Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 20

User:Lucy-marie/Userboxes/Nuclear Bomb Supporter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is an old page whihc was deleted, It should be restored as it is a form of censorship to remove it , if a person does believe in the use of a nuclear weapon then they should be allowed to show that support. The removal of this option is a form of censorship and while I do not personally support this, I will not stop someone else showing their support. it was speedy deleted under T1 inflamatory and WP:NOT which are both in my opinion POV if a user doesn't like it then they don't have to use the template. Lucy-marie 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - Radiant! speedy deleted the Userbox at 16:27, 25 January 2007, citing "inflammatory, T1, WP:NOT a soapbox." -- Jreferee T/C 23:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:UP#NOT and Wp:userbox#Content_restrictions both would seem to justify the deletion of the Userbox at WP:MfD. Do you really want to put everyone through that? On the other hand, there are other userbox uses of Image:Radiation warning symbol.svg that may be more appropriate to convey something about you. Check out the file links at Image:Radiation warning symbol.svg for such uses. Also, consider going through the user pages that link to Special:Whatlinkshere/Nuclear_weapon to get an idea of how others are utilizing 'Nuclear Bomb' on their user page. -- Jreferee T/C 01:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, divisive, inappropriate advocacy. Inflammatory is perhaps too much of a pun... Guy (Help!) 13:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure WP:CENSOR applies to userpages, in any case. ColourBurst 15:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Hmmm, this is tricky. As I argued in this MfD, the principle that Wikipedia is not censored doesn't really apply in userspace; while valid encyclopedic content should not be censored on the grounds of potential offense, we should avoid any userspace or projectspace content which may be unnecessarily divisive or offensive, as it contributes to divisions within the community. However, this page is not as clearly offensive as "This user is a pimp" (although offense is always subjective to some degree). Listing at MfD would probably be inconclusive, as some users would find it tasteless while others would not. I therefore reluctantly endorse the deletion; however, I also strongly urge that userboxes of the opposite viewpoint (e.g. "This user is against nuclear weapons") must also be deleted, for the sake of even-handedness. (All too often, the Wikipedia community demonstrates its subconscious liberal bias by treating right-wing viewpoints as more "divisive" than their leftist counterparts, but that isn't really within the scope of this discussion.) Walton^One 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The arguments given by the nom aren't any good, but I don't think the reasons given for the deletion are either. The template was deleted under WP:CSD#T1, which doesn't apply to templates in userspace (it states only templates in Template: space qualify), and I don't think G10 qualifies either. As for WP:NOT...honestly, we'd have to axe away over half the userboxes on that one. Templates, expecially userboxes, aren't articles. It's also hard to be sure it -was- a soapbox position, maybe it was a joke. --UsaSatsui 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion userspace isn't myspace, I really don't think that userboxes are needed to foster pro- & anti- advocacy positions on every single issue (there are enough already and some consideration to deletion of them is probably in order). If some people reasonably consider a userbox inflamatory, then it probably shouldn't be here - and any box on the other side of the same issue should also go to maintain NPOV. Carlossuarez46 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. If the intent was humorous, then there's not much to worry about. If the intent was serious, well, we certainly shouldn't be censoring unorthodox political advocacies. We can make exceptions for disinformation and substantial disruption, but I don't think this was either. The application of WP:CSD#T1 and WP:SOAP to a user-space opinion piece was dubious, to say the least. — xDanielx ^T/_C 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was userfied by Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 22#Template:Nuclear Bomb Supporter. Since that was considered acceptable back in January by a TFD, it should not have been speedily deleted. So yes, an MFD is called for to determine whether consensus has changed. GRBerry 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bend Over Boyfriend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was speedy deleted on the basis of G11 (Spam) but clearly did not meet that criteria, in that it did not just exclusively promote the product and did not need to be fundamentally re-written to become encyclopedic. F Mita 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Note - Burntsauce posted the article for deletion at AfD. An hour later, Rackabello requested speedy delete per db-spam. Four minutes later, Pascal.Tesson rejected the speedy deletion, removed the db-spam post, and noted in the AfD that the article was not a speedy deletion candidate. Rackabello restored the db-spam post ten munites later and Carlossuarez46 speedy deleted the article, citing CSD G11. -- Jreferee T/C 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list - Endorse the speedy deletion since "CSD A7 No reasonable assertion of importance/significance" fits. I don't think Rackabello's restoring a rejected speedy deletion request during a pending AfD was a good approach, however. -- Jreferee T/C 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Haemo and bbatsell are correct in that CSD A7 does not not apply to a video tape. WP:CSD#G11 doesn't seem to fit since any advertising in the article was not blatant. From a physics standpoint, bend over boyfriend doesn't seem like it would work for a female-male relationship, but if they got it on film, well, then, AfD is the best place to decide this. The Image:Bend_over_boyfriend_cover_01.jpg should be restored as well if this goes to AfD since the basis for deleting the image was the speedy AfD close. -- Jreferee T/C 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn — the deletion was for WP:CSD#G11, spam, but it definitely doesn't look like spam to me. WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to videotapes, and it's definitely a notable one. A simple Google News search brings up numerous articles about it, or relating to it; given that it's the single most notable video that Carol Queen has produced. --Haemo 00:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion G11 and/or A7 apply. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD. Please read the CSD again. A7 is very specific and applies to only a few types of articles; this does not even remotely come close to falling under it. I also don't see how this could have been considered spam. There was no basis for speedy deletion. Let an AfD run its course. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn content was not blatantly promotional, A7 did not apply as there was a claim of importance. --W.marsh 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn As I said then, this did not qualify as spam. Actually, if it was anyone's intention to write a promotional article for the product, they did a pretty lousy job. There was an, albeit limited, claim of notability but certainly enough to avoid the application of A7 (which in any case, technically, doesn't apply to books). Pascal.Tesson 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse worthless product spam.