Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 10

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

The article should be undeleted because it was a notable topic that did not establish notability. I don't think consensus was reached to delete this article and I think it should be undeleted so that users such as myself can expand it and explain why this individual is notable. Past discussion for the deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Lincoln‎ Southern Texas 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion, my rationale for the close was that notability is not inherited, and no one presented any evidence of notability other than that he was an ancestor of Abraham Lincoln and two Massachusetts governors. Wikipedia isn't a genealogical database and AFD isn't a vote. --Coredesat 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Remark: For me it comes out about even. I'm considering the rationale, not the quantity of opinions expressed. Notability is not inherited, yet, paradoxically, I also see the point of considering an article about Abe's ancestor to be valid because Abe was particularly notable. But if this guy ere just a farmer, or "just" anything I would not think this. Of course I have not had the benefit (or otherwise) of seeing the article. Since two editors feel very strongly about the article why not recreate and relist at AfD? Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is about the first Lincoln to come to America who established a church in Massachusetts and was commemorated for it. There are tons of information on this man and I think readers would like to know the history of the Lincoln family in America.--Southern Texas 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete. Overturn. There is clearly a lack of consensus for deletion, and in such cases we err on the side of retaining verifiable and non-promotional information. The sole issue in this AfD was the notability of the subject. No verifiability concerns, no spam concerns, no original research concerns, no copyvio concerns. A 5-4 split in this case should result in a determination of no consensus, or at the very least a continuation of the discussion. Since the article was fairly short, perhaps the content could be reworked into a more general article on Lincoln's ancestry. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark: I get nervous when the word "clearly" is used in any debate. Customarily, and by general usage, this means that it is not clear, but that the "speaker" wishes people to believe it is clear, and attempts to create that belief by use of oratory. To me this immediately devalues the testimony. When studying consensus one must be aware that Wikipedia does not build "vote tallies" in order to retain or delete articles. A "5-4 split" is interesting, but not the point. The entire point is the study of the arguments. This means that (and I have not checked) "votes" (which they are not) that say (eg) "Delete, per nominator" are almost irrelevant, since they propose no new items for discussion. What I've noticed here is that the article is not (when I last looked) salted. So it is valid to create a new article, with notability asserted to meet WP:BIO, assuming it is assertable and the subject is inherently notable (I am genuinely unsure of the latter). This deletion review could then be abandoned and pass into history as an irrelevance. Fiddle Faddle 06:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but sometimes when things are clear, I call 'em clear. The editors taking positions on each side presented cogent arguments (except for one 'agree with above' type vote for each). bd2412 T 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - No consensus seemed to be the consensus. Virtually every aspect of Lincoln's personal life and ancestry is of interest to the public and the publishers respond by writing about that interest. No doubt that enough reliable source material exists to write this article.His house, his descendants, line, more, and book info. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per closer's reasoning. Notability is not inhereted, even in reverse, and the sources being cited do not establish notability for this particular ancestor. Being related to someone notable does not make a person notable themselves, particularly in the face of a lack of any other notability. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You could've voted in the AfD itself. You still can if this deletion is reversed and the deletion debate is extended. Note, however, that ancestry is not the sole basis of notability offered. I would suggest that most of the earliest American settlers about whom we have verifiable information are inherently notable, and Samuel Lincoln's participation in founding a church was noted 300 years later (possibly, but not necessarily because of his numerous famous descendants). bd2412 T 15:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to re-open the debate when the only reasons for keeping were based on claims of notability that just aren't notable. I appreciate your opinion that "early American settlers" with verifiable information are inherently notable but there is no guideline or policy that agrees with that assessment. The only meter by which to gauge notability is WP:BIO which this article failed and none of the arguments in the AfD could satisfy. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist an early settler founding a notable family could reasonably be considered notable if the material is adequately documented. I don't think the closing came to grips with the issue--the closer by his own account here did not consider that aspect. I am frankly unsure about the merits, and think the rather brief discussion should be continued in the hope of attracting a wider participation. Incidentally, I don't think all early settlers are notable after the first founding of the settlement. DGG (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, there was nothing notable about this person other than his genes. There was nothing in the article which made any notability claims. As others have said, notability is not inherited. Corvus cornix 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Notability is not inherited; it comes because reliable sources write about the topic. The question is thus whether the sourcing is strong enough to support an article, which is not a question to be answered by waving general quotations around. The outcome of that discussion was reasonably determined. However, Jreferee has found plenty of sourcing that could be used, and a serious scholar will find plenty more dead tree sources. The actual deleted article was short on use of reliable sources, instead leaning on user created genealogy websites. So I think that we should, as always, allow recreation from reliable sources, but don't have any particular reason to bring back that particular deleted article. Userfy upon request. GRBerry 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure I see the point of re-creating the article without using any of the information in the existing article. I presume that even a recreated article would note Lincoln's trip to America, immediate descendents, participation in the founding of the church and subsequent commemoration. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Probably - but sourcing counts, not just content. Since it appears that the article was written from unreliable sources, we are better off rewriting it from reliable sources. (Although in the quick sampling I did of the reliable sources, one of those points wasn't mentioned.) See WP:FORGET. Additionally, satisfying WP:NPOV requires writing based on what the reliable sources say... so the article needs to be written from reliable sources. GRBerry 17:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How will rewriting make a non-notable person notable? Corvus cornix 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said initially, notability comes from reliable sources writing about a topic. More specifically, from independent reliable sources writing about a topic. I believe that he is notable, because those sources exist, and Jreferee has already demonstrated this. But reliable sources weren't used to write the old article, unreliable sources were. Rewriting from reliable sources and citing them will prove that he is notable. GRBerry 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Reliable sources writing about my left toe doesn't make my left toe notable. Corvus cornix 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Wrong. From WP:NOTE "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is an rebuttable presumption, but given the vast quantity of reliable sources discussing Samuel, and in some cases offering significant coverage about him, you need a serious rebuttal that engages the evidence, not a totally specious analogy. It will be easier to see the evidence after a well written article is produced. GRBerry 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I had proposed earlier that if the article can not be made to stand on its own, it could be used as a seed for a more general article on the Lincoln genealogy (which has been the subject of substantial independent writing). bd2412 T 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • See WP:ITSSOURCED. Corvus cornix 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
            • There's a world of difference between merely saying that the topic is sourced, and saying that it has received "significant coverage" - which this has, in Lincoln biographies. Certainly more can be added, but not while the article is a redlink. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. No consensus to delete. Notability is not inherently inherited, but individuals who are notable because of their relation to others are still, well, notable -- the Bush sisters for example. Article clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO with substantial attention from reliable sources. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion no other claim of notabilty other than he was a far-relative of Lincoln and a few governors. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was clearly no consensus to delete on the AfD. The Keep !voters put forward reasonable and coherent arguments that were grounded in policy, and their opinions should not have been discounted. Without even looking at the deleted material, I strongly feel this deletion was improper. Walton^One 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was an inconsiderate closure. "Notability is not inherited" and "Wikipedia is not a genealogical database" may be helpful truisms, yet they are not without fault and their invocation does not automatically trump all other editorial consideration. I could point out that we have articles for Jenna Bush or the List of descendants of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, although I suspect that would invite mention of another thoughtless cliche. Suffice to say that the article was definitely not a clear deletion candidate per CSD and the AfD discussion did not produce a clear consensus. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, clearly no consensus, deletes were mostly votes, keeps gave some arguments. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

