Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27

Polmont F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Yet another return of the article Polmont F.C. This article has been speedily deleted at least twice before. Cam it be speedily deleted yet again?
• Speedy close as out of process. We don't delete pages here. If the page is a straight recreation then it should be G4 tagged (as opposed to the G6 tag used). If not, it should be AFD'd again. BlueValour (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques d'Arc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) as conclusion of a prod but in the reason for deletion the admin unnecessarily remarks about a hangover to describe one of the contributors. The page did list sources and even referenced other articles where the nobility and notability are also a subject in those articles. The other contributors have even expanded on the sources that were listed. I'm surprised the admin mentioned 'no sources' when I remember there was a few listed. The pages Joan of Arc and Isabelle Romée both refer to this page. Being the husband to Isabelle Romée and father of Joan of Arc, I don't even understand why Jacques' page was deleted or how that even rewrites history as said by Butseriouslyfolks. — Dzonatas 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

notability can be established

Notability:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Brought+to+you+by+YouThink.com+quizzes+and+personality+tests%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a 73,400 uses of the phrase "Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests" as an exact quotation on Google. That means likely 70 to 75,000 myspace/digg/etc account have used a Youthink.com quiz. That alone should make it good enough for a Wiki entry.

• Youthink.com returns 242,000 hits
• www.youthink.com returns 195,000 hits
• quiztron (aka YT quizzes) - 19,400 hits
• i-am-bored.com - 289,000 hits (run by the same guy)
• Alexa: 32,305 (this fails WP:WEB or something, but the 73,400 quiz results should overrule that.
• i-am-bored.com has a 3,040 which does not fail Wp:WEB, and this used to mirror YouThink's Links section but that is no longer the case.

And here is a news article so it passes WP:WEB http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/candy/2001-09-26-candy-question.htm

I think this was deleted hastily there were valid points brought up about its notability that were ignored because most of the votes had gone through by the time they were brought up.

But I admit I am an established poster with 66,301 posts as of now and I've been there almost 7 years. So hopefully some neutral people can look at it. I can also see that it could be considered just another "internet community" where the people in it think it's important, but it's not.

Overturn Per reasons mentioned above.Electricbassguy (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. The news article is not a news article at all, but rather a bunch of VERY short quotes, one of which mentions the website. No one has established notability. Google hits do not establish notability; I have thousands myself, more than many notable subjects, but I myself am not a notable person. Unless you can show serious coverage in secondary sources, then you cannot establish notability. The linked-to article and claiming it passes WP:WEB is just plain old silly; it doesn't, and the mention is completely cursory. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Dragon. The USA Today thing is just a reprint of a letter from a reader... this is not enough coverage to meet inclusion standards. --Rividian (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question for closing admin: Did the article assert notability? If not, I Endorse deletion. If so, I have no position; I'd have to see it. -Pete (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.askmen.com/cool_site/2004_may/may16.html - this is a review from a notable website, if that counts for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Found a better one. http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/readerpicks/ss/besttimewasters_7.htm - this is an about.com review of the site. About is a pretty reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, Valid AFD and this is not AFD2. Nakon 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Are you objecting to the AfD or the speedy? Given the above, the speedy seems clearly wrong, but it qualifies for G4 anyways (I think, there's no cached version). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• The newest version I created was not an exact copy of the version deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. DRV is not an opportunity to run to the other parent and hope for a different answer. Clear consensus at AFD. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion It still fails WP:WEB due to having only passing mentions on articles (aka trivial coverage). The askmen source is for a column that says "New Cool Site Every Day", so trivial coverage again. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