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse -- Spam is not the issue here. Wikilawyering and pulling out rules and policy numbers is not the issue here. The issue is plain and simple--what are we trying to create here? Is this a genuine encyclopedia with genuine content, or are we about to become the laughing stock of the Internet, claiming that this fulfills our mission of spreading free knowledge to the world (for more information, get this video ...). Thank goodness someone had the common sense to speedy this. Now let's speedy this ludicrous discussion. Danny 02:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The main people who think having articles on sex topics makes us a laughing stock seems to be you and other Wikipedians. I've never seen people in the press or general public criticize us for having too much information... it's just Wikipedians that worry about that kinda stuff. That's what actually makes us a laughing stock... some writer looking to fill a column wouldn't bat an eyebrow at this article, but would have something to work with if he looked at this discussion. "That an article has to do with sex is the only escuse we need to get rid of it"? That kind of attitude is not only totally unsupported by policy, it's exactly the kind of thing that would make us look completely silly if someone chose to make fun of us for having admins who think that way. At any rate, I point out that there seem to be quite a few legit sources on this video: [1]. --W.marsh 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - What danny said. Wow... just wow. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you two serious? Blanket claims that "this is unencyclopedic" are nonsense. It's not only not spam, but a notable sex education video.[2] WP:CSD is not a ticket to delete things you don't like, and endorsing a speedy deletion that was not spam because it's "unencyclopedic" is totally outrageous; that's why we have a deletion process — so admins deciding what is, and is not, encyclopedic aren't the final arbiters of inclusion. --Haemo 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A+++++, would read again. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In response to Haemo, A7's exclusivity is a matter of debate, the placement of such a statement on CSD was removed. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, so "process" that achieves no difference in result is just WP:POINT disruption. If anyone rationally thinks that "Bend Over Boyfriend is a series of sex education videos covering the practice of a woman penetrating a man's anus with a strap-on dildo (known as pegging). The videos stars Carol Queen, who discusses pegging and also demonstrates the practice with her husband. The video also contain footage of other couples engaging in the practice." asserts notability is just wrong: what criteria of WP:MOVIE does this two-line article state that it meets? Carlossuarez46 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:MOVIE is not a criteria for speedy deletion, in fact in the very first paragraph of WP:MOVIE, which you cite as justification as speedy deletion, says the guideline "is not a criterion for speedy deletion". So you're exactly wrong. A guideline like WP:MOVIE is something to mention at AFD... an AFD you made impossible. At any rate, having a notable star is a claim of notability. --W.marsh 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey, that's why we have WP:CSD, and not blanket deletions. You can't decide to delete an article under WP:CSD#A7 by unilaterally extending what it covers to whatever you decided to delete. A7 is not a blanket "does not assert notability" criterion, and what it covers has been under extensive debate. Since there's clearly no consensus to extend it to videos and movies (though I have, in the past, argued to do so) you can't just unilaterally extend it because you feel it "should apply". This is precisely why we have guidelines for speedy deletion — so that the community gets to decide what is an uncontroversial deletion, and not just a select group of admins. CSD are not a substitute for snowball closes; those need to be carried out via WP:AFD — a discussion which you unilaterally pre-empted, and given the notable nature of the subject of the article, would have not applied. --Haemo 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD, since the closing of the debate by the speedy was altogether unjustified. Speedy is for uncontroversial cases and it is perfectly clear that good and responsible editors think otherwise. That an non-SPA ed. without COI said duringthe limite AfD that it was not spam, is enough to invalidate a speedy for spam. It must be fully debated. DGG (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Bend Over Boyfriend may be a legitimate sexual education product, but regardless notability was not asserted in the article, and I felt the article's tone was promotional, and that CSD A7 and/or G11 applied. Rackabello 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's why we have discussions. When another user, in good standing, removes the tag and tells you it's not spam, then you should nominate it for a deletion discussion — not re-add the tag. It's clear that WP:CSD#G11 does not apply, and WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to videos. --Haemo 05:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I stand by my opinion that this article met speedy deletion criteria, however replacing the speedy tag was poor judgement on my part. I thought a random user removed the speedy tag, and was unaware that Pascal is an Sysop, but that is not an excuse. I respect the community's decision to relist the article for AfD and/or undelete it outright, and will not participate further in this or subsequent discussions concerning Bend Over Boyfriend. Rackabello 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny, who has pretty much hit the nail on the head. This is also only sort of spam, but there's no way in hell this would survive an AFD anyway. --Coredesat 11:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering there are 21 sources [3] that would be used to improve the article, this would almost certainly survive an AFD, it has more sources than Fleshlight which the community chose to keep the last time people tried to circumvent consensus to get rid of a naughty article. --W.marsh 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not advocating censorship (WP:NOT#CENSORED, by the way). However, I'm convinced now that this isn't spam after giving it another look, but I'm still not positive it would survive an AFD. However, overturn and list. --Coredesat 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, not in any way encyclopaedic, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not very compelling either. Redirect it to pegging and have done with it. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not other articles exists, it's that the last time the same people tried to delete something like this, the community told them "no thanks". Does consensus matter at all any more? At any rate, there are at least 21 sources. The idea that this is unencyclopedic just because it's a sex product is pretty blatant bias. What is so scary about letting the community have its say and improve an article? --W.marsh 13:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Danny. No matter how you paint it, this was deletable under the CSD G11 provision as non-encyclopaedic spam. Burntsauce 16:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? It just explained what the video was. it didn't advertise it... blatant advertising G11 was never meant to cover any commercial product, otherwise we wouldn't have any such articles. --W.marsh 17:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Stunning that people keep repeating this argument. If that was "blatant spam" then I've been sorely misled as to what constitutes advertising. --Haemo 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Extra comment I'm bemused by Danny's argument and the support it's garnering here. The idea that this should be deleted because it makes us the laughing stock of the Internet is very bizarre. For one thing, I hate to break it to you, but we are already the laughing stock of the Internet. This is partly due to the huge number of articles on super-obscure topics such as this one and partly due to the perception that despite its claimed openness, Wikipedia is in many ways run by a handful of users who believe they know what's right for the project and really don't care for the official principle of consensus-driven administration. "Wow, just wow" just doesn't cut it. Danny's argument sounds like "thank God this was speedied because it might end up being kept if it goes through AfD". Well if AfD concludes that there is sufficient third-party coverage to warrant an article here, this should be kept. It's ok to disagree with that decision but it's not ok to call for circumventing process to impose your preferred solution. There's also a continued argument that this was spam when in fact the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it wasn't. For one thing, it was not created by a suspected spammer but by your everyday normal newbie F Mita (talk · contribs). For the benefit of non-admins, the content read

