Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 6

Pardus (computer game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I request the Pardus (computer game) page be undeleted, as I feel the decision to delete it was based on extremely biased input.

The suggestion to delete the entry for Pardus was done by user:TheSeer. TheSeer bears a long-time grudge against the moderation team at Pardus; he hosts the site parduswatch.com, which consists of nothing more than criticisms toward moderators and developers associated with Pardus and support for another site which is equally negative towards Pardus.

Over a year ago it was discussed whether to delete the Pardus entry or not, for, I believe, notability concerns. At that time, over a year ago, it was decided that the Pardus entry would NOT be deleted. Since then the game has expanded considerably and gained a significant amount of publicity; deleting it now makes no sense.

Please reconsider this decision and restore the Pardus entry. Thank you. Utchka 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete and send to AFD as a contested prod. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Enhancement Modes in Power Rangers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Just want to transfer the deleted content to Power Rangers Wiki. Could you please let me acess to last content and authors list? Barraki 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Can you specify which Power Rangers Wiki? It needs to be compatible with the GFDL.-Wafulz 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • [1] According to the notes on buttom, it is. All Wikia wikis are GFDL, aren't they? Barraki 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Most, though there are exceptions, as with Uncyclopedia. And then there are other MediaWiki-based sites which are not powered by Wikia, and some that don't use MediaWiki at all. Anyway, I suggest moving to userspace so that Barraki can make use of the old page. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I have given this matter a lot of thought over the past several days, but have finally decided that a review of this AfD closure is still in order. If the consensus here is that the article should be kept, then I can accept that and take further steps to bring policy in line with practice.

Here's the story. On a whim, one day, I typed "Fart" into the search box. Childish, perhaps, but I was bored. To my surprise, what came up was not an article on flatulence, but rather a fairly brief discussion of the word "fart" itself, with some historical and modern usage examples. This seemed to me to be an obvious case of a dictionary definition, and of having two articles on one topic (namely, fart and flatulence, which I consider to be synonyms). I checked the talk page to see if the article had been deleted or nominated for deletion before. I found there at least two instances where its deletion or redirection had been discussed, but no consensus reached, and a couple more cases where a redirection was proposed but no discussion occurred. I interpreted this as consensus to redirect, and did so.

My redirection was reverted, with justification. I had no problem accepting that a redirect without discussion might not be universally accepted. I then took the next logical course of action and nominated the article for deletion. In retrospect, I could have brought this up on the talk page, but I didn't think that was necessary for what I considered a obvious case of a dictionary definition. I had previously successfully nominated the article Booger (word) for deletion (here), and saw this case as nearly identical.

Well the deletion discussion (linked above) was beyond my wildest imaginings. I had thought I had a solid argument, firmly grounded in policy (specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary), but I was heavily out!voted.

Seraphim Whipp (talk · contribs) performed a non-admin, snowball keep closure on the AfD. By pure numbers, the AfD was clearly snowballing toward keep, but I feel that Seraphim Whipp did not sufficiently take into account the quality of the arguments presented. I asked her about it, and she got a second opinion from an admin that concurred with her closure.

Nonetheless, I still feel that the clear wording of the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy -- which I interpret as saying "articles about words go in Wiktionary; Wikipedia is for articles about non-word concepts" -- trumps the reasons given for keeping the article. If WP:DICDEF was only a guideline or an essay, I could understand arriving at a consensus to override it, but it is a policy. My understanding is that policies should only be contravened in exceptional circumstances, and that the arguments presented in the AfD did not make a case that this was such an exceptional circumstance.

Succinctly, an article about the word "fart" belongs in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we do not have articles on the words "heron", "canoe", or "absolve" -- we have articles on the concepts those words represent. Obviously, we do have articles on some words, mostly vulgar slang, but as these are exceptions to the policy, they should be rare and exceptional.

If this discussion concludes that the word "fart" and others like it are valid exceptions to the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy, I think we need to change that policy document so that it reflects actual practice, along with coming up with some guidelines on which words are deserving of articles and which are not. After all, Booger (word) was deleted, and I still at this point don't see the difference between that dictionary definition and this one.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Powers ^T 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. AfD was valid. Furthermore, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" means that Wikipedia does not contain definitions. The article in question is not a definition; it is a history of the usage of a word with a complex past, and in particular, the modern scientific definition of flatulence does not cover the medieval and Renaissance use of the word fart detailed in the article (yes, I wrote much some of that,[now that I like at it, much of what I once wrote in that article is gone] so take it as you will). As for your examples, we do not have entries on the words "heron" or "absolve" because they are not interesting words. We could have an article on the word canoe, which has an interesting history. Chick Bowen 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles contradicts you nearly point-for-point. I note the entry at wikt:fart is rather anemic; that is where this misplaced, article-length etymology and usage guide belongs. Regardless, a disputed redirect is a question neither for afd nor deletion review. —Cryptic 20:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the outcome of the AFD. The article fart is entirely consistent with WP:DICDEF. Please note that WP:DICDEF speaks of dictionary definitions. This article is not a dictionary definition, but an etymology of the word, with its perception in various cultures, i.e. an encyclopedic article. Redirecting fart to flatulence should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note, etymologies are specifically the domain of a dictionary, per the policy page you linked. Powers ^T 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • But this article contains more than just an etymology, and WP:DICDEF doesn't say anywhere that etymologies in themselves are not allowed in articles. Etymologies are allowed, provided the article is more than just an etymology. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. As stated WP:DICDEF does not simply disallow definitions, it defines what critiera make an article more than a definition, which are clearly met in this case. Merger with a more general topic is not automatically indicated. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse considerably more than a dicdef. Carlossuarez46 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. With due respect, is everyone reading a different version of this policy than I am? The one I'm reading says Wiktionary has articles that are "about the actual words or idioms in their title," and this is specifically contrasted with Wikipedia, which has articles that are "about the ... concepts ... that their titles denote." Is an article on the word "fart" not clearly in the former category? Am I missing something blatantly obvious here? Powers ^T 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • One more thing: WP:DICDEF specifically says "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing... are duplicate articles that should be merged." "Fart" and "flatulence" seem to be different words for the same thing. Do you all disagree that they are different words for the same thing, or do you consider that policy statement to be incorrect? Powers ^T 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But the article in question isn't really about the concept of flatulence (although it is of course connected); the article is primarily about the word "fart." An example with obvious parallelism is nigger. The article nigger has many of the qualities of a dictionary definition, but it goes into far more depth than any dictionary would. If we really wanted to meet the letter (in particular, the word "denote") or WP:DICT, we would probably have to move fart to Etymology and usage of the word "fart" or something of that sort, but it makes sense to give a significant consensus supported by a strong precedent (fuck, shit, nigger, etc.) credence over a word which a user added to a guideline without discussion. I think User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words sums up the spirit that most Wikipedians share on this issue pretty effectively. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please Read WP:DICDEF. An Article about the word belongs in wiktionary. The example given; Octopus on wikipedia is about the animal. octopus on wiktionary is about the etymology and usage of the word "octopus". Taemyr 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • See, but this is what I still don't understand. "Etymology and usage" belong in a dictionary, don't they? And isn't the policy clear on that? Powers ^T 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, information on the etymology and usage of words belongs in a dictionary, or at least some condensed form of it. But inclusion in a dictionary isn't mutually exclusive with inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, I think, fairly widely accepted that the line is to be drawn based on substantiality of information, rather than the nature of that information. This is generally supported through the discussion which formed the WP:DICT guideline. Consider this Larry Sanger quote:

But why not just combine a dictionary and encyclopedia, so that we could use the one for the other? The trouble with this proposal is just that encyclopedias provide more information than is typically needed when one consults a dictionary. It would be silly to come to Wikipedia if all you wanted to know is the meaning of the word--and usually, when we (as some of us often do) consult a dictionary, that is all we want to know.

• • • • The point seems fairly agreeable. There are plenty of accessible online dictionaries out there, and including trivial definitions has only marginal benefits for readers. Articles such as fuck or nigger do follow a dictionary-like structure somewhat, but they provide the reader with (relatively) comprehensive in-depth information that s/he couldn't find in a Webster's handbook, and so essentially meet the spirit of WP:DICT. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent summary, XDanielx. Substantiality of information is key. --Dhartung | Talk 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• I assume by "substantiality" you don't mean "length"? Since WP:DICDEF specifically says, "Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited." The important thing to me is not what could or could not be found in Webster's, but what could or could not be found in Wiktionary, which "is not paper either". Powers ^T 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Right, but they certainly do aim for brevity over depth, albeit to a lesser extent than paper dictionaries. Wikipedia has fairly stringent standards for inclusion of articles, and fairly loose standards for inclusion of content within articles; Wiktionary has very loose standards for inclusion of entries, but rather stringent (though somewhat vague) standards for page content. See e.g. Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. In a nutshell, Wiktionary doesn't want detail. Wikipedia has a few paragraphs regarding the question of vulgarity as it pertains to fart; Wiktionary has a few words. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Consensus was clear on the AFD. Taemyr 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So would you say that the policy as written doesn't reflect current consensus? Powers ^T 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Not in general, only in this specific instance. Taemyr 11:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
      • So your position is that in this specific instance, consensus was to override policy? If the consensus is that some words (beyond a few very exceptional ones) deserve articles, as it seems to be, should we mention that in the policy document? Powers ^T 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • There is more than 1 millon articles on Wikipedia. there are perhaps 10 cases of this exception. I see little reason to change policy. Taemyr 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. To overturn a consensus as clear as this one, you would need a solid policy violation. The one provided is WP:DICDEF, but this article arguably goes well beyond a mere definition. An expanded section on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the word, is description beyond what you would find in a dictionary. That dictionary entries define terms, does not mean that an entry which defines terms is a dictionary entry. I see no policy violation in the consensus opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps the shortcut "WP:DICDEF" is a little misleading; the policy says very little about "definitions", only providing a brief description of a good definition. I see it asserted multiple times here that "the article goes well beyond a dictionary definition," which is true, but dictonaries, and Wiktionary in particular, include much more than definitions -- "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth," to quote the policy. I would say that the acceptance or non-acceptance of a word is exactly what would be expected in a non-paper dictionary. Obviously, folks can disagree, but just saying "the article is more than a definition" doesn't address the actual issue. Powers ^T 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the result of the discussion was pretty unambiguous. As has been stated, good arguments were presented that the material in this article does not violate WP:DICDEF which was the only real argument for deletion. All policies and guidelines are open to interpretation, which is why community discussion is so important - often the interpretation made by one user does not match the interpretation of the community as a whole. That the community seems to interpret DICDEF as not applying to this article is evident; there exist no grounds upon which to overturn this closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Considering fuck once had featured article status, the argument that we cannot have articles on words is ridiculous. Smashville 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Comment - This probably is one of the few topics where reliable source material can be taken from 10,000 year old cave writing. There are endless of reliable source material from which this topic can be developed. Just because a word belongs in a dictionary it does not logically follow that the topic for that word is not encyclopedic. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but it also is true that "A dictionary cannot substitute for Wikipedia." Moreover, if the article does not address the major aspects of the topic, the solution is to add information on those major aspects, not to delete the article. -- Jreferee t/c 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Exactly, Jreferee. But who ya gonna get to go in that cave? --Dhartung | Talk 14:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems that consensus is that the policy as written does not currently reflect the consensus of the community. I still find the differences between the two AfDs on "booger" and "fart" to be, frankly, baffling, but I must be in the minority there. Nonetheless, I'll be opening discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary over how to determine what the consensus is on this topic, and how to modify the document to better reflect that consensus. Powers ^T 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm going to change my vote here to Overturn and Redirect. After rereading WP:DICDEF, this is the very kind of article it is written about. No one in either this AfD or the DRV has given a reason as to why this is not more than a mere dictionary definition? There is not a single argument that successfully argues that this is not a mere definition. Every argument is either, "It's notable", "It has multiple meanings", "It's well-written" and "It contains an etymology". None of those are valid keep reasons and actually support the fact that this is a definition. It makes me actually wonder if anyone has actually bothered to read the policy. Smashville 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have reviewed the definitions provided at answers.com (from Merriam-Webster American Heritage and Sci-Tech). Flatulence is "excessive intestinal gas". Farting is the "expulsion of intestinal gas through the anus". The answers.com Medical Encyclopedia entry on the former indicates that the gas can be expelled either through the anus or the mouth (belch), or result in bloating. I don't see any of these as synonyms. Flatulence is the broad topic, yes, and farting is one of three ways the body handles it, and one with the most cultural impact. I actually think that the articles are misbalanced in this respect, as there is much material in the flatulence article that belongs in the fart article. Our articles seem to reflect a political situation on Wikipedia rather than reality. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the fart article isn't about the action...it's about the word. Smashville 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe that's what I just said. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Diane Huxley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a legitimate reason as the page is activly being considered for merging Lucy-marie 15:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It would be useful to see what content was deleted, as well as a reason for the deletion. Powers ^T 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Let me understand this. The article was speedied as copyvio in May. Then it was recreated and has been edited in non-copyvio form since. Then a new proposal to merge came from Lucy-marie (talk · contribs), and an endorsement came from Asyndeton (talk · contribs). What are we being asked to review? --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is about the deletion of the talk page by Centrx (talk · contribs) on May 28, the same day the copyvio article was deleted. This is a textbook WP:CSD#G8. Centrx has undeleted the talk page today, so I suggest we speedy close this review. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Included on list of social networking sites. Previously deleted due to notability. Currently contains a number of references which fully meet Wikipedia's standards. Provides references of equal credibility to other sites listed on list of social networking sites.