John Dwyer (professor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Cbrown1023 closed the discussion as "no concensus", defaulting to keep. I feel that the only reason for the appearance of no consensus was an influx of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets (does it matter at this point what kind of puppet they are), and that the clear consensus of the remaining participants was to delete. Additionally, AfDs are decided not as a majority vote but on the strength of the arguments, and the sockpuppets did not present any compelling policy-based arguments for their keep !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, or, if not, Relist. I strongly disagree with the "no consensus" closure by Cbrown123 and support David Epstein's comments. I provide below a slightly modified copy of the message I had left at Cbrown123's talk page (sorry to cross-post but in this case it is unavoidable). I think that it would have been better to give this AfD more time or, if a decision had to be made now, "delete" would have been more justified. I have been fairly actively involved in acdemia-related AfDs lately (I think during the last month I have participated in over 80% of them). I had not seen such a weak case being resolved as anything other than delete before. There were no serious arguments put forward by the "keep" proponents other than the fact that the subject is a department chair at Richmond who is well respected and admired by his students and his colleagues. That may well be so, but it does nothing to establish notability pursuant to any of the existing notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. No mentions of his work by other sources (let alone wide citability) have been produced or found. The publication record of the subject is very meager and a substantial chunk of them are essentially self-published (the Algana Associates ones). The people who provided "keep" votes are all new SPA users who by their own admission are either students or colleagues of the subject. Even if they are not actual sockpuppets of the subject of the article, User:Dwyerj, they clearly operated as his meatpuppets, per WP:MEAT and their votes, essentially obtained by vote stacking, should have been treated accordingly. There is an open suspected sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj. Moreover, the "keep" SPA proponents have engaged in other unseemly tactics in relation to this AfD such as creating a content fork D function when it became clear that Dwyer function was likely to be deleted. This kind of behaviour should not be rewarded. The timing of the closure was also problematic. There were two recent "delete" votes (the last two votes in this AfD, from April 25 and April 27) and more people would have commented given a bit of extra time (several regular academic-related AfD participants have not commented on this AfD yet). Given all of this I don't see how a "no consensus" closure was appropriate at this time. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Absolutely no policy or evidence based arguments were given for keeping., whereas the case for deletion was was properly argued. All of the supporters for keeping were single purpose accounts who made WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. per David Eppstein, Nsk92, Phil Bridger. All !votes citing policy and reflecting prior WP consensus on these matters were for delete. The no consensus keep seems to have been derived from a straight vote counting exercise where keep spas predominated. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per above. The only credible argument in favor of keeping is being the chair of (something) in an apparently non-accredited university, and a marginal publication record, much of which appears to be either incorrect (per the reference in Eulerian path or a neologism. Furthermore, all the "keep" votes were from SPAs and IPs, and some seem to have errors in fact ("deputy head" of the "computer science" department is unverified, and should have been verifiable, and his present university does seem to be unaccredited) as well as errors of interpretation of Wikipedia policies. (Note that I'm the AfD nominator, but I've acceded to AfD decisions which seem plausible, but that I've disagreed with.) The fact that the article creator didn't comment on the AfD might also be noted in regard the meatpuppet accusation, but it might be that he is belatedly observing WP:COI. Or it could be, as claimed by the DR nominator, that he commented without logging in.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, delete article, and then make an article about a guy of the same name that appears on online version of San Francisco Chronicle "how someone in such a prominent position at one of the nation's most distinguished universities (...) nationally known scholar in environmental law property rights, co-authoring two books,"[1]. That one at least has one notable source asserting his notability. The AfD was a joke with a lot of delete keep votes that should have been ignored. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete on basis of arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
• Overturn and delete per nom. Lots of SPAs voting for keep without a good plicy reason to keep the thing, versus a lot of votes for delete which actually gave reasons and weren't SPAs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse and keep article. A lot of the delete arguments have been made on the false premise that the individual is not a department head or that if at all, the institution lacks accreditation. Both of these accusations are false, the individuals in question have failed to properly represent the credentials of the institution. Furthermore, many arguments above cite the history of 'keep' voters which they argue should disqualify their votes. To my mind, wikipedia is not a community where established users can bully new ones to the point of disenfranchisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 13:32, April 28, 2008

  The above !vote was submitted by an editor who has no contributions outside the AfD and this DR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  It might also be pointed out the first claim that he is a department head is here. It was stated in the article that he was a "deputy department head", but that claim has not been verified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  Once again, another straw man approach to discrediting my argument. Presumably, my vote shouldn't count because I've had no previous edits outside this subject? On the issue of the individual being a department head, please google the individual's page at Richmond University. I believe it says that he has been a department chair of his current university. Some may argue that this counts for nothing as the institution above is unaccredited - I can't say this enough - that is FALSE. Interestingly enough, many of the proponents for an overturn have magically taken interest in this subject within the last day... Just a thought.Kokoshaggy (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, plese, give me a break. OK, let's take these in order.

