Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 17

List of media using the Wilhelm scream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't believe consensus was reached to delete, because we had 12 deletes in bold, but also 11 keeps, 8 merges, and 1 redirect, which suggests that there really wasn't a consensus. Yes, I understand that it isn't a vote, but I don't think a general agreement had been reached in this one. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could at least have discussed this with me before starting with this bureaucracy? Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers, I don't bother to count arguments, I weigh them. Maxim_(talk) 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to discuss with you first in the future. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn of deletion I don't think there was even close to a consensus. All of the deletion points were counter pointed, and most of the counter points were unanswered. I think the arguments need re-weighed. The reason given for deletion was that it fails WP:NOT#DIR, but that had been addressed. Viperix 04:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Listcruft & unverfied OR Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Cruft" is not a reason to delete per WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That's in the eye of the closing admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Closing admins are supposed to make a determination based on community consensus, not their own opinions. DHowell 10:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was not reached Agree with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Tilefish 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, it's nice to say that you understand AFD is not a vote in your nom, but if you then proceed by judging it by headcount that implies you don't really understand it. >Radiant< 09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Rightly intepreted: delete arguments (original research and indiscriminate) carried more weight. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - WP:OR concerns were not overcome and AFD is not a vote. Otto4711 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OR concerns were overcome, read the debate again. there were seven (7) sources cited. And Aye its not a vote but weighing the arguments should have led to no consensus. Viperix 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• "The scream ... is distinct and right away you can tell whether or not it is there." does not overcome OR concerns. Otto4711 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• read the debate again. there were seven (7) sources cited Sources, not movies which is what the argument your quoting was referring to, And while I still stand by that argument, seven sources are plenty to address OR concerns. Viperix 21:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you specify what reliable sources you think were cited in the debate? I see a link to a cafepress store and a lot of claims that you can tell by watching the movie. Oh, and could you be sure to put lots more words in bold when you do it? Thanks. Otto4711 14:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The sources were cited in the article as references. What I can do is put some quotes from the debate that if you had read it, you wouldn't have had to ask where the sources were;

"I submit however that there are sources listed and if six different sources is not enough there could be more listed given time"

AND "I did however add more sources..."