uncontested prod led to deletion. However, the reasons listed in the prod had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the page in question. I have tried to reinsert some info, but I am not so good with formatting a wiki article Man It's So Loud In Here 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the prod reason? Smashville 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was trolling the recent changes, and came across Veria, and found a prod tag with the following reason:"This article was only created because of the fact that Dimitris is the brother of Vassilis Spanoulis who played for the Rockets. Plus he doesn't play for any known team nor does he play in A1 which is Greece's top Basketball league. Personally i haven't even ever heard of the team he's said to currently play for. If that article should remain here, then we should create articles for all the players who play in leagues inferior to A1.Thanks". The tag indicated that it was over 5 days old and would be deleted at any time. I realized the page is about a city, and the tag was for Dimitris Spanoulis, how it ended up on Veria I don't know. As soon as I realized this, I tried to remove the tag but the page had been deleted as I was looking at it. I tried to insert text from a cached version, but it doesn't look nearly as good as it did before and the history is gone. Man It's So Loud In Here 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• What's more unusual is the PROD was added not 5 days before deletion, but less than 24 hours before. I think the PROD tagging was in error, as was the deletion... but this is all very strange. --W.marsh 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• PROD is an automatic overturn, but that looks like a vandalous copying of a dated prod from a different article to this one. GRBerry 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

During the past reviews it was argued that this artrist was not relevant enough to have a Wikipedia page. I believe this is not true and the rapper is INDEED relevant. Stack has appeared a many highly circulated mixtapes, has appeared in magazines (both print and video) and has had songs played on popular local radio stations. The artrist even has a profile on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2476119/). He was also signed to Major Label BYRDGANG/ASYLUM under the Warner Music umbrella, although he has never had a chance to release an album due to his untimely death. There are over a dozen mixtapes out bearing his name and is even featured on full albums as a protege of Jim Jones and The Diplomats. I know it might not be normal practice to do personal research on a particular topic/person, but I request that you reconsider your position and google the artrist to become more familiar with the impact he has had in Hip Hop. Mike Fresh 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - discussion appears to have been interpreted properly by the closing admin. Deletion review is not a "second chance" for discussion; this nomination has not presented any reasons for why the debate previously was insufficient, beyond disagreeing with some of the arguments therein -- which was debated previously. --Haemo 18:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - "Keep" arguments were: "He worked with famous rappers", "Enough said", "He died", "No reason given", "Racism", "I like it", "He knew/worked with famous people", "I have never heard of this person, but he's famous", "Keep per above", "Other stuff exists", "He's dead", and "There probably are articles on him". None proved notability. AfD was open for 7 days. Closing was handled entirely properly. Smashville 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - Closer interpreted the discussion correctly. There was little news postings of Stack Bundles before his death. Also, I'm not sure why, but none of the many news articles reporting on Stack's death went into Stack's career or early life. None of them mentioned anything an impact he had in Hip Hop. The focus seem more 'another rapper shot' and 'here are the suspected killers.' Per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Unless something changes, I don't ever see this topic becoming a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse even if all you do is count heads, consensus was strongly in favour of deletion. But by actually weighing the arguments, it's even more decisive, as none of the keeps had a valid policy-based reason: it was all stuff like "we should keep his memory forever" (actual quote) and various restatements of WP:ILIKEIT. One guy even rather desperately (and unsuccessfully) tried to play the race card. There also appeared to be some sockpuppetry/multi-voting going on. Heck, one account (Carlols 88) voted to keep but wrote several sentences explaining how "not well known" he is. But nobody could claim he passes WP:MUSIC, because he doesn't. Sadly, I'm pretty much convinced that he would have passed our musician guidelines if he'd lived a few more years, but this isn't the place to speculate on what might have been. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