First, yes, Arthur Rubin is incorrect and the fact that Dwyer had been a Department Chair at Richmod for twelve years was brought up in the AfD, by Dwyer himself. I think that the fact was indeed a Department Chair at Richmod should be taken for granted; it is confirmed by Dwyer's profile at Richmond [2] and that is good enough for me. I certainly knew this at the time of the AfD and never made any arguments to the contrary. However, for me, the fact that he was a Chair at Richmond changes very little. Richmond is not a research-oriented university (see more on this below) and it is not authorized by the U.K. government to grant any degrees (graduate or undergraduate, again see more on this below). The key factor in determining academic notability is having made a significant impact in his field, as evidence by the work of other scientists using his. In this case NO such citations at all (let alone no high citability) have been demonstrated. For me, and I believe, for the othere "delete" voters, that has always been the primary consideration and that is what I had argued all along.

Second, regarding accreditation. I'll provide a fairly detailed verifiable info here for the benefit of other participants in this AfD. In the UK there is a two-tiered governmental accreditation system for colleges and universities. The first tier, the so-called "Recognized Bodies" are those institutions that have been authorized by the UK government to award college-level degrees. The list of these "Recognized Bodies" is available at the UK govermental website [3]. Richmond IS NOT on this list so it is not empowered by the UK government to award college-level degrees. The second tier is the so-called "Listed Bodies", which are institutions that do not have independent degree-awarding powers but are authorized by the UK government to offer courses that may lead to degrees granted by some "Recognized Bodies". Richmond IS on the list of Listed Bodies[4]. Here are some quotes from the website of the UK Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills:"The UK authorities recognise those institutions which have been granted degree awarding powers by either a Royal Charter, Act of Parliament or the Privy Council. These are known as recognised bodies. All UK universities and some higher education colleges are recognised bodies. ... Other institutions, which do not have the power to award their own degrees, may provide full courses which lead to a degree of a recognised body. These are known as listed bodies...All the degrees awarded by recognised UK bodies at their own institution or through listed bodies are recognised degrees...Awarding bodies not on our list of Recognised Bodies will not be awarding recognised UK degrees"[5]. The degrees granted by Richmond are validated by the Open University Validation Services[6] and the Open University itself is a "Recognized Body". The bottom line, however, is that Richmond is not a "Recognized Body" and it does not have independent power to award college degrees in the U.K. However, in the U.S. Richmond is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools[7], which, as far as I can tell, makes Richmond fully accredited in the U.S.

The key consideration, however, is that Richmond is not a research-oriented university and that is what I argued in the AfD at length. Richmond does not grant any doctoral degrees in any subject (recognized or not). ALL arts and exact sciences faculty are lumped into a single department (Department of Arts &Sciences) with the entire staff of ONLY 27 faculty members, many of whom are adjuncts[8]. As far as I can tell the Department of Arts and Sciences at Richmond does not even offer any Masters degrees, but only three kinds of Bachelor degrees[9] Being a department chair at this kind of an institution is certainly not indicative of academic notability, even if Richmond were a "Recognized Body". Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, it turns out the Richmond is authorized to award degrees under a special UK law from 2006[10]. In view of this, I don't quite understand why Richmond is not listed as a "Recognized Body" and why it needs degree validation by the Open University, but, nonetheless, there it is. It does not change my views regarding this AfD and its outcome, however. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• overturn' per nom. Seems like when SPAs are removed consensus is clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist I did not participate in this AfD, because frankly I found the discussion a little too confusing. I'd like to see a debate without the sockpuppets. On principle, there's no point in appealing an no consensus close--just nominate it again. Since it was only close 2 says ago, better to call it a relisting. DGG (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  Regarding a debate without sock/meat puppets, I don't think we would get one even if the item is relisted. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  If someone renominated an article that was fresh off AFD it would just get speedy kept. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