"Bend Over Boyfriend is a series of sex education videos covering the practice of a woman penetrating a man's anus with a strap-on dildo (known as pegging). The videos stars Carol Queen, who discusses pegging and also demonstrates the practice with her husband. The video also contain footage of other couples engaging in the practice."

How can anyone seriously argue that this is blatant advertising? It is perfectly neutral in tone and it's about as promotional as the introductory paragraph of Oreo. Sure, an argument can be made that this should be deleted but no argument can be made that this has to skip AfD: there are sources discussing the video. Their reliability and importance have to be checked and this is what AfD will do for you. Pascal.Tesson 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are sources? Not in the article, not even asserted in the article: and it is the assertion of notability that is at issue in CSD - no assertion = delete. If sources could have been found, the article could have been created with them. It wasn't. Why? No one has bothered to even requested userfication to create a draft in userspace. Why? The author wanted to contest the speedy deletion rather than requesting userfication and improving the article as some suggest is possible. Again, why? Carlossuarez46 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Because you deleted it out of process before anyone could add sources, and a userfied and improved draft would probably get deleted under G4 if someone tried that, then we'd be back here at DRV with another admin who doesn't understand CSD. AFD is when sources are often added. And there was an assertion of importance... it was a bad deletion, just undelete it, send it back to AFD, and people will add sources. --W.marsh 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that people seriously believe that WP:CSD#A7 can be summarized as "no assertion = delete". That's not what the guidelines say, and for some very good reasons. --Haemo 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the article clearly stated that the video starred Carol Queen who, unquestionably, is rather well-known. No, that does not necessarily mean that the article should be kept, but it is a credible assertion of notability. I'm a strong supporter of A7, precisely because it is written to have a limited scope which is designed to handle the most obvious and routine problems with new articles. These limits are the product of a carefully crafted compromise that has the overwhelming support of the community. Extending the A7 scope on a whim is throwing that compromise out the window, not to mention that it's pretty bity. No sources? At least half of new articles have no sources because newbies don't know how to do that. It's never been the aim of CSD to thump newbies by deleting their imperfect attempts at new articles. Pascal.Tesson 22:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> So any blue link (they are rather well-known too) is asserting notability? We have hundreds of blue link adult performers, all their movies assert notability in your view ipso facto. Why even have WP:N or WP:MOVIE - having a blue link in your movie is not asserting that the movie meets WP:MOVIE. No assertion of notability is A7, that someone would want to promote A7 crap on WP is strong case of G11. Carlossuarez46 23:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We have non-speedy deletion inclusion guidelines like WP:N and WP:MOVIE for our non-speedy deletion process, WP:AFD. See the connection? You're also alluding to a problem that doesn't exist - we don't have a glut of hopelessly non-notable movies bogging down AFD, we actually have one probably notable movie (due to sources) movie that is bogging down DRV because CSD wasn't applied correctly. --W.marsh 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One would also point out that WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to movies, and everything that doesn't meet WP:CSD#A7 is not blatant advertising. We have notability guidelines so that discussion can be held over whether or not an article meets them; not so that admins can unilaterally decide whether or not articles meet them, and then speedy delete them on their own prerogative. --Haemo 05:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlos, your latest reply shows two things. The first is that a) you don't know who Carol Queen is (which is ok) and b) that you did not bother to check before deleting the article (which is not ok). She is not an adult performer or a porn star as you seem to think. She is a sexologist and a fairly respected one at that. The second thing that you are demonstrating is that you don't understand that you have a responsibility as an admin to follow, within reason, the principles set out by the community. Where is the good faith in the sentence "if someone writes about non-notable crap, then they are advertising"? How about assuming that the creator wrote a small article about a topic he felt was worthy. He may be wrong about that but that doesn't make him a spammer. Pascal.Tesson 01:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascal, unless Carol Queen is of the small elite whose every work is inherently notable (cf. WP:BK) - fact is she isn't regardless of whether she is an adult performer or a sexologist is irrelevant unless someone is focusing on ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT criteria - which are not valid criteria for keeping or deleting. You make assumptions about me that are invalid. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, you just cited 3 more pages that are specifically not criteria for speedy deletion. How much more obvious do we have to make it? You cite WP:BK to justify your speedy deletion... yet it again says specifically it is "not a criterion for speedy deletion". You are simply wrong. --W.marsh 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlos, it seems pretty clear that before deleting, you did not bother to check the history of the article (or you would have seen that the speedy tag had been removed and reintroduced), you did not bother to check the AfD which was running at the time (or you would have noticed I'd commented about my removal of the db-spam), you did not check the link to Carol Queen (or you wouldn't have argued above that she's yet another adult performer) and you did not bother checking for sources. These four things are part of your responsibilities as an admin. This DRV is emphatically not about whether the article should be kept or deleted, it's about whether this should be decided on AfD and it would just save everybody a lot of time if you just said "hey, maybe I screwed up, let's send it to AfD." You will still be able to make your point about deleting the article there. Pascal.Tesson 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn If this had been listed at AfD in the first place then coming to a decision on whether or not to delete it would have taken maybe 10% of the time that this DRV has.P4k 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That time would also be saved if the deleting admin simply admitted to a mistake. :-) Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - per WP:SHENANIGANS which if it doesn't exist, should. The confusion over multiple admins taking conflicting actions indicates to me that this case should go to AFD and not through a speedy process. Otto4711 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. CSD A7 does not apply here and G11 applies only to cases of blatant advertising ... this article was descriptive, not promotional. The subject of the article may or may not be notable, but that's for the AfD to determine. WP:N (and the subject-specific notability guidelines) do not justify speedy deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Spare and relist* per Pascal.Tesson - all this discussion about tone and "laughing-stock of the Internet" is ridiculous. Being called the laughing-stock of the Internet is like being called the smelliest fish in the bucket. They're ALL smelly, they're fish. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, someone needs to review G11... ridiculous. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment once again, if there is good-faith argument over a speedy, then it is controversial enough for an Afd. The wheel war about the speedy was inappropriate--the afd should have continued. I am forced to wonder about the motives for cutting short an afd where there were arguments for keeping. WP is not censored. DGG (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - A mistake was made in good faith; take care of it and move on. --Orange Mike 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist: what we are trying to create here is a genuine encyclopedia with genuine content, and I see no evidence that this is not genuine content that belongs in a genuine encyclopedia. Whether it's notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia is a separate question, and a valid one, but that should be decided at AfD, since A7 explicitly does not apply here. Note also that if the G11 is upheld, that will obviously be without prejudice against a recreation which does not have an overly promotional tone. G11 deletions are never prejudicial. (Ditto for A7s.) Xtifr _tälk 05:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist: I've no opinion on its notability, but speedy deletion is supposed to be for uncontroversial cases - if a user in good standing like Pascal disagreed with the speedy then the AfD should have been allowed to run its course. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

N4G (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

N4G is basically the "digg" of gaming news. As far as I know it is the first and most popular from the few other similar social gaming sites. The NeveR SLeePiNG 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note - The N4G website was mention at A tech support director at EA told the N4G Web site that ..., but that did not say anything about the site being first social gaming news site. -- Jreferee T/C 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse — article did not assert notability. If it's notable, then re-creating it with citations will not pose a problem. --Haemo 00:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: no valid argument for undeletion offered. Being the "Digg of gaming news" is sort of like saying that Oregon is California's Canada. Even if it's true, it doesn't make Oregon a country or N4G notable. Obviously this endorsement is without prejudice against a recreation based on reliable sources showing that this site has notability of its own (rather than just notability-by-analogy, which is not actually notability at all). Xtifr _tälk 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

(1) AfD was handled improperly along the way. (2) Relevant events in Donato's life which may change his notability occurred during the AfD. Travislangley 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually care whether Dick Donato has an article or is just a redirect, but given the improper AfD discussion, this needs to be done over. As I mention above, we have two main issues:

(1) AfD was improperly handled along the way.