Saracity123 12:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, speedy close This was just endorsed (unanimously, I might add) less than 2 weeks ago, and there's no evidence the situation has dramatically changed. It isn't even on List of social networking sites as nominator claims. You can't get something undeleted through brute force. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Continued attempt to gain advertising for a non-notable site. See [2]. this is part of a site run by a major SEO consultant. This very appearance on DR is linked on google. Speedy close. Attempt to game the system. DGG (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, as spam as spam can be. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Clearly no consensus for keep. Easily as many calling for delete as keep, not to mention those calling for keep failed to meet the burden of proof to provide evidence, instead making comments like "go look it up yourself". AfD isn't a vote and regardless of the amount of people who speak to one side of a discussion if the argument is without merit its not valid. The two sources (once found) are extremely tenuous at best, and once that was pointed out those calling for keep failed to speak to that.Crossmr 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The preponderance of the argument was that the article could be sourced if someone would take the time. I've expanded it just now, perhaps enough to satisfy your objections. But AFD is not a vote. It's one thing to insist that editors making claims in article back up their sources, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect that editors participating in an AFD discussion be willing to consider the existence and quality of sources that have not been included at the time of nomination. An argument limiting itself to what may have been provided by an irregular user of Wikipedia unaware of notability guidelines is going to be necessarily weak. --Dhartung | Talk 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  As was pointed out by two different people during the AfD, you need to back up your claim. Simply claiming that you saw it in the New York Times and the Wall Street journal without providing those sources is akin to saying nothing at all. Anyone can make any kind of claim anywhere, its why we require proper sources. When an article is up for deletion, simply saying the source is "out there somewhere" doesn't make a clear case for why it could be kept. In fact the two sources that were provided during AfD (and only one was directly provided on the AfD itself) didn't meet the criteria that was laid out by the guidelines. I can make all kinds of unverified claims during AfD about the notability of something. If we start keeping articles based on random editor Xs unsourced opinion during AfD, we'd never delete anything. Most of the people who come here to spam their website will swear up and down that they've seen notability all over the place for it. As far as satisfying notability goes, its a little better, but I have some comments. At least there is now 1 where it is actually the subject of the article (1st one). however 5, 6, 7 are completely trivial mentions. 4 is about the parent company as pointed out during the AfD. 2 and 3 are questionable, at least the cnet article mentions the "community" in the headline. If there is one more article available where AsianAvenue is clearly the subject and not sharing the limelight with a larger issue that would be ideal.--Crossmr 14:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let me take you back in time to this edit in which both the WSJ and NYT articles you critiqued in the AFD were already present and "provided" for you. You may quibble with the relevance of the sources, but my assertion was grounded in the same material available to any editor. Your implication that I was making claims without backing them up is groundless. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to use this diff where I added one of the sources that I referred to. Thus my "mentioned in the WSJ and NYT" statement was fully sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong endorse. This and this look like very fine sources to me. This also looks decent enough. I really don't see any case for deleting the article. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  While the Wallstreet journal is a fine source, as pointed out in the AfD, AA is not the subject of the Nytimes article, its parent company is. And with all the articles about the vodka ad, none of them feel the need to identify AA in the title, though one did identify the vodka maker in the title. this doesn't really make AA the subject of the article which is really the pulling of the ads.--Crossmr 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Are you sure we're talking about the same article? (I was referencing this one.) It mentions the company only in passing, and only in relation to the AsianAve project. I guess one could say that the article is indirectly about the company in the sense that it mentions the company (though not until after the introduction) and discusses the company's project, but I don't understand how one could say that the discussion of AsianAve is unsubstantial or trivial. If it means anything, the only mini-paragraph which doesn't contain the string "Asian Avenue" is the first sentence (which is a soft lede). — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  We may not have been. I may have gotten that confused with the other Nytimes article presented. It appears to be a good source, I'd still like to see some further debate of the notability though. For web content to hang its hat on a 7 and 9 year old articles that seems a bit questionable when something today could generate much higher media attention and basically disappear in to obscurity in 2 months.