Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8

User:Alansohn/Gordon Wilson (CEO) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

While the deletion of the original article in mainspace may have been justified, this deletion covers the deletion by User:JzG, of a userfied article, which had been restored by an admin for the purpose of expansion and sourcing using the ample reliable sources available. Admin JzG's rationalization for deletion, that this was "end-run round deletion policy", flies in the face of Wikipedia policy, which explicitly offers restoration of an article in user space as a means to address issues raised in a deleted article. This DRV also covers User:Alansohn/Jeff Clarke (CEO), which was deleted using the same excuse. Alansohn 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the outcome of this is to restore, please perform a history merge with the originals, as the userified articles have none of the history of the originally deleted articles, which is, I believe, a potential GFDL issue for us. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point; if the result is undelete I shall history merge. TerriersFan 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, great idea, and while we're about it let's recreate all the other articles on company executives written by the company's employees - or at least those where said employee has made a long-standing practice of agitating for restoration of their walled garden of articles. Hmmm. I wonder how Alansohn got to find out about those articles in the first place? I don't see him in the edit histories, and I'm sure he wouldn't be watchign my talk page looking for ways to piss me off. What could possibly be behind this? Guy (Help!) 00:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete Both articles are referenced at Travelport, yet another one of JzG's deletions overturned at DRV, which I have been working on as a New Jersey-based company. As JzG seems to be utterly unable to separate his administrative role from his personal vendettas, it's probably time to firmly remove the administrative mop from his hands and place it where it might be more useful. Until then, I have gathered sources to expand both articles with independent reliable and verifiable sources, with the goal of satisfying notability to even JzG's own arbitrary interpretations and will do so as soon as the latest in JzG's reign of error is undone. I had tried to address the issue with this admin and recommended that he pass the articles on to someone else to update as he himself had suggested, only to have the request (you guessed it) deleted. Alansohn 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you restrict yourself to comments on the merits of the deletion in this debate and save comments on JzGs merits as an editor for his talk page or dispute resolution. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete I know very little about the company (other than that it and its subsidiary Orbitz clearly satisfy WP:CORP based on some brief Googling), but I see no reason why Alansohn can't be allowed to improve these two articles in his userspace. JavaTenor 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn for two reasons - firstly policy, there is no speedy deletion criteria that covers "end-run round deleetion [sic] policy", and secondly userfying deleted content so that it might be brought up to the standards of the encyclopedia is allowed, if/when it is moved to the main space it can be re-afded if someone thinks it is not up to standard. Viridae^Talk 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Undelete (as userfying admin). Both articles were deleted, entirely properly, by Guy as corporate promo pages. I received a request from Alansohn for the userfying of these articles to allow these pages to be sourced. I AGF and userfied. Because a page has been deleted as, effectively, corporate spam doesn't mean that the subject is inherently non-notable, nor that it cannot be brought into compliance with policy, simply that much work is required. I made it clear, and Alansohn fully understands, that there must be no suggestion of bringing the pages back into mainspace without each statement on the pages being closely sourced and the articles unequivocally meeting WP:BIO. Sadly, personalities have crept in and this is distracting from objectivity, on both sides. However, no argument has been adduced to show that userfying was improper. TerriersFan 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn userfying to improve an article is a perfectly valid thing to do. --W.marsh 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD#1 | AfD#2)

Inappropriate close Pilotbob 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wait a few months, then relist it if you still feel compelled to. This does essentially fall short of the conditions outlined in WP:SK, but I agree with Kizor's comment concerning asking the other parent. We shouldn't demand very long grace periods following XfDs closed as no consensus like we would for those closed with a decisive result, but renominating it after just a few weeks is pushing it slightly too far, in my opinion. I don't mean this as an accusatory statement (you've done nothing unreasonable), but as a genuine request, please don't tickle the border between sufficient and insufficient grace periods -- I think everything would be smoother if we just stayed out of the gray area and renomonated after everyone is satisfied. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist at discretion, since editors seem to feel strongly about it. Just please be sure not to ignore the recent discussions which covered the same issues in the second AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist; "Premature" isn't a valid reason for a "Speedy keep" when the previous AFD closed as "no consensus" (as part of a group AFD) one month ago, and the consensus here was already for deleting it. I have seen many articles nominated for deletion less than a month after the previous AFD. I've seen some re-nominated four days after a previous AFD which weren't speedily kept. I have no opinion on the article itself, but the closing was wrong. I agree that there should be a time limit to allow editors to improve previously nominated articles, but one month is more than reasonable. Masaruemoto 22:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist is reasonable, it was not a "keep" it was "no consensus", and it was a group nomination at that, so it's fair to consider this one separately. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist The previous AfD was not a keep, and thus affirming notability, it was a no consensus. Furthermore, it was a multiple listing, which are proccess killers. Finally, it was a month ago. All of these things combined make it a fair listing, and thus should be relisted. I (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. There is process abuse and forum shopping at times but a month is plenty of time for a no-consensus default-keep to have undergone sufficient improvement (or not) for reappraisal. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per the above. A month is plenty of time for a no-consensus close. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, let it run 5 days, and see if consensus can be formed.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - For cross reference purposes, please see:

--Jreferee t/c 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• relist, improper close, improper closing reason, and improper person to do the close. Corvus cornix 19:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - Rules of thumb are three months between a Keep AfD#1 and AfD#2. Less than three months between a no consensus AfD#1 and AfD#2 (depends on the no consensus reasoning and can be as short as a day). As Guy points out, AfD#1 was a group no consensus, so it would have been fair to immediately consider this article separately at AfD#2. On month passed between group no consensus AfD#1 and AfD#2, the closer had a conflict, and the close reasoning was not justified. -- Jreferee t/c 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist definitely, improper close; deserves proper uninterrupted discussion. -- Ekjon Lok 21:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to withdraw this request at this time. I am under investigation for sockpuppetry (WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob) and don't feel that Wikipedia is well served by continued discussion on this issue. After these issues are resolved, I may renominate this, but don't feel that is appropriate at this time. Pilotbob 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, and note that one cannot withdraw a request once it's already had this much support. It's clear that there was a consensus forming at the previous AfD to send it to a Wikia or fansite, where it belongs; that discussion should be allowed to continue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thats fine, I just didn't want to be involved with these AFDs right now due to the accusations of sockpuppetry. Pilotbob 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Pdelongchamp/Zeitgeist (video) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article is rigorously sourced and asserts its notability. Notable sources stem from the United States, to Ireland, to New Zealand. The film is notable for having been selected for screening at the 4th Annual Artivist Film Festival on Saturday, having attracted massive interest[1] and having been downloaded approximately 5 millions times on Google Video.[2] (and about another 2 million times on youtube[3]). Previous unencyclopedic versions of this article have been deleted and salted. This DRV is by request of admins that want to see a reliably sourced userspace version in order to properly reinstate it. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please assume good faith. If it makes any difference, I'm as much a fan of this movie as I am of What_the_bleep_do_we_know. That is to say I personally think the film utilizes pseudoscientific techniques to bolster it's arguments. From misleading claims of suppression and excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the preordained conclusion to a focus on anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the vast majority of current data supports the predominant theories. However, I do consider this bullshit movie to a notable bullshit movie and one that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, the fact that it has been created and recreated so many times should give us an incentive to give a genuine attempt at recreation it's due respect in DRV. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - clearly notable, discussed, and often-watched. That we dispute some of its methodology is beside the point. We are here to report on our the world around us, whether we agree with facets of it or not. Such a downloaded and popular movie, regardless of its merit, deserves an article to explain it, if not for those who wonder about its veracity. It should be called Zeitgeist (film). --David Shankbone 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Someone has already said that Zeitgeist, the Movie is the official title and should be the article title which makes sense. When is it appropriate to add (title)? Is it appropriate in this case? Pdelongchamp 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC) btw, i just reread my reply and it sounds confrontational. there should have been a "I agree, the title isn't appropriate." before the first sentence. Pdelongchamp 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Although I have my doubts about the notability of almost all of the sources, I think that a relist is in order, so that others can look at the sources for themselves. I don't know the Scoop, so I don't know how accurate it is. I don't know The Stranger, so I don't know how accurate it is. The Arbiter - student newspapers are generally not reliable. The News Blaze mention is just that, a mention in a list of what movies