raised at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_2

After some discussion a new title of Category:Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates was chosen by a majority, with one dissenting view. However, when it was closed out it was given a completely different name from any proposed, without any discussion. The new name chosen would appear to suffer the same drawbacks as the old one. Can we close it out in accordance with the original consensus, and let the closer submit a new CfD? Ephebi 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Overturn closure – I personally consider the reasoning by the closer completely valid, but admins should interpret the consensus in a debate, not close and say "hey, I personally think renaming it to XX would be a better idea, so I renamed it to XX, even though nobody else advocated a rename to XX in the discussion". He should have left a comment in the CFD instead. Melsaran (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and rename - CFD is not a vote and the DRV, being premised on the notion of majority rule, is flawed at its core. Closing admin correctly understood that renaming as suggested to potential 2008 US presidential candidates unnecessarily limited the scope of the category and selected a rename that allowed for a much wider usage and a more useful category. Otto4711 17:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• 'CFD is not a vote' ? but doesn't WP:CFD say there should be a 'rough consensus'? If an admin unilaterally takes these decisions it undermines the process pointless and I have to ask why I should waste my time in CfD. Mike may have a very valid point, but it needs to be aired as his new naming is unfortunately no better than the ambiguous, non-globalized cat that preceded it. I'm travelling for the next two weeks so I can't contribute any more on this, but I trust you'll consider these points before coming to a valid conclusion. Ephebi 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus doesn't mean majority rule. Consensus also doesn't mean that an admin doesn't have the authority to determine that the thing everyone wants is not the thing that should happen. Not really seeing what's so ambiguous about either the former or the current name, and it's hard to see how it could be made any less "global" than by restricting it to a specific election in a specific country. Otto4711 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• With respect, if you look at the category you'll see its being used for presidential candidates' soapboxes. Its not apparent to a lot of us in other parts of the world who these are, and so the naming needs tightening up to so that globally its use becomes apparent. A lot of countries have political candidates too, and this category would become a magnet for any politician's policy or campaigning bandwagon. Ephebi 23:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The category was not being used for just '08 prez candidates. It contains (or contained, haven't looked since the rename) an article on Pat Buchanan's political views. Buchanan is not an '08 candidate nor is he a potential '08 candidate. Many of these articles exist as spin-offs of main articles and there's no reason to believe that other politicians from other countries won't have position articles spun off in future. Gordon Brown for instance has an article that's 56K at the moment so a "political positions" spin-off would be logical and likely. There's no reason to limit this category to politicians involved in a single election. Otto4711 12:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Closer's rationale: I normally don't like it when closers interpret outside the options in the debate, but in this case I felt I had no choice. The debate was creating what in my opinion was a temporary, high-maintenance category (who's a candidate? what about ex-candidates? what about after the election?), where a permanent, maintainable one was in easy reach. I'd expect the "potential candidates..." name not to survive a CfD of its own, so I went for a more neutral choice. Failing that option, I would have closed it as "no consensus."--Mike Selinker 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

you may be right, but that's taking your role a little too broadly. it would have been better had you joined the discussion and argued for your solution. DGG (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn/relist Per Melsaran and DGG. The maintenance effort involved in this category would be miniscule in comparison to all the WP effort that the election will involve; that is a new argument introduced by you as closer, and not an impressive one. The debate attracted few commenters, & it would have been better if you had added a comment instead of closing. It would now be best to relist as a rename. Johnbod 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Ephebi's proposal, 2008 American presidential candidates, excluded the member articles about Joe Lieberman, Lyndon LaRouche, and Pat Buchnan. Ephibi suggested that such articles should be merged into their biographies, but we mold our categories around the articles that we have, not the articles that we want — as long as we have those articles, they need a home in a category like this one. The other proposal, Political views of potential 2008 American presidential candidates is crystalballish. Otto argued these points along with problems of volatile categories like the ones proposed. In closing, Mike Selinker didn't see answers to these problems, and accepted the original proposal (with a trivial name tweak), which preserved the broad scope of the category just as a "no consensus" would have. Tough choices have to be made in low traffic CfDs, and airing on the side of the status quo — here, preserving the scope of the existing category — is the right thing to do. Also, as an aside, any future category specific to American politicians, or 2008 candidates, or 2008 American presidential candidates, is going to need a timeless, international parent like this one. ×Meegs 06:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SteveSims/Userboxes/Pimp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Also I'd like to include User:SteveSims/Userboxes/Pimped (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) cache