--Crossmr 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Comment There is plenty of reliable source material for this topic going back to a New York Times article in April 1998 (cited in AsianAve). Here is some that also include "Asianavenue" in their title: (1) SKYY Vodka Pulls Ad in Response to Concerns Expressed by AsianAvenue.com Members (August 30, 1999); (2) AsianAvenue goes to school (November 29, 1999); (3) Asianavenue.Com Plugged in 2000 Concert Tour Raises Awareness of Asian American Musicians (March 20, 2000); (4) Asianavenue.Com Hosts Free Concert at Palace of Fine Arts (April 13, 2000) (5) VideoEgg's Eggnetwork Reaches 65 Million with the Addition of Community Connect Sites BlackPlanet.com, MiGente.com, AsianAvenue.com , and GLEE.com\ (March 19, 2007); (6) Virgin Mobile USA Joins with Intercasting to Offer its Nearly Five Million Customers a Host of Diverse and Popular Social Networking Sites. Direct Access Via Handsets to AsianAve, BlackPlanet, GLEE, Xanga and More (August 22, 2007) -- Jreferee t/c 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  Notability requires it be the subject of an article. Many of the articles it appears in are trivial mentions, or a long with something else sharing a much bigger spotlight. For example this, which you've quoted is a press release [3]. press releases can't be used to establish notability. See WP:NOTE, this is a blog [4] Also unusable. While it repeats the same story found elsewhere, none of the other ones presented actually refer to asianavenue by name in the title. No idea what the asianave goes to school is, because its dead [5]. This appears to be a PR feed, again unusable [6]. This is both a press release and a trivial mention [7]. And again another press release [8]. Absolutely nothing in any of those links is usable to establish notability, which is what it was argued for deletion.--Crossmr 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, you interpret the guideline that way, but not all editors do; and you seem to be relying on outdated language that was once in WP:BIO particularly. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not require that the article's topic also be the primary topic of the article, as you assert, and language that conforms with such an interpretation has previously been rejected. WP:CORP is even more flexible, saying that The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. This would seem to allow using more sources if some of them are weak. But these are not weak sources. We have a comprehensive business profile from the New York Times, the nation's "paper of record". We have substantial articles about incidents where the website received publicity as a primary actor, particularly the SKYY protest, which was covered in multiple sources of unimpeachable reliability. We have coverage in several places where it is naturally considered alongside its sister sites and competitors, but the coverage is "significant". Some of this coverage is in the Wall Street Journal, the "paper of record" for US business. That's plenty for WP:CORP. This smacks of a campaign based on some animus, and you've come very close to accusing me of having a conflict of interest; I object strenuously. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've never seen press releases usable to establish notability. Anyone can make a press release. In this case (by which I mean the links that Jreferee provided) all provided links were press releases or a blog of an already considered story (we consider the original story not the blog). WP:WEB would be the most apt notability guideline, and clearly states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.. I question whether or not asianave is really the subject of that vodka article. Its clearly not the subject of the nytimes article that was put forth during the AfD as the subject was clearly the parent company.--Crossmr 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Crossmr, would you do me the courtesy of addressing claims that I have made, instead of claims you wish I had made? As I have stated repeatedly since my first comment in the AFD, the sources provided (WSJ and NYT) are by themselves sufficient to establish notability per WP:CORP. I am not and have never said that a press release or a blog is a basis for notability. The language in the notability standard is, once again, "significant" coverage by "multiple" sources. I don't feel I need to state this again. And if being headlined as the base of a protest that caused a corporation to take action is not significant, then perhaps you and I simply cannot agree on the meaning of the word. --Dhartung | Talk 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Relist at AFD not much consensus to do anything. Some more opinions would've helped the first discussion. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and close this review. The sources are clearly provided, and were provided in the article. That people didn't regurgitate them for you when they were there to begin with means nothing. Besides, this can go two ways; the onus is on the deletion people to at least bother to do a search, otherwise you'll end up with WP:JNN, which is perilously close to what your vote was. Clearly passes guidelines mentioned above. 128.118.161.244 07:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|Original deletion proceeding)