not if such is the close here at Deletion Review--we frequently close as relist, and it is relisted.DGG (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Discount the puppets and you'll see a strong consensus for deletion. Should there be a relisting, there should be an immediate notice stating that all meatpuppets and sockpuppets will be discounted, and repeated performance by such puppets could result in some sanctions for disrupting an AfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE FALSE. The grounds for appeal seem to lie in the accusation that I [usangel] and the others represent an "influx" of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I am a degree student ready to express opinions on issues that I feel strongly about and this is one of those issues. I am not pretending to be, nor controlled as a puppet of, Dr Dwyer. Further, since I know the identities of others accused of being sockpuppets, I can categorically confirm that none of them are pretending to be Dr Dwyer or Dr Dwyer's puppets. The issue in this page is not to backtrack over Dr Dwyer's notability, rather to establish that the grounds for appeal are blatantly false. When the wiki editor who has thus far made so many errors of fact, receives the results of his requested IP trace, he will then know that he has made six further mistakes about the identities those of us who genuinely expressed clear views. Now we all know wiki is a great resource but please try to discourage rogue editors, especially when they make so many mistakes of fact and judgement. [user:usangel] The preceding comment was added by User:195.54.243.250. Nsk92 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue is not "pretending to be Dr Dwyer" but acting together as a group to flood your opinion into Wikipedia's processes. -- Kesh (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the other contributions from your IP were to list his thus far unpublished, un-peer-reviewed publications in List of important publications in mathematics; putting his paper in the same section (Graph Theory) as publications by Euler, Erdos, Ford--Fulkerson is rather preposterous, don't you think? Nonetheless, your judgment is understandably clouded by your proximity to Dwyer. Obvious this was not helped by the fact that as a student, you really don't have that much familiarity with academia or what passes for notability in it. These discussions are not meant to like political ones, where one simply gathers up one's friends who are guaranteed to parrot your opinion. This type of political maneuvering is not only frowned upon, but often (as in this case) will invalidate your opinion in the eyes of those who run Wikipedia. If you don't see why, I suggest you read up on WP:COI and WP:SOCK. --C S (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Most or all of the keep opinions were from SPAs or socks. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closing admin made an honest mistake in interpreting the confusion of community consensus mixed with vociferous meat puppets as "no consensus." However, I think it is clear that this article, and the related articles all go against the community consensus of notability requirements. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, simply cannot see any grounds to close as no consensus or relist. We all make mistakes. Deiz talk 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist, it seems a number of editors didn't have a chance to comment on the article given the haste with which the discussion was closed. Yes we all make mistakes but I'd like to think that admins take more that a few seconds to read AfD discussions before deciding. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The discussion was kept open for a bit more than 6 days, from opening to closure, also, there was only one comment on day 27, and all former edits are from day 25 or before, so I don't see any haste that could be argued as an unproper closure --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Overturn and delete. Noted, thanks for pointing that out and apologies, I was looking at the wrong date. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete Then salt the page, block all of the sockpuppets, and call his mother to tell her what her little Johnnie's been up to. It's too bad someone didn't speedy this before all the drama started. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Syriana.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image is the film poster of the film Syriana. Putting fair use poster on film articles is common and legitimate practice, deletion was uncalled for. Chimeric Glider (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's interesting, the image page didn't show it being used on Syriana, and didn't even now until I made a trivial edit to the article and purged it. Anyway, I've restored the image and am going to find a developer to bother regarding this. east.718 at 18:14, April 27, 2008