^demon speedy deleted this userfied userbox citing WP:CSD#T1, either not knowing or caring that T1 does not apply to userspace. I propose the speedy deletion is overturned and the MfD resumed. I'm not a process-wonk, but with such sore issues like userboxes I'd usually expect some form of sensitivity from our administrators, not to use controversial actions they know will cause wikidrama. *sigh* 84.145.234.170 14:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and send back to MfD. Personally I believe that T1 should be applied to userspace, because a template is a template and user space should not be a place of refuge for otherwise objectionable templates. However, I don't think that the userbox was divisive and inflammatory enough to qualify for T1 anyway, as evidenced by the myriad opinions expressed on the MfD, and should be sent back there for consideration. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. T1 applies only to pages in the template namespace and User:SteveSims/Userboxes/Pimp was not template namespace. Also, where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead of using speedy delete. See the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. There was an ongoing MfD that contained reasoned views that the user box was far from divisive and inflammatory, mine included. That MfD included reasonable doubt and was headed for a keep. Preventing that by speedy deleting the user subpage was not appropriate. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn, reopen MFD debate, I personally think it's silly but T1 doesn't apply to user space. Melsaran (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it does. Something does not become less inflammatory or divisive by virtue of being in user space. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ahhh... your thoughts are always fascinating, Guy, but many admins disagree. The point of GUS-implementation was to end the "userbox fiasco", and speedies under T1 might well reignite it. Many -- dare I say most -- folks disagree with your particular view, and prefer calm discussion. With only a day to go for the MfD, this was an especially bad speedy. When a new MfD comes, the content will get five more days of thrilling discourse. Sigh. Xoloz 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to disagree with you here, JzG, but WP:CSD#T1 explicitely says otherwise and the current revision has stood for nearly two months, in addition to the rejection of previous attempts to widen the criteria. 84.145.234.170 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think it should, but unfortunately, it doesn't. That's why I said "I personally think it's silly", perhaps I should've been clearer. Melsaran (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• It shouldn't, Mel, for precisely the reason I outlined to Guy. The userbox fiasco may have before your time here, but the last thing Wikipedia needs is to revisit it. Xoloz 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Userboxes weren't moved to Userspace to circumvent T1, they were moved there because we allow wide expressions of opinion within the User: namespace. However, trying to use userspace to circumvent speedy deletion of a divisive template is abuse of userspace. That'd be like allowing a vanity band page that we'd tag with {{db-band}} to exist in userspace indefinitely, even though A7 applies to mainspace only. Vanity articles are vanity articles, divisive templates are divisive templates. Using namespaces to hide from CSD is being a bit nitpicky. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Restore (speedily) and send to MfD again. Dumb action -- speedies of boxes in userspace can elevate tensions needlessly -- commenters were one day away from resolving this, and someone needlessly starts a new fire. Unfortunate waste of time, caused by tigger-happiness. Xoloz 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Electronic Order of Battle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Misuse of WP:CSD#g4 Comint 12:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Hello. On the last few days few admins had deleted those articles although few months ago they were approved by other admins (see below), and only minor changes had occurred ever since. Any attempt to receive answers came up nothing. If possible, I'll be glad if no decision will be taken until September 20th, since I'm going abroad today, and won't be able to take part otherwise. Thank you all.

String of events:

1. End of June, I inserted four articles, two of which were not according to WP policy, the other two are legit, notable well known and commonly used terms in military intelligence.
2. 5th July. User:DraxusD marked the articles for deletion and opened a Genesis EW AfD discussion page, which additionally sought deletion of GenCOM Suite, Electronic Order of Battle, and COMINT metadata.
3. On the following days there was a discussion between me and several admins. It was agreed that with some changes that the articles Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata may be notable and legit with some 'necessary improvement'

   • "the other 2 seem to have potential for expansion into more general articles" user:David Underdown
   • "Neutral about the other two; might scrape through with the necessary improvement. I suggest to the above editor that he concentrates on achieving that goal if he wishes to see them stay." User:Adrian M. H.
   • "I agree COMINT ((metadata)) and Electronic Order of Battle could stay if they are improved ……" User:DraxusD
   • As advised – I have changed and added the necessary improvements to make the articles reliable and notable according to WP standards.

4. 13th July. User:jaranda deletes all those articles, including the 2 articles that were agreed to be legit, and after I've made the changes.
5. 26th July. I've left jaranda a message asking why he had deleted the 2 legit articles without being part of the AfD discussion. After explaining myself, I've waited few days to make sure jaranda may answer me or open the discussion again, and then I've recreated those 2 articles.
6. No further misunderstandings until September.
7. 8th September. User:mushroom marks the articles for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#g4 – was a copy of material previously deleted.

   • According to CSD#G4: "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." As mentioned before – the articles had been changed, and the changes do address the reasons for which it was deleted. Hence – CSD#G4 does not apply in this case.
   • As required – I've contested by adding the {hangon} and mentioning my arguments in the articles' talk pages.
   • On the day after user:RHaworth deleted those two articles, without responding my contest and arguments.

8. I've tried to recreate those legit articles and making RHaworth pay attention to my arguments, although had no reply.
9. Today I left the following message to RHaworth at 7:14.