This image was deleted by an administrator despite a 15-9 majority of users who were involved in the dabate to keep the image. Wikpedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators clearly states that "when in doubt [about the result of the debate], don't delete". In this case the result was not only "in doubt", but clearly was substantially in favor of keeping the image. That image was included in the article on intelligent design for over a year. Plainly it got caught up in a recent effort to remove images that had commercial implications attached to them. For all practical purposes, this image is completely free to use in conjunction with any WP article that is relevant to the topic it addresses. It can be seen at this location and also at this location. Moreover, we actually had a TIME executive participate in the Wikipedia discussion about use of such covers, and it was made clear that Wikipedia is free to use these cover images in any articles that are relevant to the covers. The use of this image was quite significant, perhaps essential, in showing how the mass media in the United States depicted the intelligent design controversy to the general public. Kenosis 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. Fair use was demonstrated and consensus was clear. The image was deleted improperly and should be restored forthwith.  –  ornis⚙ 07:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore I feel fair use is establshed per Kenosis Supergluez 12:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and restore image, as nominator. ... Kenosis 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• The close was fine; the closing admin applied our non-free image policy WP:NFCC rather than just counting votes. Fair use alone is not the relevant issue. The article currently describes the cover as showing "God facing off against a chimpanzee", which conveys the idea perfectly well via text alone. The fact that the cover art is relevant to the subject is perfectly expected and not on its own a reason to use the image, and there is no evidence that this particular cover art is notable more than the average Time magazine cover is notable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The administrator's job is not to play God in interpreting the NFCC, particularly not the ones that involve subjective interpretations (NFCC#1, #3, and #8). ... Kenosis 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The closing administrator is supposed to consider the site policies and ensure that the close is in agreement with them. There is no requirement that the close needs to agree with the majority of editors who comment. This isn't "playing God", it's using the discretion that we expect admins to use when closing deletion discussions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• We've been over this before, including on the administrators' noticeboard. Obviously it's a "hot potato", this sort of unilateral overruling of consensus on grounds of the admin's subjective interpretation of criteria that are inherently subjective judgments. If one were to apply the NFCC tests strictly in all cases there would be no fair use images on the wiki -- which is, of course, what the "no fair-use" advocates see as the ideal outcome. ... Kenosis 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Reasonable use for the image. The consensus of the community was not merely the majority, but a reasonable decision according to policy. The community interprets policy. DGG (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn As above.--Filll 21:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, on the basis that fair use has been well demonstrated in full accordance with the guidance and policy in showing a need for this image. .. dave souza, talk 22:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I pointed out above that the article presently describes the cover art without including this image, so it's a stretch to claim there is a "need" for this image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Who is the "TIME executive" and under what auspices do they speak for Time-Warner? --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Walter Isaacson. We'll need to look up the date and diffs of the conversation, in August 2007. The content of the conversation and the location of the IP address (consistent with the location of the Aspen Institute) was adequately persuasive that it did in fact appear to be Isaacson, something that many of the regulars in image deletion debates will likely recall. ... Kenosis 09:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing a quick search, I found one relevant link/diff here, which has been updated to link to the original comment, also archived at NFCC. R. Baley 09:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It took awhile for me to sift through the old IfDs. The original conversation in which Isaacson participated was in late July and early August 2007, here. ... Kenosis 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course TIME editors wants us to use their cover photos - it's free publicity for TIME. But if they don't want to reciprocate by releasing the cover photos under a free license, then we should just ignore their claims, which have a n obvious conflict of interest. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason that it doesn't affect whether or not the image met WP:NFCC didn't really have anything to do with conflict of interest. Most of the non-free content criteria are to limit the the use of copyrighted material since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not because Wikimedia could be sued because of images it hosts. 17Drew 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn There was no reason for the image to be deleted to begin with. •Jim62sch• 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/Restore deletion. One person's interpretation of NFCC#8 should not be able to go against the overwhelming consensus opinion (everywhere I saw discussion anyway) that the fair use of an image meets all criteria. I would also like to note that official NFCC policy is so (not?) widely accepted that no one bothers to even date the archives anymore (and that 10 archive pages, ~250k per page, have been generated in the last 5 months (link). R. Baley 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - 15-10, not 15-9 (but that's irrelevant). Policy trumps consensus if the consensus has no real ground to stand on. Even if that policy is our fair use rules (personally, I think they verge on the ludicrous, but that's not the discussion here). The image was solely being used to illustrate, with no critical commentary, and the IFD debate was correctly closed by the rules at the time as a "delete" - it failed NFCCs #3 and #8, and nobody was able to prove otherwise. Kenosis's hyperbole in saying I was "playing God" is unhelpful, and his constant attempts during the IFD discussion itself back in August to tell the closing administrator how to close it were also unhelpful. Many of the "keep"s were gems such as "it is relevant" or "it shows it exists". Debate was closed correctly, based on the rules. Neil ム 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• RE "and his constant attempts during the IFD discussion itself back in August to tell the closing administrator how to close it were also unhelpful" : Those two comments mistakenly characterized as "constant attempts to 'tell' the closing administrator how to close" actually read as follows: "Comment to closing admin. The recent experience of administrative overrides of consensus leads me to post this comment. A review of this discussion, thus far, appears to indicate 15 participants in favor of keeping this image as NFC for its stated use. Specifically the rationale is for uses related to intelligent design, the creation-evolution controversy and any directly related topic forks. Seven, perhaps eight, participants in this debate have advocated deletion, if I am counting the positions correctly. The basis for those advocating deletion appears to be NFCC#8, which by its subjective nature (as an editorial assessment of whether it "substantially helps", etc.,) must be decided in a consensus process. Since, as of this comment, there are 15 keeps and 8 deletes, would it be fair to say there is no consensus to delete? ... Kenosis 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)"
  To which Borisblue responded: "I'm going to refrain from closing this hot potato, but I just want to note here that consensus in wikipedia is not determined by vote counting. Borisblue 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"
  After some additional back-and-forth arguing between Seraphimblade and Duae Quartunciae, I then added:"Comment to closing admin. Make that 15 keeps to 9 deletes, maybe 10 deletes if you include Borisblue. ... Kenosis 06:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)" . That's not telling the closing admin anything (at least not in the sense of intending to be an "instruction" or "command") but is a summary of a careful reading of each participant's explicit statements and explicit preferences so as to avoid any hasty applications of WP:AADD, an essay page, as sometimes happens when the closing admin's preference disagrees with the clear majority or otherwise seeks to impose an outcome differently than is advised by the administrative guideline WP:DGFA. ... Kenosis 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The image may qualify for fair use but does not add anything significant to the article but decoration. Using the image fails WP:NFCC #8 and the copyright tag requirement for critical commentary. The admin acted correctly in interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy, which overrides local consensus. -Nv8200p talk 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - The closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly. The determination of whether or not the image should be kept came down to whether consensus agreed that the image facilitates understanding of the article topic. The closer seem to state that consensus agreed that the image facilitates understanding of the article topic. However, the closer determine that such a consensus was wrong. Since the question was subjective as noted by the closer, wrong and right are not really the right approach to close the discussion. No consensus seemed to be the consensus, particularly since the issues were not adaquately discussed by anyone other than the closer. The image should be relisted, using the closer's remarks as the nomination comment so that everyone may direct their keep/delete reasonings to that which needs to be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 22:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon me. I would have brought this issue up before, except the two-paragraph explanation of the closer (closing administrator) is placed above the linked section in the IfD as seen here, and thus escaped my notice when I reviewed it in preparation for filing this DrV.
    ...... The decision of the closing admin is clearly erroneous. The justification that the closer offers for deleting is based upon a single passage from WP:NFC that is not a policy, but a guideline (i.e., a "suggested approach"), that was incorrectly cited as policy that would allow a closing administrator to overrule a majority preference to keep the image. The closer explains the decision to unilaterally override the entire discussion in the following paragraph (submitted by the closing administrator in this edit), which reads:

    Duae Quartunciae makes the point that WP:NFC#Images states cover art for identification purposes is permitted, but omits the second half of that policy ("only in the context of critical commentary of that item"). No critical commentary of the the cover image (the "item") is present in the article, so this argument for keeping is unconvincing. I am not convinced by the arguments the image facilitates understanding of the topic more than the text already does, and there is no critical commentary of the image itself. Although the majority of participants are calling for the image to be kept, those calling for deletion have the far stronger argument based on Wikipedia policy. Therefore, delete. Neil ム 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

    Only the WP:NFCC are policy. And Neil correctly observes that #8 involves subjective interpretation and thus must be decided by consensus. Guidelines such as WP:NFC, which the closer relies upon in overriding the clear majority preference, are never mandatory and are always properly controlled by consensus at the local level. What the closer did in the IfD proceeding for this image was to use a guideline in sole justification for the deletion of this image. Therefore it should be overturned, the image should be reinstated, and the matter should be permanently closed. ... Kenosis 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If, as Jreferee claims, there is not consensus that the image meets the requirements of NFCC, then it shouldn't be used. That argument supports the deletion of the image. Focusing on a distinction between guideline vs. policy, rather than on the intent of policies and guidelines, is quite close to wikilawyering. "It's only a guideline, so we can ignore it" is not on its own a sound argument. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting CBM, " Focusing on a distinction between guideline vs. policy, rather than on the intent of policies and guidelines, is quite close to wikilawyering": Close to wikilawyering??? Bullshit. In this case it was the hinge on which the door swung in deleting this image. ... Kenosis 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea that there is some gap between policy and guidelines so that following policy is compulsory but following guidelines is completely optional is not right. But in any case, the image was deleted because there is no consensus to include it in the article, and we don't allow orphaned nonfree images (by policy). — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion -- looks like someone messed up in judging consensus. ScienceApologist 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - we don't use non-free images for decorative purposes and all of the consensus in the world doesn't change our fundamental copyright/content policies. I looked back in the article history to see where it was used and found it here. Folks, this is one of the things that the m:Resolution:Licensing policy was intended to prohibit. We don't use non-free images like stock photos. Any random picture would do here and there's no reason it has to be the Time magazine cover. We could make our own picture of God pointing at a monkey. We could come up with a different idea entirely like a monkey with a question mark over its head. But there is no encyclopedic requirement to use this particular image and thus it does not comply with our non-free content policy. Any admin restoring it ought to be desysopped immediately. --B 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion, per nom. A convincing case was made for fair use, and there was no consensus to delete. Guettarda 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you point out that "convincing case" for fair use to me? Several people on this DRV have said that it is fair use (sic) without offering any reasoning behind that claim. On the IFD, the only comments I saw that even addressed compliance with out fair use policies were those of Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs). Nobody here or there has explained how this image meets WP:FAIR#Policy #8. We don't use non-free images for decorative purposes - we only use them when they are essential to the reader's understanding of the topic. In no way, shape, or form is a Time magazine cover showing God pointing at a monkey essential to your understanding of the topic. Even if it were, we could make our own image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. --B 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Did you ever get the feeling you were parroting yourself? The "we could make a picture" defense if lame -- the cover indicates a social phenomenon in a way your hand- or computer-drawn picture never could. Nothing you could do could capture the gravitas of that picture, the gravitas of the topic, the gravitas of the social dilemma. And really, that is the importance of the picture. It's a shame that you can't see that, but then I'll wager that you know nothing of the topic. In fact, NFCC #8 is the last refuge of the image deletionist who is utterly clueless of the actual topic, and who cannot, therefore, be seen as a qualified arbiter of any picture's value to the actual topic. See WP:OFFICIOUS. •Jim62sch• 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Replaceability had nothing to do with the deletion with the image, and you pointed out the very reason the image was deleted. The image was being used for its impact, not because there was some information better understood because of it. 17Drew 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Funny ... your comment is less civil than anything I have seen from a person whose ban you support rather vocally. --B 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • That was a deeply irrelevant comment, and I wonder why you felt the need to make it. A good idea would be for you to remove it, and feel free to remove this response should you do so.  – ornis⚙ 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • The point is that just because someone disagrees doesn't mean there is something wrong with them. Jim62sch seems to believe that there is something wrong with me because I don't believe that this picture meets our image use policies. There is a reason that I stay away from this topic area. --B 12:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't think you understand the topic, quite honestly. In assessing impact we see importance, in assessing importance we clarify the topic, ergo assisting the reader's comprehension. It's really quite the simple concept. As for your snarky comment, I'll ignore it -- for now -- except to see WP:SPADE (see, as the comment was not directed at a particular person, it is quite clear that it was an observation of WP's inner turmoil). Capisce? 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