are showing at a film festival, so that's no much to go on. The Irish Times article is, I guess, somewhat a claim of notability. Corvus cornix 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Although in principle I agree with the questioning of those sources, I caution the desire for us to always wait for the Mainstream Media to point out that something is a phenomenon. I realize this is an issue when it comes to sourcing, but phenomenons overlooked by the MSM should still be given our consideration. --David Shankbone 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist There is enough sourcing here to be worth an AFD discussion. The article falls far short of adhering to WP:NPOV, given the sources, but since the sources exist that is an editing problem, not a deletion problem. (Flagrant example - letting it sound like the reliability of the film is merely criticized, when the Kinney review closes with a reminder that even the producer has said "It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth . . .".) GRBerry 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good point, I'll review and see what I can do about your WP:NPOV concerns. Pdelongchamp 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was cool with this being relisted before, since this version looks scads better than before. --Haemo 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - the sources are still sketchy in some cases (IMO), but it's at least sourced and worth an AFD discussion to see what consensus turns up. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist at AfD - In the last DRV, I posted properly formatted footnote strings. Your draft's references lack dates, author names, and Wikipedia links to the source and otherwise do not meet the citing sources style guideline. I think this may work against your efforts, especially if the single purpose accounts show up at the AfD. Before the article is listed at AfD, you should considered Request for comment or Wikipedia:Peer review. -- Jreferee t/c 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I updated the source templates and included an article from The Globe and Mail. Pdelongchamp 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. Sorry, but I still don’t see enough non-trivial coverage by reliable sources to overturn the consensus to delete established at AfD and confirmed at the 1st DRV and 2nd DRV. -- Satori Son 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - As was mentioned in a previous discussion, this article needs to be bulletproof before it is put up yet again. I do not think the sourcing yet shows bulletproof notability. Also believe it is jumping the gun by at least a few days. This festival it is being introduced at has not even happened yet. I also have a problem with the use of the term "massive interest" without overt attribution. Yes, it says that in one source, but it is not verified as "massive" in any way, so that word needs to be directly attributed to the source, and not just stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. These rapid-fire recreations only make it harder for me to make a finding of notability, not easier. At the very least, wait until after the festival, and hope that there are a few RS mentions that come about from it. - Crockspot 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good point on the "massive interest". I changed it to "public interest". Readers can now determine themselves from the sources if they consider the level of interest to be "massive." Pdelongchamp 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and wait another six months at least. I am heartily sick of the relentless campaigning to get this on Wikipedia, and bringing it back here every time another passing mention comes up is only reinforcing that. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I'm as tired of the campaigning as the next man, but this looks like a good faith attempt at producing a passable article, and it's sufficiently different to version which was originally deleted to deserve its own hearing. For me it probably barely passes notability, but that's jut my view - if you follow Crockspot's suggestion and wait until after the festival there might be a few more sources which would give it a better chance of passing an AfD. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've reviewed the userfied article, and while they're making an effort, it is still a conspiracy theory. There are few news sources, and only two that I would consider notable - The Stranger (which is, as a Village Voice paper, so marginally reliable it's almost not even marginally so), and the Irish Times (which itself calls it, in not so many words, a nonsensical conspiracy theory film, and gratuitously makes fun of the film). I will give the authors and producers kudos for their passion, but that isn't something to save this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete How many times do we have to endure this utter waste of everyone's time? This is just a silly youtube video peddling baseless conspiracy lunacy seeking to get spurious credibility by appearing on Wikipedia. The articles authors aren't interested in writing a properly balanced piece, which would point out repeatedly that it's complete bollocks, but are just trying to spam their pet project everywhere and every chance they get. This may sound a bit harsh but the author of the Zeitgeist article left a message on my talk page informing me about this deletion review and asking me to comment, so I have done.

Let's remember what this 'film' is about:

"Part II: All The World's a Stage Part II argues that the United States was internationally warned of imposing attacks, that NORAD was purposely confused on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and that the World Trade Center buildings were underwent a controlled demolition. Additionally, the film arguments that some hijackers are still alive, the Bush administration covered up details in the 9/11 Commissions’ Report and that a plane never hit the Pentagon.