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

• Overturn closing admin claimed the consensus was to delete which I do not bbelieve is the case, it appears to be no consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as nom. SqueakBox was told quite clearly what it would take to establish notability. "No consensus" among a small group of people on an AfD cannot override consensus in a larger context. SqueakBox was told quite clearly what the problem was yet he didn't improve it. Instead he submits it to DRV very shortly after the close without trying to debate it with the closer or having shown any interest in the AfD the last few days. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Only one editor besides SqueakBox !voted to keep, and that editor advised moving the article to a different name. SqueakBox's arguments did not acknowledge the central reason for delete, which was the lack of an assertion of notability. A deletion does not preclude a new article being written; so if SqueakBox or anybody else wants to write a new article which properly asserts notability, that should be fine without overturning deletion. Also, the following comment from SqueakBox may be true in general, but is not a valid argument for the creation of any specific article: "we need better coverage of Italian related subjects, NPOV demands we cover Italy as well as we cover America or Britain and this is going in the wrong direction for that..." -Pete (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That comment by SqueakBox you cite deserves a reply. I don't doubt that he made it in good faith but that isn't how it works. We don't create articles to "balance things out" nor does it have anything to do with NPOV. As you say it simply isn't a valid argument. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Nakon 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is an argument going round that NPOV covers not merely individual articles butt he encyclopedia as a whole but my argument here is that it should have been closed as no consensus given the afd. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A) you never responded to my question about the nature of your sources. Are we talking about 3 lines or non-trivial coverage? B) you made no attempt to discuss with the closer despite your apparent lack of interest in the AfD and my attempts to discuss this with you there and C) please study the difference between systematic bias and NPOV. Thanks, EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This afd was created because of the afd on Giovanni di Stefano, IMO, not because iof any real concerns about this particular article. So do not be surprised that i for the m,sot part ignored the afd. I will, as you suggest, get round to writing it again at some point ensuring it fits our guidlelines. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So your last defense is to assume bad faith rather than address the concerns. This conversation is over. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Absolutely not, I assume good faith in everyone here, to think otherwise is to misunderstand me, this is not personal in any way, shape or form, this is honest argument in a friendly fashion. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer, I would've looked it over had Squeakbox given me a valid reason to, but I don't see one. Wizardman 18:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Still no sources that assert notability. The singer and its single are already mentioned on Giovanni di Stefano. They are only famous because their relationship with him, so they are already on the actual place until they get more notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closing and deletion. Closure was proper as author (and a couple of editors supporting him/her/it) tried hard to demonstrate the notability of the one CD recording and not of the subject of the article. There was a consensus in that the subject of the article lacked notability: it appeared otherwise due to the repeated posts (six of them!) by one editor that originally suggested a merge before trying to refute the reasonings of the various editors recommending a deletion.B.Wind (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonic's_Edusoft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The ROM for this game has been released, and it turns out to be a real game developed by Tiertex and not a fan game or a hoax. For this reason, I think it deserves another chance. Thanks. Nineko (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please to be restoring the page, Nineko is correct, the ROM for Sonic's Edusoft has been found & released. SonicEpsilon (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ~ Keiji (iNVERTED) (Talk) 13:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Nothing wrong with the AfD. WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to have an article. We need verifiable sources of its notability. If you want an article on the subject, please create a WP:SANDBOX page in your User space, with sources cited. -- Kesh (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Not much participation in the discussion. Source indicated above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not a source, that's a forum, which fails WP:V. Again, even if we allowed it, that does not show notability. -- Kesh (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you been able to locate any other sources? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Nope. -- Kesh (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Where have you searched? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Forums don't automatically fail WP:V by default, there are circumstances where forum postings on long-standing and respected forums are considered verifiable sources. Retro is one such forum. -- LocalH (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Forums rarely satisfy WP:V, and then only to clarify material that is already sourced. A single forum post does not cut it. Even if we allowed it, all it demonstrates is that the game exists: it does zero to establish notability, or even provide information on what the game is from third-party, reliable sources. -- Kesh (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion or relisting for wider participation. Source is sufficient to establish game's existence, but not its notability; it's a forum. -Pete (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, just because it's a forum does not automatically fail WP:V. Sonic Retro is one of the top sites and forums on the whole of the Sonic 'scene' - if any Sonic-based forum is going to pass WP:V, it's Retro. There is already at least one instance where Retro has been a valid reference (see Knuckles' Chaotix). Or are you going to say that merely because the person who found the sprites posted it on a forum that it's not a valid reference? -- LocalH (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it failed WP:V. It doesn't say the game is notable, or give me any reason to think it is. But, this isn't the place for that discussion; a new AFD is. -Pete (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist.There has only been a few scrapped Sonic games that has actually been leaked. Sonic Crackers was one of them, the other was Sonic X-treme. I think if a scrapped Sonic game somehow is leaked it's noteworthy, cause it doesn't happen often. Now that the ROM is available it's gonna be easy to fill the wikipedia page with content, the ROM itself can serve as the source.