• Endorse The image may meet the purely legal requirements with respect to fair use, but that alone is not sufficient. The image does not satisfy criterion 8 of the the non-free content criteria insofar as it "can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." Furthermore, with respect to consensus, consensus is not limited to individual deletion debates, rather there is also the wider consensus that has created and refined the policies upon which the debate should proceed. An individual deletion decision should not usually (IAR notwithstanding) contradict that wider consensus. CIreland 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Neil's closure of the debate was based on the merits of the arguments and not the vote count. The arguments that it did not meet WP:NFCC#8 were stronger since the arguments to keep were primarily because the existence of the cover and the presence of the image added emphasis to the section, not because there was some part of the topic better understood because of the image. 17Drew 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - looks like it's within the boundaries of that NFCC guideline to me. Saying that it isn't just doesn't make it so any more than saying it is does make it so. Administrators are allowed to ignore the consensus of the community if it's against guidelines, but the arguments were clearly valid. 128.118.161.244 07:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is really a textbook case of fair-use counterexample #8, and the closing admin interpreted policy correctly. Some are arguing that this image is notable simply because it was the cover story of Time Magazine -- but if that's the case then counterexample #8 has no meaning. Further, there is no encyclopedic information about ID that is conveyed by the cover itself, that could not be conveyed just as well (if not as prettily) by simply saying it was Time's cover story. The cover image isn't designed to give information about ID; it's designed to look pretty and thought-provoking attract readers to the article. That's decorative. Of course the article itself is noteworthy and should be mentioned, but the image of the cover is just decorative. These sorts of images are routinely deleted, and literally hundreds of similar cases have been dealt with without controversy. Keeping this image would frankly require a change in policy ("We can use magazine covers, not otherwise notable, if the fact of the article itself is notable"), and this isn't the forum for changing policy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The IfD was closed properly. Neil was quite right to take into account not the numbers voting keep or delete, but merits of the arguments. WP:NFCC#8 is a much stronger argument than the fact that Time Magazine regularly grant permission to use their covers, or the fact that the cover added emphasis to a section. Regarding the emphasis added, or how it "showed the importance", nobody really made a convincing argument that without the image, people would find it much harder to understand the article. Regarding the "permission", see Template:Permission from license selector and these two messages, especially Kat Walsh's words: "While we appreciate the goodwill of those who give special permissions for Wikimedia to display a work, this does not fulfill our greater purpose of giving others the freedom to use the content as well, and so we cannot accept media with permission for use on Wikimedia only. Derivative uses are also important. The value of allowing modifications becomes clear to anyone who edits the projects, as new work builds on the work of others, and work you cannot change to meet your needs and purposes is not free." Our policy on non-free content is not about how not to get sued; it's about building an encylopaedia out of text and images and other media that are freely licensed and that can be used by anyone for any purpose. We deviate from that, with reluctance, when we find that not to do so would significantly compromise the quality of an article. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The IfD closure as "delete" was most certainly not a correct interpretation of "policy". This was an administrative overruling of a clear preference to keep the image, based on a mere guideline, as I indicated in the extended comment a bit farther above. So the admin admitted NFCC #8 is clearly a subjective issue and defers to the consensus on that basis, but then incorrectly cites a non-binding guideline (a guideline written largely by anti-fair-use advocates) and overrules a clear majority on this basis, and this is now being argued to be interpreting policy correctly? No way. This is in effect saying "to heck with consensus -- we're deleting the image anyway". And then after having pointed out the closing admin's error in overruling consensus based on a non-binding guideline, the arguments again come back around to back-and-forth arguments about the subjective editorial interpretation of NFCC #8. This should have been left to the local article consensus to begin with, then in the IfD it should have been left to that clear majority preference to keep.
  ..... As to the argument that "Neil was quite right to take into account not the numbers voting...", this is an argument seen in the essay WP:AADD where "not just a vote [but also a discussion process]" is commonly reinterpreted as "ignore the numbers of votes" when a minority disagrees with a majority and seeks to change the outcome. If that's the argument here, we may as well just skip the pretenses about community participation and let the admins make all the decisions on whatever justification they want . Indeed at that point there's no need for any valid justification -- the closer may as well just say "here's my decision, and thanks to everybody for the input", and be done with it. ... Kenosis 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Some points concerning majorities:

1. I read the original debate but did not comment because I felt that the arguments that I would offer had already been made by others. I may well not have been the only one. I omitted to comment on the basis that the strength of the arguments would be evaluated, not the number of advocates for one position or another.
2. The reason we debate rather than vote in XFDs is that voting gives the same weight to every argument regardless of that argument's strength. A debate should give greater weight to some arguments than others - which is what happened in this case. CIreland 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• My review of the IfD indicated that there were cogent arguments on both sides of the debate. The arguments from image-deletion advocates were the same arguments recycled in many image deletion proceedings, and all of it came down to a simple editorial decision. So, in other words, the closing justification for overruling a clear lack of consensus to delete came down to the subjective critierion NFCC #8, a subjective measure, a simple editorial decision about whether the image helps the reader of the article sufficiently enough to use it. And this happened despite the Deletion guidelines for administrators which directs "When in doubt, don't delete". In other words, the closing administrator makes the decision and decides what argument prevails in the debate, and basically tells the participants "thanks for your input--here's my decision". Then let's not beat around the bush and let's call it what it is, please. The closing administrator makes the decision. ... Kenosis 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yokohama Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

respectfully, please undelete-saw this PROD too late, which said "Expired PROD, concern was: no third-party references establishing notability, only incidental mentions of group", the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting maintains a list of pending deletions and merges, and we are very good at establishing notability and repairing articles to useful Wikistatus. I am certain that had any one of us seen this PROD, we have the resources to save this article. This actually falls under a unique piece of Scout history, see Madison Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps, and we would like the chance to save it. Thank you for your time. Chris 01:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• withdraw request-admin showed me the text, nothing there to save. Chris 02:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I want the chance to redefine my entry to reflect the more elaborate research that has been done to validate my posting RexFollett 05:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Restore Allow the research to be reflecting then reAFD if required. Supergluez 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, not a shred of assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I am reluctant to restore this particular nonsense for examination, but will email to anyone who requests. A perfectly reasonable deletion of nonsense. The claim to have done "more elaborate research" is particular amusing in view of the contents. DGG (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator - Oh let me tell ya there is a wealth of information out there about Hanging Brain. It has in fact been seen on movies. There is definitions of it on online dictionaries.. But the act its self to display the scrotum sack in front of a crowd of people at a frat party or elsewhere is a commonly known occurrence around the world at lots of institutions. To deny the long droopy sack of goodies for viewing pleasure on Wikipedia is like going against what Wikipedia was based and designed on. The fundamentals wiki was built on and practices of wiki is to allow people to express new content in a free encyclopedia. And when ya say "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" I assure you this was not made up in school one day.. Hanging Brain has been around since the dawn of time.. Just like the dinosaur.. Another thing I want to point out is everything on Wikipedia was made up at one point in time. Like all the movies and TV shows ya allow to post on here what about that? How can all that crap have more reverence to Hanging Brain? Those TV shows and movies were made up somewhere by someone at one time or another.--RexFollett 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If there's a "wealth of information" about this, please share it with us. That would go a long way towards establishing the notability of this. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware dinosaurs had scrotums. —Cryptic 23:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia was built on verifiability. In the absence of reliable sources about the subject, it doesn't deserve an article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It was depicted in the movie "Waiting..." Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris, Justin Long, David Koechner, Luis Guzmán Directors: Rob McKittrick A hilarious comedy about frustrated waiters, stingy tippers and dicey food, Lions Gate Films' WAITING... stars Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris and Justin Long as young employees battling boredom at Shenanigan's, a generic chain restaurant. A waiter for four years since high school, Dean (Justin Long) has never questioned his job at Shenanigan's. But when he learns that Chett, a high school classmate, now has a lucrative career in electrical engineering, he's thrown into turmoil about his dead-end life. Dean's friend Monty (Ryan Reynolds) is in exactly the same boat, but he couldn't care less. More concerned with partying and getting laid, Monty is put in charge of training Mitch (John Francis Daley), a shy new employee. Over the course of one chaotic shift, Mitch gets to know the rest of Shenanigan's quirky staff: Monty's tough-talking ex-girlfriend, Serena (Anna Faris), Shenanigan's over-zealous manager, Dan (David Koechner), and head cook Raddimus (Luis Guzman), who's obsessed with a senseless staff-wide competition known only as "The Game"... Featuring crazy busboys, unsanitary kitchen antics, and lots of talk about sex, WAITING... is a hysterical, behind-the-scenes look at the restaurant industry, and an affectionate ode to those lost, and thoroughly unproductive, days of youth. "The Game" As what was mentioned above involves "Hanging Brain".. Also 1. hanging brain Definitions at Hanging Brain Definitions The act of pulling one's scrotum (testicles included) through the opening in one's pants or shorts, thus exposing the beauty of one's gonads for all to admire. Named for the remarkable resemblance of the display to a human brain, hanging in the breeze. 2. hanging brain Definitions at Hanging Brain Definitions When your balls hang out the leg of your shorts and you are not even aware of it. This commonly occurs when you lean back and put your legs up, while in a seated position and you're rockin short, loose-fitting bottoms, i.e., short shorts or short swim trunks. Being stoned helps, too. This occurs with a much higher degree of frequency in wearers of boxers than in wearers of more supportive undergarments. Someone also made reference to hanging brain here Someone not wanting to hang brain And here is more references See I am not the only one who knows what Hanging Brain is Punks do it too Oxbow at Privilege, 11:00 p.m. Eugene Robinson's got balls--and he's not afraid to show them to you. Wearing nothing but a pair of grayish tighty-whities, the California boxer-cum-Oxbow frontman looms over a packed crowd of emaciated punks whose fresh black hair dye runs down their sweaty necks. With fists clenched, he looks like he's ready to shatter the jaw of anyone brave enough to throw the first punch. The punks are smart enough to keep their hands in their pockets. Robinson is smart enough to shove his hands down his pants, making the punks go wild. He pulls up his goods, hanging brain in full view of everyone. Cough-syrup-fueled guitars swirl in dizzy fury, the Birthday Party basslines rattle Tracy Pew's bones, and then Robinson opens his mouth and lets out a mournful yowl that could break your heart and your eardrums at once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexFollett (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - nonsense coming from the keyboard of creator speaks for itself. JuJube 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Juvenile fantasy.--WaltCip 12:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - where's BJAODN when you need it. Carlossuarez46 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• A similar game was deleted by me and sent to the old BJAODN at Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense/The_brain_game - it just took a while to find it. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD - It was mentioned in the TV show Friends in 1997 and Forbes magazine and has a few mentions elsewhere. Others might find more at AfD. Here's what I found: (1) Hochman, David; Karger, David; Snierson, Dan. (January 24, 1997) Entertainment Weekly Fools paradise. Matthew Perry will make millions as a lovable loser on Friends. Section: Features; Page 18. (writing, "CHANDLER: Ross, the guy's hanging brain!")[9]' (2)Westword; (3) New York Times; (4) Chicago Reader; (5) Forbes. (6) According to Forbes, the book The Headmaster Ritual mentions "hanging brain" and it is very likely that this book goes into the details that may be used in the Wikipedia article. A novel would not just throw out a term and not give some back ground on it. (7) The Ramone's song about Ronald Reagan may have some relevance: My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down. This all may be better decided at AfD rather than via speedy delete. -- Jreferee t/c 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You did look at the deleted edits first, right? Maybe there could be an article here, but this ain't it. —Cryptic 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Per nom. Bobsbasement 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• How nice. The author of this article and DRV has taken this nonsense to Digg. [10] --B 20:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but with no prejudice against the creation of a sourced article. --Dhartung | Talk 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - how much junk does this violate? Let me count? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And, for good measure, Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. And probably "Wikipedia is not for stuff just so you can sit around and laugh with your frat buddies". 128.118.161.244 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)