   • At 7:37 RHaworth replied that he had left me messages on my talk page, referring me to the deletion review. True – there is a message on my talk page referring me to the deletion review page. The problem is that the article discussed on this message is neither Electronic Order of Battle nor COMINT metadata. Hence, I couldn't understand why he keeps deleting those legit articles.
   • 7:53 - An attempt to discuss it with him put up nothing, and in this point, I think it meets the first criteria in the purpose of deletion review as mentioned: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look"

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comint (talk • contribs) 2007-09-10 t 12:24:43

• Endorse my deletions. Both articles (and all the rest of Comint's contributions) are essentially spam for Genesis EW Ltd. (Comint, when writing here, stick to the merits of your articles. We are not interested in recent user_talk discussions. Re. 9 above - I gave a necessary and sufficient reply: "go to DRV".) If kept, the info deserves little more than mention in the SIGINT article or, possibly an article called Battlefield SigInt. Neither of Comint's titles is particularly good. -- RHaworth 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Both articles were adverts for products, not discussion of either ORBAT or Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield. Single paragraphs suffice elsewhere. -- ALR 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and endorse - Both COMINT metadata and Electronic Order of Battle were added late to the AfD and no one other than the nominator desired their deletion. Thus, overturn the AfD delete results as to COMINT metadata and Electronic Order of Battle. Both articles were blatant advertising, so endorse the speedy deletions of these two pages per WP:CSD#G11. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, deletions were valid per policy, and process is not that important - the result was correct and more or less inevitable. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was surprised by the outcome of this Afd because it didnt look clear-cut and no closing rationale was given. I had only recently expanded the article being considered and little time was given for any feedback on the changes. At User_talk:Maxim/archives/sep07#pottercruft I asked the closer Maxim (talk · contribs) to review the deletion or userfy it so I could continue, but the admin has put up a notice that they are considering retiring. Not wishing to aggravate any personal issues there, I ask that other admins review the outcome. John Vandenberg 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, it doesn't seem that notability of the newspapers and magazines outside of the Harry Potter universe was established by those arguing to keep, so this seems to be a reasonable close. --Coredesat 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not happy with the way this was closed. There has recently been a push by several editors to merge and/or delete HP related articles. Okay, fine. But they have been doing it in the right way, i.e. merging any salvageable information, creating redirects, etc. It appears as though the editor who closed this AfD is not an admin, didn't bother to explain why he was closing it, and certainly did not create redirects or merge anything. faithless (^speak) 10:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the closer is an admin (check the log), and is not required to state any reasoning when closing an AFD (though it does help). There are no agendas here. --Coredesat 10:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I know it's not required, and I didn't mean to suggest that there was an agenda. If I did so, I apologize. faithless (^speak) 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Coredesat, I only mention that there was no closing rationale because significant changes had been made after the last comment. My changes were primarily to the Daily Prophet section, but that is only due to me not having time to fix the entire article; most of the sources I used covered more than one of the fictional newspapers in that article. Some explanation of why it was closed rather than wait for more comment would have helped in this case, esp. as the closing admin responded on their talk page to the effect that the close was due to consensus; when the opinions are stale that is hard to swallow. I would be more than happy with a merge outcome, esp. if the original history was kept intact. John Vandenberg 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Whoops I accidentally recreated this page while trying to set up a redirect. Could someone more familiar with the deletion process see to it that this is deleted? Thanks! :) faithless (^speak) 10:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn If an admin can't provide a closing rationale, it's really hard to defend a close. --W.marsh 13:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn per W.marsh. No rationale was given for the deletion, and "pottercruft" isn't exactly a good argument to bring up in a deletion debate (neither is "detailed information on notable fictional subjects is inappropriate, unlike detailed information on other notable subjects"). Melsaran (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This article met the WP requirements for articles in fiction. Every delete argument was refuted. sources were provided during the debate. Even given the irrelevance of some of the delete arguments, I could understand a close of no-consensus. DGG (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. While I agree with those who voiced opinions to delete this article, I must also agree that there was no consensus to delete here and the AfD should have been closed as such. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Come on. Ten footnotes in the deleted article and plenty of other sources cited in the AfD and this doesn't meet WP:N? The delete reasoning did not really address each of the cited sources so I don't think the delete consensus could be the rough consensus of that discussion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a fansite. The degree of detail in these articles is vastly in excess of what would be required by the general reader. This is the meat of the delete arguments, and it's a valid point. Transwiki the detail to the Potter wiki and merge a summary to the Potter universe article, that's a valid outcome, and a valid interpretation of the debate. No amount of WP:ILIKEIT is likely to fix the fact that these are plot devices in a single book franchise. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the fallacy presented by most fiction deletionists. What's wrong with in-depth (sourced) information on fictional subjects? We may have in-depth information on anything, as long as it's not fictional? That smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ITSCRUFT. It's the same as saying "transfer all history-related information to http://history.wikia.com/". Melsaran (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it depends on the depth of the information--for any topic--and this will always be a matter of judgment, not fixed rule. The argument here is that a discussion of these books is not excessively detailed considering their importance, and deletion based on the importance is not reasonably justified. JzG quite properly talks about depth of detail. I think his conclusion is wrong, but that is in fact the issue affecting notability.15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn the fact is that the notability of the subject was not only vehemently argued for in the AfD, it was also established in the article itself. There has been much critical commentary on the depiction of mass media in the Harry Potter series and there were scholarly sources quoted in the article. Sure the article is pretty fanboyish but it most certainly can be expanded beyond that. Many of the deletion supporters had weak arguments like "Pottercruft" and "no third-party coverage" when this is demonstrably false [1]. In the debate, they seemed to refuse to even consider the possibility that, hey, maybe there is scholarly work on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Arguments that are shown to be false are given less weight. Many of the delete arguments assert that there were no sources to use. Once sources are added to the discussion and article, those arguments lose weight. There was clearly not a consensus for deletion. The sources remain subject to review and consideration, and I make no assessment as to whether the article is ultimately better kept or merged - but if it is deleted it will have to be via an AFD that considers the sources. GRBerry 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete here. Neither side appears to have taken an indepth look at the sources provided, even though source quality or lack thereof is the essential piece of every afd. With very little meaningful discussion, I don't see how this could be anything more than no consensus. --- RockMFR 17:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