--Deespence2929 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. I think it's a perfectly notable game - it's part of an established franchise, made by a well-known software house, and if this was a Mario title we wouldn't even be having this discussion... Overlord11001001 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relist A Sonic game that got scrapped and now has been leaked, and now we have proof that it's not a hoax as we previously thought? This should be relisted. It will probably get added to a Sonic article, or added to a list of unreleased Sonic games or of Tiertex games. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion 118 Google Hits? Are you kidding me? My full name has 549, and they're all me. If this crap gets an article, I want to have an article too.Electricbassguy (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope you were joking. Since everyone is posting WP:something links, I'm going to do this too. Read WP:GOOGLEHITS, please. Nineko (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remark: WP:CANVASS on this post? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is the case. I read the WP:CANVASS page, and I think my post is neutral and what else. Let me explain: since English isn't my primary language, I'm not the best person who should try to list the reasons of why Sonic's Edusoft's page should be restored, and I'm asking for help, to people who are more knowledgeable than me on this matter. I posted the same message also on smspower.org, I have no problems to tell you that. Think about it, there are hidden forums on Sonic Retro, why would I post such a request a few posts below a post I linked to in my original message? Please also note that I posted that after a few positive comments already arrived on this page, so I'm not trying to cheat or something. I just want someone better than me to say his word on his matter. Bock and Maxim from smspower, for example, would be two very reliable persons who would provide detailed explanation of why this game is notable, but since they don't have an account on Wikipedia they would be labeled as liars and ignored. Do what you want, I was just trying to save a page that, in my opinion, deserves to exist. Nineko (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remark: No, that's not an instance of canvassing, though it is helpful to have it noted here. All looks good faith to me, no attempt at vote-stacking. Might even introduce a new editor or two to the project, as long as we don't bite 'em. -Pete (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Pete. In order to have everything noted down, here is the link to my post on smspower.org, which is the same. I hope I didn't break any guideline, and if so, I apologise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineko (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2008
    • OK, Nineko and Pete's arguments are very convincing. There was no real canvass going on, and the post is very neutrally worded, including even a petition not to make unreasoned arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well now that its released many people are going to want info on the game, and information is whats wikipedia is about information, I surport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.221.102 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. Edusoft is as notable as Crackers or X-Treme, being an unreleased game. -- LocalH (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just restore it already. Five days has passed! 208.100.17.110 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist per new release information. I note that the close is correct, and was properly performed based on materials/vote comments available at that time. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and rewrite. The nominator here's link in turn links on to this page which says that "The unofficially licensed game had been unknown until a Wikipedia page was created in September 2006 by an anonymous programmer involved with the game." This tells me that the original article was original research that is prohibited by policy. So we should not restore the original article. Nor should the rewriters make use of web postings derived from that article. The only thing approximating a source in the original article, and I can't call it reliable given the anonymity of the poster, is a link to this forum post. GRBerry 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The page was deleted last year, I think because there was an edit war or something. Can somebody restore it, I'd like to have it and work on it. It thousands of hits on both Yahoo! and Google. So it is very notable. Thanks, AmericanEagle 05:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This page has been deleted for a year, and "thousands of hits" on Google and Yahoo do not establish notability. Please read the notability guidelines. Thing is, the AFD has a "no consensus", but the article is gone, so clearly that wasn't the last deletion debate on the subject or it was deleted sometime later for other reasons. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Userspace Draft, per the below folks' reasoning. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wooaaa The log [11] shows that this was deleted after a complaint at OTRS. It should not be restored without us seeing a well sourced draft in user space first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Userspace draft should be the next step. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schaap (Jan 07) was no consensus, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Allan Schaap (Mar/Apr 07) was delete. The second AFD was nominated by Doc_glasgow (talk · contribs) from an OTRS complaint. There were also two A7 speedies. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: The AFD nom says this: "the primary reason for requesting deletion is the non(or marginal) notability of the subject - the contributing factor is the OTRS request." Since it would appear that the OTRS request was a mild one (that is, not a claim of libel or defamation or something serious like that), shouldn't we allow AmericanEagle to see and use it in his attempt to compose a better article? I do not know how precedent or policy treats this, but it seems reasonable to me to restore the article to AmericanEagle's user space, in the hopes it will assist AE in making a better article. -Pete (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I guess that depends on what an admin finds in the deleted article. But it doesn't sound like that would be a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted unless sources asserting enough notability to comply with Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy are provided. If the person had issues with the article, we should only have an article if we have very good reasons for it --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'UncertainLooking at the last version of the article, I see a borderline notability. As for the BLP issues, the the expressed concern was over the nature of his DD. In that respect, checking the various versions, the present article seems an compromise, but in my view not a satisfactory one However, I then took a look at Hyles-Anderson College, of which the subject was president. The BLP and NPOV concerns there, though not directly involving him, seem rather remarkable. This is going to be a little tricky. There is no presumption of privacy for a public figure, by the way, and I consider him a public figure. DGG (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy. Main cause for deletion was non/marginal-notability (not the OTRS request); so if anyone can produce a draft with satisfactory sources to prove otherwise, the article may be resurrected. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh, not sure about having BLP drafts on user space after a OTRS request, and after failure to give sources asserting notability on the AdF *and* on the DRV. Given the lack of clear notability, we should go with privacy right --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)