Several people kept blanking content and turning the page into a redirect before discussion was over. People must see the article to discuss it.

One person who was not an admin proclaimed it closed.

That person removed the AfD tag. During the four days the tag was gone, conversation died. When the tag returned, people started voting again. Tags must not be removed.

(2) Notabiltiy.

People can debate notability of a Big Brother winner, but the AfD nomination was based on the fact that this person was simply a contestant. During the four days in which the tag was missing, he won the half-million-dollar competition. Notability of a winner is a different issue from notability of a mere contestant, rendering previous discussion potentially irrelevant.

Nomination should be closed with a keep and invitation to restart AfD properly (or however a "do-over" set-up gets worded -- I've never suggested a deletion review before because I'm a pretty strong deletionist myself).

The closing admin has actually suggested that a "do-over" could make sense given the "zaniness" of this AfD[[4]] and would like input. Travislangley 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remarks from the closing admin - Yes, this is correct. The discussion was very, very irregular with the deletion tag removed for long periods of time during the highest "exposure" periods of the AfD. I discussed simply re-opening the discussion, but I feel the irregularity compromised the situation in general. I'm supportive of a new discussion here, because I feel the failure to adhere to process distorted the final decision. However, I wanted some outside opinions, first. --Haemo 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this needs a DRV. If winning the show makes him notable (I'm not sure, but I would guess so), then re-create the article. If someone disagrees, it can be worked out through normal discussion, just like other redirects. --UsaSatsui 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: Despite the fact that the AfD was improperly handled, there is still very valid discussion on that AfD. Being a contestant on a game show is not notable enough for its own page. Dick Donato then won the show, so people keep saying that "other people who won before have their own page". While this is true, most of the previous winners have notability other than winning this show (ie: TV appearances unrelated to Big Brother), and depite "(2) Notability" above, his winning the game was part of the AfD discussion. And a side note to the proposer of the DRV; AfD's are not ballots and do not have "votes" like you said above. They are discussions. - Rjd0060 22:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Relist: I am changing my view on this. It might just make things easier if it gets relisted, and a new AfD discussion is started (which I have every intention on starting a new one unless somebody beats me to it). - Rjd0060 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Relist anew. - The AfD did not receive proper input to the extend where it was out of process. We cannot accept such behavior at AfD. As I've said in the past, content is never more important than behavior. If we need to delete content or keep content to help ensure proper behavior, then that is the route we should take. -- Jreferee T/C 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion: First I'd like to apologize for compromising this process by redirecting the page and removing the AfD banner. I endorse the deletion because reality TV winners are not notable in their own right but only to devoted reality TV fans. If they are notable for winning a reality TV show, a game show, does that mean all winners of game shows deserve their own articles? I don't believe so. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a collection of pop culture whose claim to fame is a couple of months on a reality tv show? Big Brother winners are easily forgotten after a couple of months, if that long. Will they be remembered by our grandchildern for doing a great thing? Of course not. This is nothing but fancruft and individual winners of game shows should not have an article unless they have done something really notable per WP:BIO. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. My formal "vote": We're not here to rehash the notability arguments. This is about the integrity of AfD procedure. If you have valid arguments for or against deletion, take them up in a proper AfD and don't impair the process by removing the AfD tag for four days or claiming to close discussion when you don't have authority. Notability is an issue here not with regard to whether he's notable or not, but with regard to whether people judging the AfD would answer differently based on a change in events. He might still be non-notable, but people need a chance to weigh in based on current circumstances (his being the winner) which did not apply when the AfD began (based on his status merely as a contestant). Also, those of you who fought the original AfD apparently are going to stick to your guns and say the same thing you said before. You have every right to weigh in on this, but please don't start arguments here. You've already made your basic case elsewhere. The closing admin specifically requested outside opinions. Regardless of your position, I recommend that you leave this alone for now and let the outside opinions speak. Travislangley 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're right. If this page gets relisted, then we will begin a new (and more formal) AfD discussion. - Rjd0060 00:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Typically, if you list the DRV, you do not get an !vote at that same DRV. You can comment away, however. I'm sure the DRV closer will know what to do, so there's no harm. -- Jreferee T/C 00:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. I still think it should be deleted, but the AfD was really irregular. Let's be honest. We're dealing with fans in regards to this article, and I mean this in the least insulting way possible, fans are rabid about shows like Big Brother. If we don't relist this it will turn into some huge, lame thing. So, let's try again. AniMate 06:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per AniMate. I too feel that this page should probably be deleted (or remain as a redirect), but the community should have proper input into this decision. Walton^One 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Jreferee, there is no harm in re-evaluating this one for the greater good of the project and our readers. Burntsauce 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Relist since closing arguments relied on notability, which changed significantly (IMO) mid-debate. Needs a re-visit for an honest AfD discussion. Tarc 18:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Since notability cannot be separated from "Big Brother 8" (and we don't expect him to attain the level of fame of, say, Clay Aiken, who didn't even win), it makes sense to simply have him within the Big Brother 8 article.Ryoung122 08:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing the AfD process. Wryspy 17:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The 50 song challenge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Moderators showed little or no understanding for the nature of the Challenge being described. One of the authors attempted, in vain, to explain the relevance of the article and offered to provide several strains of independent evidence for the Wiki-worthiness of the article. The problem is that the Challenge is an "internet grass roots" Challenge, which, despite having being around for several years, mainly manifests itself on Usenet newsgroups and similar non-mainstream media. Nevertheless, many people have taken the challenge and produced so much material that it should be considered equally valid as FAWM. I have nothing to do with running the challenge, and I do not in any way profit from it. I encourage administrators to Assume good faith. --Quinkysan 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question: Was this article under a different name? I can't find any evidence it existed. --UsaSatsui 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed the links. The article was essentially unsourced and without any evidence of independent coverage to establish significance. Looks like a valid WP:CSD#A7 to me. Quinkysan, we don't make value judgments like "it deserves a mention because it's good" (to paraphrase), we need reliable independent sources from which an article can be drawn. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion was deleted 3 times by 3 different admins, I agree was valid A7 speedy deletion. Carlossuarez46 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above, this is a valid A7. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, though if you can find some valid sources, I don't think there will be much objection to creating it again. --UsaSatsui 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid A7 (based on the version which is currently up at least), without prejudice to recreation if someone can find some independent sources to show that it satisfies WP:N and/or WP:WEB. As for FAWM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument at the best of times, and I see that someone has just prodded that article as well. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse seeing how I was one of the deleting admins. I just did a search for info on the topic using "50 song challenge", "50song", "50songs90days", etc. and couldn't find anything. Dies the site have a more common name? Are you aware of any news reports on the site or any press releases by the site? The site at [5] lists seventy members. -- Jreferee T/C 23:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above, clearly a valid deletion. Burntsauce 16:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable Deletion Gray Matter 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) -->