no attempt was made to help me remediate the page into compliance as is required by wiki policy-various divergent claims were offered that the page is a fork of a biographical page, when I made it quite clear that this page expressly deals with only the political ideology that the individual espouses which is neoconservatism- no more Bio material is offered than is necc to establish the individuals identity to a layman unfamiliar with him, and then only in the most general sense. YOU WILL FIND that on his Bio page the word/term `Neocon`/`Neoconservatism` IS NOT EVEN USED ONCE, and the political angle is deliberately avoided even though the Bio concerns a highly influential syndicated radio host who has an national audience of many millions- my page EXCLUSIVELY is devoted to covering only the focus of his political affiliation/idealogy that the Bio page DELIBERATELY avoids. They are seperate topics not of interest to ssomeone only seeking specific Bio related facts. Secondly, this policy he advances is right now at the center of the Iraq war and massive global conflict, yet is deliberately avoided and is of immense public interest and significance- the other argument was that the title of the page is prejuducial as it presupposes that the subject it concerns make routine innaccurate or provably biased statements yet this is refuted by the multiple instances of the subject doing exactly that- bacause the subject is on radio and not print media it is more difficult to maintain a record of these instances as the paper trail ends at the airwaves, and as his exhortations are involving the US in global conflict there is a pressing public interest in maintaining of record of these instances. Burzmali 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) on User:Fastbackpinto's behalf

• Endorse deletion - debate was interpreted correctly. For a purported POV fork, the onus is on those seeking retention to prove that it is material which has not been inappropriately forked. If you disagree with the bio page, then edit the bio; don't make a fork page because you can't have your views included. --Haemo 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right that that would be an option, but ask yourself if its an accident that no reference to Hannitys ``idealogy`` is currently mentioned on that Bio page. Actually, go check the original pages that clearly marked his idealogy as `Neoconserative` until a editor who controls that page, and whose user page has a flag marking him as a ``EIB`` ( rush limbaugh excellence in broadcasting- who is another neocon talk radio host) supporter, deleted all those references and refuses to allow mention. Now Hannity is just a `conservative`. I am fine with a alternative specialized page for those only interested in delving into the specifics of an entertainers, albeit an influential commentator, political idealogy. This type of specialization is routine on Wikipedia, as long as it is not duplicating exact focus and scope.

Secondly..here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_groups_in_biomedicine for example. To follow your logic that topics can nnot specialize and MUST be a subtopic under the parent topic, then `population groups in biomedicine` MUST be a section under the parent topic of `Biomedicine` or `Population groups` as it is a specialized topic centered only on one facet of either Biomedicine or population groups...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_captives_in_Guantanamo ... this MUST now fall under either `Uyghurs` or `Guantanamo Bay`, as it combines elements of topics covered already on pre-existing pages. If this `rule` is maintained, it is being focused ONLY on me and not on ohteer pages that do exactly the same thing, unchallenged. This would reak havoc on Wikipedia, dispose of valuable work, and to no end. If work is focused on one specialzed aspect as so many pages are that have not been deleted, that does not make it of less value. thank you. --Fastbackpinto 02:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fork, and a POV fork. --Haemo 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. There was a clear snowball consensus. It's also a pretty clear case of WP:SOAPBOX which also seems like what you're trying to do in this DRV. Smashville 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not self promoting, advertising or propagandizing (WP:SOAPBOX)- my facts show that a rule not applied to other authors is being applied to my topic which concerns others` controversial beliefs, and specifically party politics and cited instances of lack of veracity. When the topics are not of a nature that involve national political veracity on the part of a POPULAR national public figure, or are not of general concern , I.E.- Uyghurs / Guantanamo Bay, those topics are not censored. --Fastbackpinto 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The AFD was interpreted correctly. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the reason to keep an article. Smashville 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, but allow userfication. The WP:POVFORK concerns were entirely appropriate, but it seems like this can easily be remedied by recreating the article under a more neutral name. Perhaps Disputed claims of Sean Hannity, Allegedly inaccurate claims of Sean Hannity, or something similar. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and do not userfy, was clear POV fork (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX), good close. Anything relevant that can be written in a neutral way can always go in the main article. --Coredesat 07:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Took a minute's pause to think over this because the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity) was closed after only one day, and I know that the arrival of some "keep"s can quickly change the course a debate is taking. (General lesson: if there is any contention, leave the AFDs open for five days, even though the outcome is obvious. In that way nobody can reasonably complain that it didn't get a fair hearing.) But that turnaround situation happens when a concern is made over notability or sourcing, and where someone finds an additional source to support the article. In this case the issue was very clear: the content was already duly covered in the main article, and the title was inherently biased against Hannity. I see no way in which the course this was taking could possibly be turned around. It was a very obvious case of an article inherently violating the WP:NPOV by a clear margin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, as the original nominator for the AFD I'll refrain from adding to this !vote, but I did want to explain why I nominated the article. While I was glancing over the new page log, I noticed the title of the article, Inaccurate claims or bias of Sean Hannity was definitely a WP:POV title, so I took a look at it. At first, I briefly thought it might be salvageable through either a move to a less POV title, or a merge to the Sean Hannity article, but the content was a list of Unsourced accusations against the subject that smacked of Original Research that had only a Primary Source listed as a reference (the referenced article never mentioned Sean Hannity). In addition, I found no evidence that the author attempted to add his concerns to Sean Hannity, or that there was consensus anywhere to content fork the Sean Hannity#Controversy and criticism off into its own article. Therefore, on went the AFD tags and off I went, a communist censor's job is never done! Burzmali 12:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete A clear-cut POV fork, blatant even in the title. I'd even consider the title a violation of BLP. DGG (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, title is inherently POV and negative, and this is indeed both a BLP violation and a content fork. Melsaran (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deleletion - Obvious misunderstanding by contributors to the artice as to what may be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to post personal opinions about Sean Hannity. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  For those thinking about it, I already went through the mentions of Sean Hannity in Wikipedia and was surprised that it wasn't the 'I Hate Hannity fest' I expected to find. I think that speaks well for Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, Do Not Userfy Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. The whole purpose of this page was to expose Hannity as a neo-conservative (my interpretation of the page creators comments here). Sasha Callahan 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

