention the name "Anthony Chidiac", however, only six refer to this "Anthony Chidiac". Of the six, two are PR releases; of the other four, two are identical (same two articles published in two different newspapers), and none of the six could be described as "significant independent coverage" of the subject of this biography. The Australian New Zealand Reference Centre brings up four articles for "Anthony Chidiac", but all four are the same articles listed on Factiva. These articles span 2001-2005, so if there was a "media circus" in 2002, there would be some sign of it on these newspaper databases. Instead we have 2 PR releases and two distinct, independent articles, one about Bill Gates and one about internet cafes. Achidiac complains above that we aren't trying to fix the article. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us are willing to waste out time working on an article that will never be able to meet our policies and guidelines. It's just an indulgent puff-piece and that's it. The closure of the AfD was correct and furthermore, the decision reached in the AFD was correct. I do not endorse spending any more time on this article, or a "complete rewrite" as requested by the DRV nominator because there is simply no way to resolve the notability and sourcing issues. Sarah 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion definate puff piece with tthe subject seeing a Wikipdeia article as a trophy. The article Internet Cafe was spammed with advertising for is cafe. The most disturbing is that appears to factual inaccuracies. At the risk craeting further article spamming, take the opening 2 sentences of the the article in user space

In 1989, he changed the way in which the music industry edited musical recordings - from analog to digital format. Partnering with Atari and Hybrid Arts, Inc. he first used the ADAP II to edit a song by Michael Jackson and released the song and a body of work through a DJ promotional CD/Vinyl company

this raises some question firstly why if Micheal Jackson was involved in such a significant event was no mention in that article of it. Additionally Compact Disc have been main stream since 1984 by 1989 very little music was released on analogue Vinyls. I havent got past looking at that first CV built point to find collerations between other articles. The user space article should also be deleted in light the apparent WP:HOAX. Gnangarra 02:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to this Digital recording shows that it has been experimented with since the 1930's which only adds more doubt to validity of the claim in the proposed article. Gnangarra 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment dear Gnangarra, the ENIAC wasnt even invented in the 1930's (in fact, it was 1946 and it was only a glorified calculator). I think you meant the 1980's, and the first digital editor that synced to AES/EBU and had Balanced Input/Outputs to produce professional Audio of appreciable length and CD Quality (2 hrs) was the ADAP II. It was released circa 1986-1987 only to major studios, but it didn't work well until I fixed it. :) cheers, A--Achidiac 12:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - This process examines process itself, and is not intended to be a rerun of the AfD. As such, we are looking at the decision, whether it was in line with consensus and reflected policy. I believe that the consensus was interpreted correctly by the closing admin and that policy was properly applied and justified by the closing admin's statement. Orderinchaos 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

comment in this case the requester is asking to return to article space an article that has twice been deleted as such it's appropriate to also consider the article in question in relation to issues raised during the previous AfD's. Gnangarra 08:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with Gnangarra's assessment above. Orderinchaos 10:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

comment hi guys, sorry, I've set up the article to fail. Not only that, but the worst part is people didn't stick to the point either, and I was not putting the article here on DRV because I disagreed with the original two decisions, but am too scared to put it up myself. I think I've gone down the wrong way by coming to DRV, but I have a save that would make everyone feel good about it without it being a waste. It would have been best if I just asked a few of the original admins permission to put up article after they have reviewed it, but as it sits now it would be subject to the same process again as I forgot to cite inline. From some of the info here - one admin thinks its still more puffier than Seinfelds shirt and that means its not neutrally written. I take note of rdpaperclip's comments that the five points could be stubbed, but I would want to clean them up with inline citation to meet general approval. So would you all be ok with me and one or two others working on it again? Assign someone like [User:Swerdnaneb] or [User:FT2] with your blessing to add if this requirement is met, and we leave it at that until more press comes along about a future dated project that will expand the article, hence make more sense to all. A good point raised is that I have only covered the surface of "covering the event, not the person", my stance (as would often be most people) was "cover the person first, than the event". Thats why all I would ask is in this review is that admins OK a quality written stub with inline citations, a small two line paragraph written by chidiac himself about early life to satisfy WP:BIO, and thats it. Can I get a consensus of opinion of this idea? Thanks very much to the people who didnt raise controversial issues that are irrelevant and untrue. T--T3Smile 11:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tracey, I think you were bold to take it here, would have been less bold if you just dumped the article on mainspace!! (joking). All you needed was to get Ft2, Swerdnaneb, and other admins opinion and ask them to move article into space AFTER you do inline citation. I gave you the clues. As you know, factiva only lists electronic publications on companies, not people. I am retired, and don't run a company- its all sold off to a multi-national. As it is, the article is nice, very glam, but I don't own an ark, and my middle name is not Noah and there is no inline citation as you were asked by these admins. Trust the admins, they have made more than 600 edits :)

So, please ask someone to close this discussion and blank it out, because all you are doing is affecting my reputation now, and such further discussion about the topic will not make me happy to point you in the right directions as to how to get the info for your project. Thankyou, and thanks to all of the realist admins that stick to just the facts. Tracey, why dont you just e-mail or call one or two admins so they can verify you are not me and RD is not me or you or - sheesh. Cheers, --Achidiac 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Factiva covers a wide variety of articles from a wide variety of international publications, not just business material. This is why I see articles like, "Cop suspended for handcuffing doctor rushing to deliver baby" when searching for articles on "Anthony Chidiac". Sarah 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We routinely use Factiva for searching local and state newspapers - it has my state newspaper, for example, back to 1996, and the Sydney Morning Herald and Financial Review even further back. I'm also able to see Leader newspapers in Melbourne with the extended search. Orderinchaos 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd go for a speedy close and salt now, per Mr. Chidiac trying to have an article written about himself. Where, anywhere, has your reputation been affected? You are the one wanting an article on yourself. Smashville 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dear Mr User:Smashville you just lost credibility yourself by saying the last comment. Any negative information on a person is just that - in this section - on an AfD - and I failed to make an article good enough and take responsibility for the article without complete citation, I did bad to take it here, and you are not helping sir. T. --T3Smile 07:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are doing this for some school project, I recommend that you give up and pick a new topic. I'm afraid that this subject is simply not notable and the bio is not suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we have standards for inclusion. Hammering this through multiple AFDs and DRVs is not going to change the core problems with this subject. Sarah 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This particular deletion review is one of the strangest things I've seen on Wikipedia and I'd suggest that it be closed before it gets much odder. There's some good advice on the dangers of starting vanity articles at User:Durova/The dark side and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. --Nick Dowling 09:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I stand by my comment. Lack of notability is not affecting someone's reputation. If you didn't want to debate the merits of the subject, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it to DRV. That is the entire purpose of this debate. And - unfortunately - you seem to be taking this way too personally. Smashville 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• T3Smile, Rdpaperclip and Achidiac have all been blocked. That should be the end to this discussion. Smashville 18:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close comment - While Anthony Chidiac might be real, this Anthony Chidiac effort is Wikipedia is nothing more than an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See, for example, this post and this post. -- Jreferee t/c 14:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)