Part III: Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain Part III attempts to describe how the powerful bankers of the world have been conspiring for world domination and increased power. According to the documentary, the rich of society have been using their wealth to increase financial panic and foster a consolidation of independent competing banks. The film details a theory that the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States was created in order to steal the wealth of the nation. It showcases the amount of money that has been made by these rich few during World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War and now the war in Iraq. It describes the goal of these bankers as world power over a completely controllable public." The reason the film lacks proper sources is because it was written by, and appeals to, twelve year old lunatics. Nick mallory 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nick, please don't insert claims of antisemitism in the article without a source. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When you're peddling a film which exists merely to push ridiculous conspiracy theories don't pretend to get all offended when you get called on it. I actually edited the article on your page to add some sources debunking its silly assertions - the international bankers conspiracy for example - I trust you've left them in there to balance the piece as per Wikipedias neutral point of view policy? Nick mallory 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked, the sources I added on the article - which gave an alternative view of the validitiy of these conspiracy theories- have been removed. Colour me stunned. You ask me not to make claims without sources, having removed those very sources yourself. Nick mallory 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who reads the history and checks the discussion page will know this is completely misleading. That's all I'm going to say. Pdelongchamp 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - There's only eight sources, and of those, one is a very good one, two are trivial mentions, one is straight "this is what's in it", one is a youTube link to the movie, one is a mention of the upcoming screening, one is the claim of "multi-million phenom" only, and Globe and Mail is a pay-only article. for something that claims to be such a phenomenon, the lack of mainstream coverage even to debunk it is strange, and the very small number of non-trivial sources even from indy media doesn't really reinforce its notability. There are Windows patches with high download numbers, but we don't have articles on them, because they don't have any impact. The theories in the film aren't new; it's just that the watchers of the film haven't read other sources. There's nothing about the film that makes it any different than any other conspiracy film - how "suppressed" can it really be on YouTube? In short, I concur with the need for the article to be bulletproof, and it is not. MSJapan 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse deletion I feel like the film is approaching notability, conspiracy theory fodder or not. However, since it's already been through so many itterations on these lists, I'd rather see it get a little futher before going back to AfD. As mentioned above, waiting until after the festival may bring in some non-trivial, notable sources that aren't there yet. Most of the sources at this point are a bit weak. One or two more I think would put it over the notability threshhold. Scott.wheeler 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Enough sources to establish that the issue of deletion should be at least revisited. There are problems with the article in its current state, but they can be solved by editing it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Notability issues are not something that can be fixed by editing. We have notability standards that require non-trivial reference to reputable sources. If reputable sources discuss the film in a non-trivial manner, then we will have sufficient information to summarize in a neutral encyclopedic article. Let's not let vigorous efforts at self promotion cloud our judgment.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find it strange that editors continue to argue against self promotion when I feel that I have made my views on the film pretty clear in this discussion. I am, however, happy to report that two excellent sources discuss the film in full. The Irish Times article and The Globe and Mail article. Copies of both can be found on Google with little to no digging. Pdelongchamp 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, your efforts to promote your film through Wikipedia just aren't going to work. Wikipedia cannot be used as a springboard to create notability -- it's the other way around.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• This comment is seriously lacking in good faith. What reason have you to believe I'm trying to promote the film and who is Tim? Pdelongchamp 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If Morton thinks that Pdelongchamp is really someone named "Tim" who is somehow associated with the film and thus promoting it then he should provide evidence for that connection--it would obviously be highly relevant to this deletion review and should therefore be made explicit. Argument by innuendo generally does not get one very far--be it in DRV comments or in conspiracy-mongering films like the one we're discussing here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Agree with others that sending this back to AfD may be a bit premature, but the Irish Times, Stranger (certainly a respectable weekly newspaper, it is indeed like the Village Voice but I don't see why that's a problem), and Globe and Mail articles do establish at least a low level of notability in my opinion. It probably would have been better to wait until after the screening at the film festival for this (too late now obviously), but by the time this hits AfD maybe there will be new sources to talk about. I feel it's inevitable that we will (and should) have some article about this film as it is quite a phenomenon and presumably will be for awhile (personally I haven't seen it and don't intend to anytime soon). Pdelongchamp's version seems like a decent first effort and has the advantage of not being written by a rabid partisan of the film (though I'm sure they will be drawn to any new article with a quickness).