Words were added in bold since you seem to not be reading before you post. What you seem to be missing is that sources were added (other than cafepress or listening to the movie), I don't know how many times I can say that. Viperix 18:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. To an extent I can understand why the closing admin didn't close this by the numbers, as some of the Keep !votes provided little reasoning. However, as the nom here points out, the sources and counter-arguments provided by the Keep side should have been sufficient to make this a No consensus. Alternatively, I might have closed it as a Merge, as a decent compromise solution. Walton^One 20:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; even the merge arguments acknowledged the fact that this article failed WP:NOT#DIR, and it was clearly a loosely associated collection of topics centered around a very minor aspect. I see no issues with the closure. --Coredesat 22:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've read all of the merge arguments and absolutely none of them acknowledged that the article failed WP:NOT#DIR. DHowell 10:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - even with weighing the arguments, I don't really see that there is a consensus here, and so this decision needs to be reversed. Deus Ex Machina 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Sure, consensus is not a headcount, but neither is it "running roughshod over the minority" (or even the majority, or at least non-plurality, in this case). Original research concerns could have been addressed by retaining sourced information (which there clearly was) and eliminating or sourcing the rest. And the arguments that this is a violation of WP:NOT#DIR simply seem to be based on proof by assertion, which increasingly seems all that is required to get things deleted these days, as long a few editors and an administrator agree with the assertion. This is probably because the policy is so vague that there isn't any way to determine whether something violates it or not other than by making assertions. According to our deletion policy, articles are not to be deleted without consensus, and also according to policy, consensus is supposed to be about addressing objections and attempting to come to a compromise solution; where was any of that done here? DHowell 01:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Consensus was loud and clear, the delete arguments were much more stronger than the keeps. Most of the keep arguments just went about how notable the effect is, which certainly is notable, but that wasn't the issue, as it has its own page. It was about a listing of movies that had the scream, and whether that should have been kept, which it should not have, hence result. Dannycali 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever was loud and clear, it was not "consensus". If the delete arguments are so much stronger, why are they failing to convince a significant number of established Wikipedia editors? I acknowledge that the keep arguments don't seem to be strong enough to sway anyone either, however, that means there is no consensus, and ergo, by deletion policy the article should be kept. DHowell 10:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually your argument (Dannycali) is not true, Not#Dir was addressed also. The fact that the article passes WP:SAL was mentioned, the fact that it passes that criteria means it also passes WP:NOT#DIR. What the delete arguements failed to do was argue that point. Viperix 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as no consensus - DHowell put it very nicely. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of directory-based information, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia cannot contain directories of information (hence the existence of lists, categories, etc.). WP:NOT#DIR tells us nothing about whether the article in question should be deleted; it only tells us that we are not inherently required to retain the article as a corollary of its status as a directory information. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• That has to be the most tortured reading of NOT#DIR that I've ever seen. No one appears to be arguing that Wikipedia can't contain directories of any sort. It cannot, however, contain directories of loosely associated items. A list of films or TV shows that have nothing in common past happening to include a particular sound effect is a directory of loosely associated items. Otto4711 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that we should discount !votes which were staged as WP:NOT#DIR. The editors who gave those !votes probably had other reasons related to issues of whether the list was useful, meaningful, encyclopedic, and so on. These concerns are perfectly sound, though how we are to test them is not codified in policy (not in any clear way, anyway). My point is just that disregarding a (lack of) consensus on policy grounds only makes sense when the relevant policy mandates keeping or deleting an article. It does not make sense when the policy merely says that we are not required to unquestioningly keep or delete an article of some class X for some reason Y. Sighting WP:NOT#DIR as a means of trumping consensus is like sighting WP:SENSE as a justification for deleting Microsoft after a sample of editors unanimously agrees that it should be kept. If the consensus does not support the invocation of some policy, then that policy should not be invoked. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• You (Otto4711) believe the list is a "directory of loosely associated items". Several well-established editors believe that it is not. In other words, there is no consensus that this violates policy. What exactly makes your opinion of what constitutes a "loose association" better than those of other editors? DHowell 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for one thing, my arguments are addressing the list itself and are not confusing the scream with the list of screams or clouded by fannish appreciation of the scream. Many of the keep arguments were based on how famous, recognizable or notable the scream itself is. What that fails to factor in is that the notability of the scream itself does not translate into a list of every time the scream appears in any film or TV show as being anything other than a loosely-associated directory. Otto4711 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Except your argument is quoted from a paragraph that also states "there is nothing wrong with having lists... {that} significantly contributed to the list topic" IE WP:SAL. This list certainly qualifies per these guidelines and the very often quoted WP:NOT#DIR, which links to WP:SAL. Yes, Many of the keep arguments were based on how famous, recognizable or notable the scream itself is, Because many of the delete arguments were attacking that. What you fail to factor in is in the example given for what does belong on WP (Nixon's Enemies List) Nixon's notability doesn't translate into a list of every person he hated over time, and yet it stays because the entries, while loosely associated, contribute to the list topic. Finally, there is not even a consensus on whether it should stay in this debate, much less in the debate on AFD. Viperix 21:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion arguments were stronger than the arguments to keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; Consensus was clear; the delete arguments were stronger and based on policy, including the unavoidable WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, a policy which this list unquestionably violates. In order to suggest that the films on this list do not violate WP:NOT#DIR we have to entertain the notion that The Empire Strikes Back, Reservoir Dogs, and A Goofy Movie share a significant connection because they all contain the same 2-second sound effect. It's laughable. Masaruemoto 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• I say overturn times 2 since a lack of consensus makes me feel this AFD was rigged: 12 deletes to 20 other, yet the poor thing STILL took the axe, even when most of the 11 keeps, 8 merges, and 1 redirect were still unanswered. --Ryanasaurus0077 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosil Al Azawi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I listed this page for deletion under several problems. It was closed as keep, with little response from editors. And yet none of my WP:V issues, let alone WP:NOTE issues were responded to adequately. There's literally nothing on this figure, besides her own website and some uploads in a figure gallery: [1]. For all we know, this could be a hoax; in fact, it is more than a little that this page was in fact such a problem, with the person using it as a means to make themselves notable. There should at least be something on google if the television presenter is such a notable figure, even if she's Arabic (I've done searches in the past, and while there are more notes in the local language, there are usually a good number of transliterations) - Arabic speakers, please do help if you see this. In short, keeping this page for its tenuous claims to notability, with the lack of any verifiable sources, runs seriously afoul of one of WP's main policies, which is verifiability, in order to avoid this kind of situation where someone is mentioned, and yet 98% of the claims could be untrue. The Evil Spartan 19:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator has a point that none of the issues were addressed. 2 keep vs 1 delete (nomination) is hardly a consensus to keep - better to have let this close as a no consensus given the apparant lack of interest in the debate. I'd suggest rather than looking to overturn via DRV, give it a little bit of time to see if anyone cares enough to try and source it, and if not, take it back to AfD. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• seems tlike the way to go.DGG (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agree per Arkyan, unsourced BLP's on notability cusp should be sourced or deleted in short order. Otherwise, we're a tabloid, myspace, and a libel farm - not an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• I went over and labelled the article with {{notability}} and {{primarysources}}, just so people can see what the problems are in more explicit form. No opinion on the AfD at this time, but I don't like *starting* with AfD. Labels first. --Alvestrand 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mac's backs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Speedied per WP:CSD#A7. The original author seems to be taking exception at my talk page. [2] Can the article be restored so it can be either (a) improved or (b) AfD'd? eaolson 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:TMLutas/WMC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was given no chance to justify under the WP:USER exception for pre-mediation material gathering