Brenda Barrie and The Binding have been deleted for inconsequential reasons and I request both articles be returned to Wikipedia. The material contained in the deletion debate which contains at least as many words as either of the deleted articles) contain a number of petty reasons that show lack of understanding, both of the subject matter and more importantly, the purpose of Wikipedia itself.

As to the first point, one editor asserts that the article is self-promotion due to the fact that the author's website has links to the two articles, but of course that is perfectly natural. Any author with a dedicated website (and that includes nearly all authors today) have links to external sources and reviews for the convenience of readers, primarily to take advantage of additional links to related Wikipedia and external information. Another would undelete only if total sales of The Binding exceeded 5,000; though I understand sales are approaching 5,000, I see no rationale to making that number a bar to inclusion in Wikipedia.

More important than any quibbles about Ms. Barrie's relative importance in the firmament, however, is that this type of deletion flies in the face of the philosophical underpinnings of Wikipedia itself. I have spent years earlier in my career as a journalist and later publisher of newspapers and magazines, and the constant battle was to fit all the information that should have been delivered to the public into the very limited editorial space available. This same constraint has been the burden of every encyclopedist since the 16th Century until the virtually unlimited space availability of the Web made Wikipedia possible.

It is my strong contention that the purpose of editors in Wikipedia is to ensure the greatest possible accuracy over all the varied content of Wikipedia, and not to impose artificial limits on the range of its content. After all, suppose one were to be researching the important authors of Winnipeg or of Manitoba and were to come upon lists that include 19 names, all with Wikipedia articles except for Brenda Barrie, who was named Woman of the Year in Communications by the YWCA in Winnipeg at one point, wrote a novel based on three Winnipeg Jewish men all born to Holocaust survivors in DP (displaced persons) camps in Europe shortly after the war, and is now executive director of the major Reform congregation in Santa Monica, California? Others in that list include Carol Shields, Pulitzer Prize winner for her novel The Stone Diaries.

Wikipedia should over time begin to encompass the knowledge and intellectual capital of humanity. Who are these editors who imagine today what importance the future may place upon the first writer to explore in depth the anguish and guilt of middle-aged men of today struggling with the remnants of the Holocaust experience as it impacts their own lives and those of their wives and children; should they hide their Jewishness or embrace it, "suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles" as Shakespeare put in Hamlet?

Perhaps the deleting editors do not have appropriate background to understand that The Binding is not merely a commercial enterprise, but explores a deeply moving, highly personal and strongly felt anxiety within the American and world Jewish communities. Certainly the dozens of audiences Brenda Barrie has addressed over the past two years would testify to the importance of her subject and her novel.