FYI, I did a Lexis/Nexis search on the phrase "Zeitgeist the movie" (which turns up exact instances of that phrase, including those with a comma after the first word) and got exactly 5 hits for the last year on all newspapers, blogs, tv transcripts, etc. In other words there do not appear to be other significant sources that we are missing, at least not yet. Thus I think the film passes the notability bar barely and arguably not at all, though the screening at the film festival will increase its notability somewhat.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Pdelongchamp contacted me out of the blue asking me to comment on this article, which I duly did. As I don't think he agreed with my views on the film he is continuing to badger me about it on my talk page. I've told him there and I'm telling him here that I don't think this film is notable and I don't think it should be on Wikipedia and no amount of um..pleading on its behalf by him is going to change my mind. He apparently thinks the film is rubbish as well but takes issue with my disdain for it, which is a bit um, strange. He states on his first comment here that he thinks the film is 'bullshit' but then writes that it's had 'massive' interest and includes virtually no material pointing out that its claims are idiotic. One might think the lady doth protest too much but assuming good faith I've added a couple of short quotes from the Irish Times article he is so keen to trumpet here. The Irish Times called it 'unhinged' and 'surreal' of course but as he is so eager to proclaim a disinterested stance about the films veracity, however strangely that sits with his obsessive interest in seeing it on Wikipedia, then somebody who really thinks it is 'bullshit' won't be jumping to remove them again. We'll see. Nick mallory 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would invite everyone to review Nick Mallory's talk page before jumping to any conclusions. Everything after "He apparently..." in the above comment was added after he thankfully decided to read through the DRV. Nick, I removed your Irish times Review quote from the introduction. Let's wait until the festival is held and then we can create a formal review section. Pdelongchamp 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

why remove the quotes? You yourself called the Irish Times piece an 'excellent' source earlier on and now you remove a quote or two from it from the article. You think the film is 'bullshit' but remove a quote which agrees with your opinion? Your rationale here is making no sense whatsover. Remember you asked me, out of the blue, to comment on this film, which I have. I'm not close to this film at all, I'm simply giving my opinion on its notability, as you asked me to do. Nick mallory 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of yet another conspiracy theory notable only to its promoters and within its walled garden. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Many of the people posting here, particularly Nick Mallory and Pdelongchamp, are too close to this issue to offer an unbiased opinion as to what should be done. I think it's more than reasonable to wait until after the premier at the Artivist Film Festival to make decisions about this article. A side note: for me, the issue of this article is upsetting because of wikipedia's inability to incorporate or validate underground media. If an article is on a topic that isn't in the mainstream, then people jump on it and send it down the river with little consideration for the fact that there have been very few films in recent years to gain such widespread distribution without mainstream media backing. This is a deep flaw in wikipedia, even though there isn't much alternative. Were I in the mainstream media, I would absolutely discourage my peers from publishing anything relating to Zeitgeist, the Movie because it would be dangerous to my source of livelihood. If someone can make a movie with nothing more than editing software and distribute it to literally millions of viewers for free, why would people go to the movie theatres? (I don't know how to sign my posts because I'm an idiot when it comes to using wikipedia, but if someone knows how to and wants to do it for me, I would appreciate it if someone deleted this parenthetical text and replaced it with a signature for me.)

• I realize the issue is the reliability of the sources that cover a given topic. But, does anyone have any reason that The Stranger is an unreliable source other than that it has a smaller readership than Washington Post? Or is that enough? The Stranger isn't mainstream enough, therefore it's completely unreliable. Everyone who has seen the movie and read the article knows that the journalist is completely reliable in his report on the subject. (I don't know how to sign my posts because I'm an idiot when it comes to using wikipedia, but if someone knows how to and wants to do it for me, I would appreciate it if someone deleted this parenthetical text and replaced it with a signature for me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, per WP:SPAM.--MONGO 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. WP:SPAM does not really apply here in my opinion, I think endorse deletion comments need to revolve around lack of notability, which is obviously a perfectly legitimate point of view on this. The userfied article is certainly not clear-cut spam, and in order to think that it was I think we'd have to assume the user who made it was misleading us when they deemed it a "bullshit movie." Certainly other past creations of this article were probably blatant spam, but this current version seems like a good-faith effort to create something encyclopedic--at least so far I see no evidence to the contrary.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally, only lack of notability (substantial new information) needs to be addressed. For this article, there are two hurdles. The first is behavior. E.g., will the SPAs come out of the woodwork to muck things up? Mongo's WP:SPAM post seems to address the first hurdle. The second is lack of notability addressed at a new AfD. Only if the closer of this DRV thinks that behavior related to this topic is no longer a significant issue will we get to the new AfD. The initiation of this DRV fifteen hours after the close of the prior DRV brings up "Asking the other parent" issues. Also, there seems to be some troubling posts above. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe a low number of SPA editors is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the previous DRV related to the fact that Zeitgeist (video) was incorrectly nominated and deleted per CSD G4. In the end, though G4 was found to be technically inappropriate as criteria, it was decided that the article would need to be userfied and sent through DRV before being relisted. Which is what I'm doing. It's not an issue of "Asking the other parent", SPAs, and certainly not WP:SPAM. Pdelongchamp 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the possibility of SPA's coming "out of the woodwork to muck things up" is seriously a "hurdle" we must surmount in order to decide whether or not it's okay for us to have an article about something than we are in serious trouble. First of all, there's no policy along those lines of which I'm aware, second of all it would be total folly to create such a policy. Notability is what matters here--not the fact that the topic (like many) attracts annoying SPA's. We have many ways of dealing with them obviously, and saying that we won't create an article until SPA spamming on the topic is "no longer a significant issue" has the de facto effect of turning over control over that topic to those spamming SPA's. Also Jreferee's reference to "some troubling posts above" without explaining what or who specifically is causing trouble is, in my opinion, troublesome. Vague insinuations are usually not helpful in any forum.