• Note from editor who deleted: The lead of your deleted page states: "This page is to gather up all the "annoying, probably violates the rules, but not worth fighting over" incidents involving William M. Connolley. Consider it an anti-fan page.".

• That right there, in addition to the content, effectively constitutes an attack page, with no exception to the speedy criteria. Your page met speedy criteria, and any page that meets speedy criteria requires no period of notice to the author pre-deletion. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The page (which of course can't be viewed right by the general community now so it's a little hard to get informed votes on my side) also said it was a prosecutor's brief, that it was done in the hope that WMC would cut it out and I'd never have to get to the point of doing an actual mediation or arbitration, and observations on the difficulty of proving a pattern of conduct without assembling such a list. WMC himself knew about the page and we were having a reasonably civil discussion over the issues prior to the speedy delete. Certainly the idea of it being an 'anti-fan' page is not central to its purpose and could be deleted without affecting it in the least. But I can't do that 5 word delete right now because I wasn't afforded a chance. The rest of the quotation falls directly into the gathering evidence exception so at least thank you for being fair minded enough to pull that in your comment.

• The noticeboard entry which alerted you to the existence of the page is titled in a way that suggests that I'm not the first guy who has a problem with WMC. I certainly don't deserve to be titled "The nth repetition..." based on my own efforts. I tried to stay out of that old history in order to avoid inflaming tensions even though proving a pattern of behavior would have been much easier had I trolled through all the previous incidents, put them in their Sunday best and resubmitted them as part of a pattern where WMC gets the benefit of the doubt because nobody has stepped far enough back to see the larger pattern. From the commentary that I had seen regarding WMC, I believe he's something of a tribal/factional leader or perhaps totem. I hadnt' want to get involved in a tribal conflict in any way which is why I reacted so negatively to the idea that j random editor commenting approvingly on my talk page should reflect on me in any way.

• I don't want to get threatened by an admin because some random guy writes on my user talk page. I also don't want to see wp:rs bent into a something it's not supposed to be because WMC believes that if an idea's older than X (a time limit which he's declined to nail down so far) it has to be peer reviewed to be a reliable source. The subpage was an effort to stick within the rules and avoid escalation. The speedy delete was unjustified and at a bare minimum, I should be given reliable guidance how to create a page within the limits of the existing exception so that when it's recreated, I will be compliant. TMLutas 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close and keep deleted. I do not see how a page used to serially compile presumptive ongoing "evidence" against the behaviour of another editor is meant to be a positive step in dispute resolution. There has been extensive discussion on ANI, and the contributors to the page in question should be (and have been) forwarded to appropriate venues in WP:DR. Drafts for an RfC or RfAr are legitimate in user page, but an open ended rap sheet meant to "change behaviour" really is a bad idea -- Samir 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Also see the WP:ANI discussion, which started after I asked for independent review of the page. --Stephan Schulz 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. We have ample precedence that such pages have no place on Wikipedia. If TMLutas feels the need to collect material, he can do so offline. Doing it on-wiki just invites the organziation of a posse, especially if he WP:OWNs the page and only allows one-sided additions. Just the use of language makes it clear that this is case of WikiLawyering by someone who has either no understanding of or no respect for our processes. --Stephan Schulz 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. TMLutas' statement that the subpage was "a prosecutor's brief, ... done in the hope that WMC would cut it out and [he]'d never have to get to the point of doing an actual mediation or arbitration" is a good indication that the page was an attack page and not a good-faith preparation for an RfC/RfAr/etc. TMLutas, if you feel the need for such a procedure, a good way to prepare for one is to copy this onto a page in your user space and fill it in; or keep evidence offline. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Attack pages are speedy deleted. Corvus cornix 01:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the burial. Pages like this are not generally allowed on Wikipedia (I've taken the cluetrout to the head on this), as all it adds up to is a laundry list of grievances that serves little-to-no immediate purpose other than to divide the community and/or attack someone. Save it onto your hard drive, write it into a composition book, but don't use userspace for these purposes. The only place such content would be is a request for comment or an arbitration case. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, attack pages are subject to speedy deletion. >Radiant< 09:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, keep deleted. This was a classic laundry list of grievances and as such inappropriate for a user subpage. It was not a preparation for a good faith Request for Comment. Sam Blacketer 09:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "Laundry lists of grudges" are not an appropriate use of user space. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a WP:SNOW case at this point, but it seems a bit warped to twist a statement expressing the hope that the user will change his behavior and thus that he won’t have to start an adversarial process (and, let’s not kid ourselves, RFC and ArbCom are adversarial processes) into evidence of bad faith. --Random832 17:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Content changed dramatically since HOWTO and SPAM deletion votes were cast, to the point where all objections have been addressed. Captain Zyrain 08:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. The revision at the time of the last delete vote (sic) was radically different from the article that was eventually deleted a week and a half later. While the two following G4s were of the same material initially deleted, that material was not the same article that went through AFD. —Cryptic 09:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It would be helpful if the content could be provided for review. Captain Zyrain is not helping his case, however, with this pointy AfD. Eusebeus 09:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is currently userfied, if you really want to see it, but I don't really see how this is POINTy - what other avenues does he have when the article was deleted despite the rewrite and trying to repost the rewrite got it G4'd? --Kizor 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • They're talking about the (recently withdrawn) AfD of cover letter. Captain Zyrain 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • My bad. --Kizor 10:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (What I get for lazily posting direct Special:Undelete links.) As Kizor points out, the more recent version is at User:Captain Zyrain/Conversation opener. This began to take form on the 14th; the last previous revision, dated 12:29, 8 September 2007, was: —Cryptic 10:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