comment- Burzmali is attempting to prejudice the discussion by bringing in my earlier compliant to him/her that he/she is acting out of eagerness to be able to remove others work, and some personal avarice, instead of abiding by Wiki POSTED policy that the goal he IS SUPPOSED to be here for is to bring pages into compliance- this was not in any way mentioned by me in my request for review and it is only to be taken as prejudical in nature, it is not relevant to the article, or its request for deletion review, in any way!! The ONE INDIVIDUAL who suggested that the title be altered to a degree deemed more acceptable or intrinsically neutral is a very reasonable and FAIR solution.

The articles I found along with mine cited for deletion at that time included one about a ``GIANT MAN EATING BAT`` (farcical)that actually was KEPT ON LINE LONGER than Burzmali allowed my legitimate article to remain up!!!!! Also, to smashville, sorry again- nice try though, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is a heroically elongated effort to sustain justification for the delete, and you are grabbing at everything available and hoping SOMETHING STICKS.

WP:O.S.E. specifically adresses instances of justifying one pages neccessity based upon the EXISTENCE of another page. THAT is NOT what I pointed out- the original rationale for actually deleting my page was that it COULD NOT exist because it was a fork that could only tie into the the Original Hannity Bio page, and that has absolutely nothing to do with OSE. Wiki DOES allow massive use of specialized topics which overlap in various ways with matters mentioned in other pre-existing topics. OSE only comes into play if I say, for instance, i want a page on `Hank Jefferson` the neighborhood auto mechanic (of no reknown) and you delete it, at which time I whine that `Hank Jefferson` must get a page because `Thomas Jefferson` has one. Read the examples given.

I appreciate the goal of those who donate their time and energies to keep order and reason within this community, but by trying to prejudice the debate on my APPEAL, Burzmail again shows what is realy gong on here. I have not posted joke garbage and I have always offered as a newbie to do what you guys ask to gain compliance with the rules here. But, come on, my page that tooks hours to craft and document come down days before an article about a mythical ``man eating bat``!?!?!? ...and then during my appeal the original complainant who was not working on his own articles but cruising for stuff to censor, just `drops in` to bad mouth me, this is beyond the pale. Please give me a fair chance to remediate my page, (to those who are really interested in improving articles not just eliminating them from view) --Fastbackpinto 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the nature of people's objection to the page, nor do you understand that the onus is not on people arguing for deletion to clean up the article. Accusing other users of bad faith and making personal attacks is not helpful. --Haemo 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

comment- Haemo, I did not ask anyone to clean up the page, I asked them to follow Wiki policy as pertains to deletions, that was not done. Furthermore, I do understand the arguments being made, but none are insurmountable if the Wiki policy is abided by- tell me what you want changed and I have agreed to change it. That is the ONUS on me..the onus on the complaintant is to cite verifiable issues that are SPECIFICALLY at issue, beyond random general opinion, and give me a fair hearing. To whip out WP:OSE when its clear im getting treated very differently than others, even when it is not applicable is not a fair hearing. Please just close this out against me so I can pursue the real issues up the ladder here. Im not going to resolve this at this level, no matter that I have offered to make any concession asked of me, NUMEROUS TIMES now.

Thank you to xDanielx , you are a fair minded person. --Fastbackpinto 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He did; he explained that it was a POV fork of Sean Hannity. This view was endorsed by the deletion discussion, and appears to be generally endorsed here. Wikipedia guidelines with respect to deletion are being followed — it was determined in the last discussion that this was an inappropriate fork of another article. The specific, actionable requests would be to not make it a POV fork — which is, of course, impossible since the article is designed to be one. If something, like this article, are designed to fork off contentious material from another page because it has been decided against being included there it is perfectly appropriate to delete it when consensus is reached. It was. --Haemo 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. The issue at hand in a deletion review is whether the deletion process was conducted properly. There is no implicit requirement for remediation under the deletion process: an AfD opens discussion on deletion of the article to determine whether consensus exists to delete the article. Technically, the debate was closed quickly, but under WP:SNOW, I don't see merit to reopening debate. If the original editor and/or Fastbackpinto have a strategy and sources the improve the article, I also support userfication of the article so they can work on it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

comment- (Thanks Fred), To Haemo, I respectfully disagree-

What content/POV forking is not - Articles whose subject is a POV

Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POVFORK

Convergence of topic is not automatically indicative of a POV fork- this exception actually couldnt fit any closer to my case, as noted above. --Fastbackpinto 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this article was about perceived "inaccurate claims or bias" of the person. Who decided what "inaccurate claims or bias" are? No information in the article was attributed to reliable sources, and the title is inherently subjective. Wikipedia is not the place to post your personal views about Sean Hannity. See also WP:BLP. Melsaran (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Melasaran, who writes on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not the place to post your personal views