I respectfully request that both articles be undeleted, and that in common decency, Wikipedia editors inform me of any future decisions regarding any articles I have posted, just as they should always do for any author's contributions. Gray Matter

• Endorse Deletion - They were originally deleted almost a year and a half ago, with several subsequent recreations, and you're just noticing now? I think that speaks more to notability than anything else. Besides that though, there was nothing out of order in the original AfD. Tarc 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Perhaps a specialized page might not have been noticed--not everyone who contributes to WP then monitors WP, even for their own articles. But the notability claimed is primarily for the novel, and OCLC shows it held in only 2 US libraries and no Canadian ones. Not even the author's alma mater has it. DGG (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. To even claim that this AfD was done improperly is ridiculous. All - not some - all votes were for delete and the AfD was closed after 5 days. The number of words in the AfD is irrelevant, the fact that the book has hardly sold any copies a year and a half after the AfD is relevant (it certifies lack of notability), the fact that Wikipedia can hold a lot of information is irrelevant per WP:NOT#INFO, the fact that the Wikipedia editors may or may not have written books is irrelevant, and this whole DRV is absurd. Smashville 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion closer got it 100% right, they were non-notable then and they remain non-notable now. Carlossuarez46 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, honest-to-goodness vanity spam. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the poetic rhetoric about what Wikipedia should or should not be about put aside, Gray Matter, can you assert how Brenda Barrie and The Binding meet our notability crteria? Is that information verifiable from reliable sources? Please note that Wikipedia is not, and has never been, an indiscriminate collection of information. We have space for a lot of information, much more than conventional encyclopedias, but we are just as much an encyclopedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - discussion appears to have been interpreted correctly, and no information has been presented which would result in a different outcome. --Haemo 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The discussion appears to have been interpreted correctly. I did find two references: (1) [6] and (2) Winnipeg Free Press (November 20, 2005) Arresting tale of Holocaust impact. Book review by Harold Buchwald of Brenda Barrie's The Binding. Off topic comment: Would you consider writing the Brenda Barrie article to cover the actress Brenda Barrie? There is a lot of info on her: insightful performance from Brenda Barrie as the prostitute and an able trio of twentysomethings lead by Brenda Barrie. -- Jreferee T/C 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Overturn deletion A bad precedent is being reinforced here. This article was the focus of a "witch hunt" from it's creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovedamoney (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• The precedent being reinforced here is that our articles need reliable sources, and that biographies are only for people with some claim to fame - which, arguably, an actor who only played in exceedinly minor guest roles has not. I see nothing wrong with the AFD, so endorse. >Radiant< 09:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a little tricky. The subject is a minor actor who has appeared in many commercials and a few small roles. It appears that there is for some reason a commercial site that has registered a web site in his name, which it uses to post embarrassing reviews. See [7] and seems to be cyberstalking him elsewhere [8] One source is an editorial in 3rd party online newswire Courtinfo which appears to be a reasonably reliable source. The AfD seems to have been in good faith. But there were indeed negative comments in it and on the article talk page from SPAs. The cyberstalking is not notable enough to justify an article, and neither is the career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Endorse the closer got this right: bit parts do not = notability. Carlossuarez46 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• COMMENT The following should be strongly reviewed http://davidbertolucci.personalfanpages.com/ in consideration of the stalking issue, this is only one of many sites that still remains, and many have been taken down. The lawsuit was picked up by courthousenews.com, but the extent of the level of cyber abuse not really investigated by the reporter covering the story. A google search proves many sites of defamation and discredit. The article itself has been under attack since the creation, as it seems David Bortolucci has been as well. His work is not minor, TV.com under David Bortolucci has him recurring on 3 TV show, and guest-starring on various other shows. IMDB has him appearing in over 75 major commercials, and also he has done 3 feature films in 2007 yet to be released. He has also modeled for major designers and has appeared in countless fashion spreads. He has been smeared and discredited on every site possible , clearly by someone who has a venndetta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovedamoney (talk • contribs) 17:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether the guy is being stalked or not has no bearing on whether he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Corvus cornix 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Whether or not the nomination was in good faith or not, and the nominator has not provided any evidence of such, the fact is that the AfD was carried out in an appropriate way, and nominator has not provided any evidence that the AfD, or the contentions of those who suggested deletion, were incorrect. There is nothing notable about this guy. The repeated attempts by his supporters to override Wikipedia notability guidelines do him no credit. Corvus cornix 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - closing admin appears to have interpreted the discussion properly, and it appears to have been carried out in an acceptable fashion. --Haemo 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion There are a great deal of actors listed with far fewer credits of note, here are only some of his TV credits http://www.tv.com/david-bortolucci/person/384485/appearances.html , http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1477868/otherworks, he has also been the focus of many important magazine and newspaper articles including a cover story for USA Today http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1477868/publicity . He has a few movies that are in post production. Yes the nomination was in bad faith, obviously a person with an agenda. To say “There is nothing notable about this guy” is a unfair and incorrect statement. I have read the guidelines and he should be recognized as a notable. The issue was about source, and I have suppled some, because yes- I am a supporter.--Saultauctions 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) — User:Saultauctions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Endorse - Closer interperted the debate correctly. He is mentioned in Buffalo News (August 27, 2006) Buffalo's got talent: You may not recognize them all, but a number of working actors have ties to Western New York. In that article, they write "SEVEN MEN WITH SMALL ROLES: Anyone know these people? ... 4. David Bortolucci, 37, went to college in Toronto and played Richard "Hands" Pope in the 2006 movie "Gardener of Eden." He also appeared in two episodes of "The Lyon's Den," as Little Guy and Big Guy No. 1." -- Jreferee T/C 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Response - David is not from Buffalo and the movie the "Gardener of Eden" in which he is listed of starring in, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardener_of_Eden has not even been released yet. The info you posted on The Lyon's Den is also incorrect http://www.tv.com/david-bortolucci/person/384485/summary.html?q=&tag=search_results;title;1 and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1477868/maindetails both have his character name listed as "Mike Salerno"