    {{AfDM|page=Conversation opener|date=2007 September 8|substed=yes}}

    A conversation opener is an introduction used to begin a conversation. According to Persuasion Skills Limited, there are basically two topics to pick from when talking to a stranger: the situation and the other person[3]. Various situations may call for different openers, depending on the purpose of the conversation[4].

    Most guides concur that since the purpose of an opener is to start a conversation, if the opener is in the form of a question, it is better to ask an open-ended question as opposed to something that can be answered with a yes or no.

    {{sociology-stub}}

    References

    • How to Start a Conversation
    • We Have to Talk: A Step-By-Step Checklist for Difficult Conversations, Judy Ringer

• Redirect to Pickup line, redundant. >Radiant< 11:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As mentioned, a pickup line is only one type (and arguably the least effective type) of conversation opener. Captain Zyrain 11:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is that there should be one article on the topic, not two. I have no opinion on what the name and content of that article should be. >Radiant< 12:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Although theoretically a pickup line could be used as a conversation opener, as a practical matter, their ineffectiveness is so well known that they are more commonly swapped as jokes, and an argument could be made for classifying them as such; therefore they only get a passing mention in the conversation opener article. They are pretty much two separate social phenomena and there is plenty to write about both, if one wanted to write about cultural references, etc. (which were, however, recently removed from the pickup line article). Captain Zyrain 12:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted 1) Largely unencyclopedic topic, especially as written; 2) largely redundant with Pickup line. We don't need this content. Eusebeus 13:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Pick-up line with this, which is the larger topic. Kappa 15:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now. I userified it, and advised the editor that it would need major changes to be acceptable, but he insisted on bringing it here prematurely. DGG (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would just argue that it was deleted out of process. See Wikipedia:Rough_consensus#Rough_consensus. "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." That would make the delete votes based on the spam and howto arguments not count, right? Captain Zyrain 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pubs of Newtown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

While a superficial reading of the deletion discussion would seem to support consensus to delete, most of the arguments to delete were one line throw aways along the lines of "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". Decisions to delete should not be made solely on majority opinion, the substance of the arguments need to be considered by the closing admin. As per my point raised in the deletion discussion, the article is not written as a travel guide or as a directory and this was not addressed by any of the other commenters. Note: I have not contributed in any meaningful way to the article Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" is not so much a personal opinion, as a long-standing principle based on WP:NOT. With phrases like "Perhaps the finest example of the high Victorian style pub" and essentially consisting of an enumeration of places to visit for a tourist, I do believe the article is written as a travel guide or directory, and should be kept deleted. >Radiant< 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I understand WP:NOT and have cited it myself in deletion debates. My point was that those citing it did not make an effort to demonstrate why they felt it was like a travel guide when asked. Simply saying WP:NOT (even if you are the 20th person doing so) does not make a debate. At least you have made an effort to explain why you think it is written like a travel guide, even if I disagree with your point of view. How do you write about interesting things in interesting places without seeming to encourage people to visit there. I am unsure how including details of pubs that no longer exist such as "Over the years, a number of pubs have closed and been converted to commercial, residential or other uses, including the Glass Works Hotel, King St, the Kingston Hotel, Probert St, the Royal Edward Hotel, and the Victory Hotel," fits into a travel guide either for that matter. Travel guides would also tend to show prices, hours of operation, addresses and phone numbers and so on. Lastly, while WP:NOT is an official policy, whether an article breaches that policy is quite often a matter of opinion and should be supported with more detail than simply citing the policy. The article should be restored and tagged as needing attention. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 12:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But if there are twenty people telling you that it reads like a travel guide, chances are they have a point. >Radiant< 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse WP is not a travel guide or a guide to every service and business in every city, town, and hamlet in the world. Carlossuarez46 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