MELESARAN ALSO WROTE ON WIKIPEDIA- 1) ``This user is a very firm Atheist and believes that religion will be eliminated from the world someday``

2) ``This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.``

3) ``It's really pretty simple: - mind NPOV - - don't be a dick - - ignore all rules -`` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melsaran

Well, THIS user believes Melasaran is a hypocrite, who does what he wants then lectures others. Seriously, there are bogus or fraudulent pages that do need to be addressed, but if this, meaning me, is all you can get on about, then please go create for yourself instead of this censoring of that you dont like. --Fastbackpinto 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM WIKIPEDIA- PLEASE NOTE! TO ALL- I WITHDRAW ANY AND ALL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER MY USER NAME TO WIKIPEDIA. I DO NOT WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS TWISTED MESS CALLED WIKIPEDIA, AND I RECLAIM COMPLETE AND TOTAL OWNERSHIP OF ANY AND ALL MY WORK, AS MY OWN, NOT SHARABLE OR RE-DISTRIBUTABLE. AS WIKIPEDIA HAS DELETED THIS INFORMATION AND REFUSED TO ACCEPT CUSTODY OF MY WORK, I RECLAIM RIGHTS TO ANY AND ALL DELETED WORK, AS MY COMPLETE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

OWNERSHIP OF ALL DELETED CONTRIBUTIONS IS MINE AND MINE ONLY, AND MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, DISTRIBUTED, MODIFIED OR QUOTED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM WITHOUT MY EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION. I withdraw ANY AND ALL membership in Wikipedia or any of its subsidiaries and ask that my user account be permanently deleted. I withdraw any and all review / request for review, of the deletion of my material from wikipedia, and withdraw any permission for wikipedia or any of its members, agents, or designates to maintain, publish, share or in any way redistribute in print or any ohter media, my deleted works.

I will be back on the web with my work, I promise, but never on Wikipedia. --Fastbackpinto 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was the admin who closed the AfD. At the time of the closure i was still focusing on the decision and not on your actions. Now, after a couple of days, i am thinking of other things instead:

• WP:SPA
• WP:POINT
• WP:NPOV
• i may remind you of {GDFL} terms under which contributors participate here. Also refer to "Right to vanish" -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also see WP:REVOKE - the GFDL can't be revoked and a statement of revocation is essentially a legal threat. --Coredesat 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly; the GFDL is a non-revocable license, and you cannot "withdraw" your contributions, since you license them away when you his "save page". --Haemo 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This was a non-admin decision to Speedy keep, with almost no discussion allowed. AfD should be restored, and discussion allowed for the full 5 days. --profg 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - this was going to be a snowball keep regardless of how long it spent. Nominating an article for deletion because it's non-neutral is not a valid rationale for deletion, and the discussion clearly demonstrated that. --Haemo 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• endorse - per above, and my !vote at the AfD. NPOV concerns are not grounds by themselves for deletion. ornis (t) 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - the criterion for deletion was invalid, and it was an obvious speedy keep. Guettarda 04:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: NPOV issues are not grounds for deletion. Additionally, the nominator has made no attempt to discuss these concerns on the article talkpage, nor to attempt to correct any perceived NPOV issues within the article itself, prior to nominating this article for deletion. Hrafn42 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:SNOW. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. POV is not a reason for deletion. Smashville 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endore Closure Filll 06:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. NPoV is no reason for deletion. Fosnez 07:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. There was no valid rationale for deletion, and none was offered by any other editor. Under two hours and just three !votes is a little hasty to call WP:SNOW for my taste, as this DRV shows -- with just three !votes consensus is weak. Nevertheless, the AFD nominator should use dispute resolution recommendations to solve the perceived WP:NPOV violations. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per WP:NPOVFAQ#Common questions. faithless (^speak) 10:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• endorse closure although I have reservations similar to those of Dhartung, and it might under some very limited circumstances make sense to delete an article if it was hopelessly POV, there's no need to reopen this discussion per Dhartung and other's logic. JoshuaZ 11:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep It's a notable institution, and this article will no doubt eventually be helpful to related stories (currently, it appears to only be linked in the main space from the Discovery Institute article, but I expect that to change). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Further Comment Please note that this is a discussion about re-opening the AfD discussion after a non-admin did a "speedy keep". Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Procedure notes that "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." This was not done; AfD should be restored, and discussion allowed for the full 5 days. --profg 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Ten Pound Hammer closed it on the rather clear ground that the reason given for deletion "This article obviously violates WP:NPOV" was invalid. It doesn't take an admin to know that. No other conclusion was imaginable. Considering that problems with NPOV had never even been raised on the article's talk page, the AfD seems to me a clear instance of WP:POINT, as is this Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: The NPOV problems still haven't been raised on the article's talk page which is most curious indeed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure but I too have a few issues with the manner in which it was closed. Extremely hasty "speedy keep" closures with only a couple of hours of discussion often wind up here at DRV. A little bit of patience and discretion, allowing the discussion to continue for at least a little while longer, may well have averted an unecessary review. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)