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist as per above. I don't see why editors are arguing about the films content, when this should be an argument about notability. Even if you disagree with the content, that is no reason to have the article deleted or have it remain deleted. It is amazing how some of the american editors above, who claim to support the ideals of the American constitution and the concept of free speech, in practice here on wikipedia, squelch it by agressively deleting content which does not match their own POV, using wikipolicy as a facade. Travb (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul H. Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Biographical article that does not assert significance Dazdude 13:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can delete an article about one of the main people involved in the field of remote viewing for over 20 years. Paul H Smith was an integral part of the military remote viewing program and is now one of the foremost remote viewing trainers as well as head of the International Remote viewing Association. The article clearly showed his input in the field, with multiple text and video references to his credentials. The article also detailed his importance to the subject of remote viewing as he authored the only official Military training manual for remote viewing. This manual serves as the basis for nearly all existing forms of remote viewing. The article is not biographical but clearly shows Pauls input into the field of remote viewing

• Because being involved in the small, closed world of remote viewing is not in and of itself a claim of notability, and nobody outside that world appears to have taken any notice of the guy. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion – I was not able to find one reference to the gentleman from outside of the remote viewing community save for a single mention when he appeared as a guest on a radio talk show called Coast-to-Coast AM. Every other reference was to his own website or to his own blog or to a book he wrote or for which he wrote the foreward, etc. An article's subject should be notable outside of his own community of influence. Consider the following admonition from Note 4 on the Notability guideline: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the first, copyright violation deletion of the oldest two edits. Whatever happens, those should not be restored. I don't sense that this has a prayer of passing AFD, as I can't see that any independent and reliable sources exist on the topic. Even if they did, per WP:BLP1E, the appropriate place to cover is Stargate Project which already has an adequate paragraph on him. So I endorse deletion. GRBerry 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overthrow speedy and send to AfD All that is necessary to pass speedy for notability is that the article makes some claim to notability. The article clearly does. Whatever one things of the merits ofthe subject he works in, its a real subject notable enough for a wp article, & books have been published on it. That the article asserts he's important in the field is fully enough. The notability guidelines are irrelevant to speedy--they're for discussion at AfD. The admin who deleted it as A7 seems to have been confused between the different standards--whether the claims could be verified is not a consideration there, though of course it will be at AfD. -- And "unreferenced is not a reason for deletion at speedy either. DGG (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ..."Overthrow"? —Cryptic 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps DGG has been watching cricket and wants an extra run. Sam Blacketer 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Not much to add to what DGG said; this article made a claim of importance, and isn't blatant enough spam to G11. Inadequate sourcing is a question for AFD to decide; this sort of article should go there, so when it comes back again and again (as they tend to), the admins G4ing it don't get unduly harassed. —Cryptic 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - While Paul H. Smith may be important/significant, the language of the article did not convey it. The article stated that Paul was a major part of the remote viewing project, but it is not clear from the article what "major part" means (sounds like puffery) and did not explain enough about the remote viewing project to get an important/significant from the article itself. I am more swayed by the references listed, but I don't think those get the article past CSD A7. No prejudice against recreating an article that overcomes the reasons for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy and send to AfD, article made at least some assertion of notability. --Stormie 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable fraudster and fantasist. Being a notable remote viewer is like being a notable fairy. If the writers of the article are interested in a balanced article then their lack of acknowledgement that 'remote viewing' might as well be done on a magic carpet or from the top of a beanstalk grown from magic beans is rather puzzling. Nick mallory 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Our personal POVs about the subject of Smith's study have no bearing on whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Garbage article+not near enough sourcing for a biography+POV pushing=endorse deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion' I can't find any reliable sources that talk about him and this has almost no chance of passing AfD. Together with the BLP1E matter I can't see what having an AfD would accomplish other than needless red tape. I am, of course, willing to change this position if non-trivial, independent reliable sources are presented. As a side note, we should probably have Paul H. Smith redirect to Stargate Project. JoshuaZ 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the speedy-deletion and list to AFD. I don't think it has much chance of passing, especially given the comments here but there was a credible assertion of notability and the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith. Give the page it's 5 days of visibilty for the community to discuss. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirelli Internetional Award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page which has been up for almost 2 years and improved as a result of various consensus edits was recently summarily deleted with no discussion based on the assertion that it is "blatant copyvio". The page is a brief description of the Pirelli Award, a brief history of events, and a list of winners followed by some references. I fail to see how this is "blatant copyvio". If there are sentences using similar (or exact) language found elsewhere, then lets correct them, but don't throw out the entire article. Administrator, "Future Perfect at Sunrise" ☼ has so much as stated that he has problems with anything I have authored (see my talk page recent history and his talk page), so I suspect that this unilateral deletion is more punitive than objective on his part. I would appreciate it if some other administrators would review this. If it is copyvio, then I'm OK with taking it down, but I think at best, it might only need revision, and I really doubt that. Firewall 04:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your initial post of January 2006 had as its main section, titled "Pirelli Award," a paragraph that was word-for-word identical to the description at http://www.pirelliaward.com/. This is not a matter of a few sentences; it is, as the deleting admin said, a blatant and unsalvageable copyright violation. The article must be started over, written in completely original language. Chick Bowen 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Due to the nature of the GFDL, the only viable way to remedy a copyright violation in the original version is to rewrite from a blank page. GRBerry 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse it will in this case be easier to start from scratch, for which you do not require Deletion review. (Sometimes an copyvio article can be stubbified, but since the main description here is part of the copyvio, there's no real basis for rewriting.) DGG (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• OK now that it is clear that the intro paragraph is the offending copyvio, I will rewrite it and start the article over again. So I accept the deletion. The intro paragraph was an early quote from Pirelli President Marco Tronchetti Provera where he described what the award was in his own words, and was therefore perhaps the most authoritative source. I should have referenced those words as a quote (I assume quotes are allowed and not copyvio if referenced). Likely there are other Pirelli phrases and buzz words used. The new revision will be from my knowledge as a subject matter expert and I will not refer to the Pirelli site for quotes of any sort. Thanks. Firewall 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Improper evaluation of AFD discussion. I fail to see how this can be considered proper deletion of an article as there was virtually no consensus in either direction. The admin simply took personal feelings on the issue into account, flippantly deciding which user's inputs had merit based on how much they said. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I believe this deletion should be overturned and then relisted in order to allow a proper deletion discussion take place and reach consensus, something the closing admin clearly has no respect for.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the offending admin edited the closed debate in an attempt to hide his rather flippant attitude about the debate. Given the amount of response in the previous AFD for the articles as a whole, more time should have been given for this to flesh out. I would have no objection to this outcome were it actually the result of proper procedure but I can't really see that being the case here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion AFD is not a vote, the delete voters had a valid reasoning, while most of the keep voters didn't (one was a protest vote pasted though many AFDs of the similar game characters, almost all but one closed as delete, another one didn't give a reason to keeping just saying that the article needs cleanup, the last one is per above), with the exception of Oni, and even that was rebutted without discussion. This is a Secret ^account 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Well, the people supporting deletion had support of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:WAF supporting their arguments, and the keeps had...specious claims of notability, and irrelevant precedent worries. Consensus is agreement among editors whose arguments are within policy. Seems like a correct closure to me. I (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, per the above evaluations of the quality of the "keep" rationales. Alai 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse No policy based argument was given to keep this article, whereas many different policies were in my view correctly cited in arguments to delete. Bobby1011 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, delete votes were based in policy, keep votes were not. Recommend that anyone who wants to work on an article on Sylvanas Windrunner does so at [4]. --Stormie 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, deletion arguments based in policy, keep arguments not. It's a fairly open-and-shut case. --Coredesat 07:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Neither the keep nor delete comments, nor the closing, discussed the actual article, but rather such articles in general. The article was listed as one of dozens separated from a group nomination, on the grounds that some might be notable. That needed to be discussed (though not be me, as I know nothignabout the subject). The listing of dozens of them separately all at once at AfD is an abuse of process--the intent of splitting the first AfD is to give an opportunity for such discussion, not for saying the smae things about each article. In fact, an erroneous nomination altogether, as the nominator admitted " the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. " Relist with relevant reasons. Frankly, a bad nomination like this should be thrown out immediately. If a nom can not be bothered to discuss the article, he shouldn't nominate it. DGG (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. None of the arguments presented by either side were particularly compelling. As per DGG above, the arguments should have ben about the article and not a class of articles - and should be relisted until the discussion is more germane to the topic. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - The AfD nomination itself was compelling and set clear policy issues that needed discussion for this article. The keep reasoning avoided discussing the policy issues, particularly the lack of third-party sources. Each delete posting cited to policy - strong arguments that were never overcome by any part of the discussion. The closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse clear and unambiguous delete reasoning. MLA 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• relist per DGG. Also, this one in particular is a very major character. I'd be surprised if people familiar with the genre could not find independent sources about her. (I'll go hunt around for a few - I've found two already which mention her [5] [6]). JoshuaZ 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I may make re-DRV this at some point in the future but right now I can't find enough sourcing. JoshuaZ 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, close was well within the bounds of administrator discression. Neil ☎ 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the fact remains, no out-of-universe source material=no article, no matter who likes it. There are fansites and Wikias for a reason. And as always, good on the closer for reading the unbolded words rather than counting the bolded ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion There isn't a shred of material in the deleted article or presented yet in the DRV (including JoshuaZ's pair of mentions) to support an article on her that can comply with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), as there is no real world significance or context described in any of the sources. I don't see what needs to be merged elsewhere either, so deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was within reasonable bounds of admin discretion. Rossami (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Starkey International Institute for Household Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The afd for this article was closed based on the closer Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)'s apparent misunderstanding of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and a flagrant disregard for both Wikipedia:Consensus (the afd had three participants, one of whom wasn't in favor of deletion) and Wikipedia:Notability. The BLP concern highlighted is iffy - the questionable sentence had a source, so the issue is whether the source is reliable. If it was determined that this sentence didn't belong in the article (which it wasn't, the closer instead taking it upon himself to make that determination), then the sentence could be removed until a better source was found. However, instead of resorting to a reasonable method of resolving the issue, he just deleted the whole article, listing the pathetic excuse for a deletion debate as a reason. When I asked him about, he not only refused to undelete and send it to a proper afd, he suggested I was guilty of writing a non-neutral "attack page". If consensus here determines that I wrote an attack page, I'll happily resign my adminship and leave the project. As to notability, the institute has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources - Richistan (2007) by Robert L Frank, this article in The Campbell Reporter, and this article in The Times, to mention three. I request this deletion be overturned as nonconsensual and unsupported by policy. Anyone who cares to should feel free to send it to a new afd - as long as this afd contains more than three participants. Picaroon (t) 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion Picaroon is taking this overly personally. I asked him or her to write a neutral BLP-compliant NPOV article. Rather than doing so, he wants some WP:POINTy wikidrama to threaten to "resign ..adminship and leave the project". Since s/he hasn't cared to write such an article, I can only conclude one cannot be written. As for the afd, it's not a vote and no quorum is required. This article reads like a pot-shot, and the critical passage unsourced. I don't have access to the book cited as a source, but its title gives no indication of significant coverage - a passing mention perhaps on page 277? The other two sources are weak: 1) in a small local paper, Starkey is mentioned off-and-on in an article focusing on how hard it is to find good governesses and butlers, and 2) looks to be an alternative muck-racking paper. No major mainstream media coverage. The coverage in 1 & 2 is about what one would expect for a typical nursery school with some upset parents, barely newsy, certainly not notable. Carlossuarez46 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Drama? Not in my eyes. If the community thinks I don't understand the BLP policy, I think the best thing for me to do would be to leave. We can't have anyone, especially an admin, violating the BLP policy. "Since s/he hasn't cared to write such an article, I can only conclude one cannot be written." I don't care to write such an article? Actually, I already wrote one. An anon added one questionable sentence, someone nominated it for deletion, and instead of reverting, you deleted the whole article. As to sources - do you think the Campbell Reporter is an unreliable source? If non-major papers are automatically unreliable, there's a lot of content we need to start deleting. "This article reads like a pot-shot, and the critical passage unsourced." No, one sentence was critical, and it was sourced. There was no underlying problem with the article, nothing that couldn't be solved by removing the sentence and its source. I have no opinion on the source, but it's a falsehood to say it wasn't there. "As for the afd, it's not a vote and no quorum is required." No, a quorum is not required. But consensus is. That debate did not garner consensus to delete, and should have been relisted. Picaroon (t) 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• You think that all take out restaurants mentioned as significantly in that paper are notable for that reason? C'mon, it's a school with minimal notability, that falls below the WP:N - if this is notable, then any restaurant with two reviews in local papers makes the grade - and certainly any middle school, nursery school, elementary school. That's not our notability guidelines. When it's coupled with an unsourced critical sentence, it's better to have no article than a wrong one for such a barely notable institution and reflecting on its owner. If you want to restore the version, pre-anon, feel free; I will nominate it at afd again and we'll see where it goes. Carlossuarez46 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist DGG's unrefuted point was that the article was in fact sourced. Looking at the deleted version, he is correct. That takes it out of the BLP deletion area. Send back for a discussion on notability, which really didn't occur. GRBerry 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist; Speedy close - I went through the AfD history to make sure someone didn't delete part of the discussion. Neither the nominator nor the two AfD participants took a delete position (or a keep position for that matter). There was no consensus; there wasn't even a deletion discussion. From my own search, the topic easily has enough reliable source material for it, but that is for an AfD discussion. I don't think this DRV discussion is presenting its experienced participants in the best light, so a speedy close of this DRV by some kind admin would be most welcome. -- Jreferee t/c 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist one of those sources is actually an article from The Atlantic Monthly whose reputation is sterling. The other is a book published by Random House. Also, I think we can assume good faith that Picaroon of all people isn't making stuff up that's not in the book. --JayHenry 01:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)