valid term Markmayhew 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Faceosphere was deleted without discussion. I think that most Wikipedia editors lack even the most basic qualifications for doing what they do, but Wikipedia loves them because, well, they work for free! If the term faceosphere isn't reinstated, I will start a group on Facebook demanding it's return (and how embarassing is that gonna be for Wikipedia?! Markmayhew 02:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This is a non-notable neologism relating strictly to Facebook, and there are no reliable sources to which to attribute notability. Start all the groups you want, and insult Wikipedia if you like, but neither is really going to help you toward your goal of getting an article. We need citations. --Dhartung | Talk 03:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The term could possibly be mentioned in the Facebook article, but is not notable enough for its own article. Blair - Speak to me 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Dhartung. Ultimatums and insults don't help you.--Chaser - T 03:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• revoke deletion the term "blogosphere" was, at one point, a neologism. It refers only to Facebook, true, so put it as an entry on Facebook's page (for now, then when Facebook grows, it can get it's own page.

And it's true that insults won't help me to get where I'm going so let me say that even though most Wikipedia editors work at McD's by day, they are fine editors, by night! Markmayhew 03:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to give a shout out to my homies from digg! Markmayhew 08:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• LOL! Captain Zyrain 08:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Dhartung has it exactly right - no references, no article. --Alvestrand 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No references? Google it your damn self! Markmayhew 09:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Or, since you don't seem to be to doin' too well here, here's the link to Google search results for "faceosphere", there are over 100 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=faceosphere&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmayhew (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Last I looked, fifteen wasn't "over 100". Blindingly obvious endorse, and I suggest you spam your own damn encyclopedia. —Cryptic 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm gettin' 101, and look Cryptic has joined in. Did McD's let you off early today?

And for it to be spam, it's got to be sellin' something? Jesus, there must be a Wikipedia editor somewhere that isn't an idiot, and I'm determined to find him/her.

Markmayhew 09:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the second page - there are only 15 actual results, the rest are "very similar to the 15 already displayed". You'll also find you'll get further on Wikipedia if you remain civil to other users. Blair - Speak to me 10:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Echo 429 productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

it was deleted even thought to my knowlage it was following every rule. also i feel as though it was not given enough of a chance before it was deleted. Superfryman 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC) -->

• Endorse deletion If I'm reading this right, it's a group of students (high school students?) who created this production company and then decided to create a movie about their own lives. Nothing appears to be off the ground however, and there are no sources other than a webpage on freewebs. How about not following these rules?--Chaser - T 03:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion a made-up-in-school "production company" which has produced a total of zero (0) films. Typical WP:NFT nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

well here is a list of 63 people who say Echo 429 productions does in fact exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig1.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig2.jpg also just because it was made up in school one day it has generated into more than just that. more over to the frewebs site it just really has not hit off yet. Superfryman 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Continue to Endorse my deletion - I never said anything about existence. Existence is not a guarantor of a Wikipedia article, nor is it a requirement. I'm sure I could get a lot more than 63 signatures to prove I exist and I could create my own website too, but I have yet to do anything notable that could earn me an article here. As I've said before multiple times, the article does not assert notability. Mr.Z-man 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

mr.z-man what do you need me to do to make it notable. Superfryman 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability in this case is governed by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Like the other notability guidelines, the primary criterion is multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (such as articles in newspapers from major metropolitan areas). Beyond the notability issue, reliable sources are important because they offer some assurance to our readers that what they read here wasn't made up by some anonymous people on the internet. Wikipedia strives to be better than that. We have legions of articles that don't have reliable sources cited. We're working on those, too. There's really nothing you can do here.--Chaser - T 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Produce some films and get them distributed across the US. Once you've done that the company will be notable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)