• I didn't write that August 27, 2006 news report in the The Buffalo News. It was the only reliable source information I found and essentially the only material that could be used in a Wikipedia article on David Bortolucci. And if that reliable source information is wrong, then there seems to be nothing to post in Wikipedia about David Bortolucci. -- Jreferee T/C 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, I meant that the source was incorrect in stating that David is from Buffalo. I have a honest question. I known David is from the Jane in Finch area of Toronto, in the list of notable people from that area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_and_Finch his accomplishments are far superior, then anyone listed, and he is diffidently more of a notable, yet they all have articles , and he dose not. Why is that please?--Saultauctions 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• That's known as "begging the question": given that his notability has not been established -- I'd say just the opposite, in fact -- the question doesn't apply. Bonus response: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Calton | Talk 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as the original nominator. Yet another swarm of single-purpose accounts (SPAs) have arrived, differently titled than the dozen or so previous SPAs that swarmed over the original article and the AFD. Personally, I'd like to know what my "agenda" or "vendetta" for nominating this article is supposed to have been: I suspect it'll be at least mildly entertaining. --Calton | Talk 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: not only is the AfD fairly clear, especially with respect to comments by established editors, and the lack of reliable sources obvious, but it is also obvious that this person, whose notability is marginal at best, is likely to be subject to WP:BLP violations if he article kept, given the evidence of cyberstalking. Per WP:BLP, we should, in such cases, err on the side of caution and delete such articles. Xtifr _tälk 05:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eprovided.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

user:Cqjb posted this article and it was speedily deleted. He contacted OTRS (ticket #2007091810010499) to ask what was going on. I explained that it was speedily deleted, and said he could request have it undeleted. He filed a request, but for the wrong article. I'm refactoring the request and adding his reasoning from before. Raul654 03:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This statement from Wiki on policy for adding smaller companies [smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations] is then true. Many of the materials on the web as far as articles about us are written by us or by other media sources such as Popular Mechanics, etc. If Popular Mechanics thinks our company is worth writing about in its magazine amongst so many other stories about us, then why can't we have a presence on Wiki? If there are stories about us on Morningstar and Marketwire about us (eProvided) recovering the environmental data for NASA's Helios mission, we feel this is also very important or at least enought for us to have our own page on Wiki. Bruce eProvided.com Founder Cqjb 15:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Nothing to do with bias, everything to do with policy. Wikipedia is not a directory, articles must be verifiable fomr independent sources, stated neutrally, and the creator's conflict of interest makes that hard to achieve. The article made no assertion of notability and read as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and not the place to advertise your website. I note an Alexa rank of 1.4 million. Please see our guideline on articles on websites. >Radiant< 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion G11, A7: correct interpretation by deleting admin. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all of the points raised above. Not notable (A7), advert (G11), autobiography, conflict of interest, not verifiable from independent reliable sources. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• With phrases like "Whatever the data loss issue, whatever the damaged device, eProvided.com will get back your lost or damaged data fast", it seems like a blatant advertising deletion was right on. I would suggest rewriting, summarizing published sources, and attributing any kind of POV to who said it, e.g. "Popular Mechanics writer X said that eProvided.com is..." and so on. Assuming there even is enough non-trivial coverage by independent sources... the popular Mechanics story looks like just a casual mention. --W.marsh 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I found four references consisting of a mention in the The Kansas City Star and three press releases. Oddly, this site released the same press release three times since October 2004. If they can't even come up with new press release material, how do they ever expect anyone to be interested in writing about their company. Anyway, here are the references: (1) MarketWire, (2) Hayes, David. (June 19, 2005) The Kansas City Star Clone it or bemoan it The data on our computers range from trite to irreplaceable, but it's easy to back up a hard drive. Page H16. (writing: "As more information is stored digitally, companies have sprung up to help when hard drives, flash drives or memory storage cards fail. For instance, eProvided.com works to recover lost data from hard drives, memory cards, discs and iPods."), (3) cqjbcq, (4) Help. -- Jreferee T/C 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. We are WP:NOT a directory and this fit several different provisions of our speedy deletion criteria, namely A7 and G11. Burntsauce 16:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - As explained in painful detail above. --Orange Mike 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)