Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4

A Walk Through Salem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No discussion. On the last entry of this page I started a talk page. on that talk page I asked for corespondance before an editor did a swift deletion. Twice the article has been through a speedy deletion. I have read the guide lines and read those pertaining to blatant advertisements. What is the difference between the Rolling Stones and a local Salem Massachusetts Musician named Mamadou. They both have wiki pages. What gives them the ability for listing? Previous noatbility? I am not know as much as the Rolling Stones, but I know more people than my neighbor Mamadou in town and out of state. How are thier pages not blatant advertisement and A Walk Through salem is? How about Laurie Cabot, she has a page. Why should she be listed versus Margaret FitzGerald Teacher of Salem, Ma schools for fifty years? Or how about the entry for Peabody Essex Museum? I would not classify it as a world famous museum such as the lourve. I am at ends with understanding this blatant advertisement clause. Some suggestions for future editings would be appreciated instead of speedy deletion without rebutal. Thank You. Docspond (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Articles should be descriptive, not attempting to persuade the reader or entice them to see a show by the artist. They just need to show the facts, and do so by citing verifiable, reliable third-party sources. That means no citing the band's webpage/MySpace/fan sites/etc. but newspaper articles, magazine reviews and other editor-filtered content. If you read The Rolling Stones, the article isn't trying to sell you on the band, it just describes their achievements and cites sources to back up the facts. -- Kesh (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The article was blatant advertising. They even had on their website "Check out our new Wikipedia ad", which was removed when the article was put up for deletion. (See the cached version here and the current version here). If the subject really is notable, someone else will come along and recreate it from a more neutral point of view. —BradV 03:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and block nominator/creator. "Check out our new Wikipedia ad" speaks volumes about the nominator/creator's (lack of) intentions when it comes to contributing constructively to the encyclopedia - they're here for blatant vanispamcruftising instead. CSD G11 was designed in response to the email to stop this crap so this is a valid speedy deletion. There's no excuse for missing the bit in the top left corner of every page about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia - does Britannica contain vanity pages? MER-C 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A block is not necessary. Don't bite him because he doesn't know the rules. —BradV 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion this is a clear example of spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not exist to promote your activities. In addition, I strongly recommend not writing Wikipedia articles about yourself, your work or any organisation you are involved in per our conflict of interest guidelines. Block is too extreme though. Hut 8.5 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, spam. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, spam, notability. If this thing takes off, we can easily and gladly put the info back in the page. Get it mentioned in The Boston Globe or something... To answer some of the questions, Laurie Cabot for example, has a well cited page linking to major new sources. MAMADOU ... well, I'm going to put a Notability and a No Backlinks tag on this one because I think you are correct. However, the Mamadou article didn't draw much attention I'm sure because it is somewhat more factual, links heavily into related articles about musical style, and didn't draw so much attention to itself by spamming the Salem page. CSZero (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I think this page is notable JeffL (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have loked at the Notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Star Sonata is listed in, and has its own forum section at, MMORPG.com, the premier MMOPRG site here: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm?SETVIEW=overview&GAMEID=160&bhcp=1, is listed at IGN: http://pc.ign.com/objects/710/710931.html, has a full review at Game Zone magazine: http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r25030.htm, as well as being listed and reviewed at many other sites. Google for "Star Sonata" results in 67,400 hits. I apologize for not participating in the discussion about deletion earlier, but as I said, this is an Indy game and we don't have a full time marketing person or people to watch this sort of thing. I believe that Star Sonata does pass the notability guidelines as listed in Wikipedia. I am not the original author of the Wikipedia article on Star Sonata nor did I materially contribute to its many edits and revisions, but I am of course sad to see that it was deleted. Also, the game has over 100,000 active characters in the last 3 months, not 400 as the proponent for deletion suggested. JeffL (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. There were two Delete votes (one weak), including the nominator. IMO that is not really a very strong reason for a deletion. And then you have it brought here, showing a Keep desire on the part of an editor (granting that JeffL is apparently an interested party). Herostratus (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. I can't see the article as I'm not an admin, but that AfD discussion doesn't look like a consensus. I'd like to see it so I can vote. —BradV 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Deletion occurred in September 2007 and the requirements of WP:WEB were significantly higher in that it required an article to have met 3 specific requirements, since then WP:WEB has been change to require an article to have only one. Under the circumstances recreating the article would not be an issue except that the person making the request represents(or at least makes a claim) to represent the subject in saying this is an Indy game and we don't have a full time marketing person or people to watch this sort of thing. I recommended the DRV because of this conflict of interest it should be a community decision as to whether we recreate articles when the subject requests it. Gnangarra 05:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the history, WP:WEB stated that: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria" (after the list of 3 criteria) until the 22:59 17 Sep 2007 revision took out that paragraph in order to "remove the redundancy" about proof. This inadvertently removed the phrase "one of these criteria", making it look like all three criteria were needed. This was only noticed and fixed in the 28 Oct 2007 revision, which reinserted the phrase "any one of the following criteria" before the list of criteria. But, Star Sonata was put up for deletion on 11 Sep 2007 and was deleted on 00:58 17 September 2007, which is before the "one of" phrase was inadvertently removed from WP:WEB! Therefore, at the time of deletion, the requirements of WP:WEB were not higher than they are now. The reason to overturn and relist is not because the requirements have changed, but because Star Sonata has reliable sources and WP:WEB can be met. Thanar (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. The full review of Star Sonata mentioned by JeffL above was written by Matt Eberle. A quick Google search (restricted to pc.gamezone.com) reveals that Matt has written a wide variety of game reviews (40+) and freelance articles in the MMORPG genre (10+) at a notable, successful review site whose content is widely redistributed (see GameZone). I think this clearly makes the review a reliable source. This addresses the only reason given for the Weak Delete of Corpx: doubts about the reliability of sources. TheSeer's comment that Star Sonata is non-notable because it has only ~400 players is (1) outdated, as the apparent source is from December 2005, (2) incorrect/misleading, as that number did not include free-to-play players (who far outnumber pay-to-play), and (3) not necessarily relevant, as notability is distinct from popularity, according to WP:NOTE. Note: I've played Star Sonata in the past, but have no financial interest and no close relationship with anyone who works on the game, so I don't have conflict of interest. Thanar (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per those above. Seems changing guidelines brings this one back. Hobit (talk)
• Overturn and relist whilst being listed on IGN and MMORPG.com doesn't help establish notability (or give anything to write about), GameZone's a reliable source. I also found a shared review on GameTunnel, the game's budget and development time are listed on the same site here. Here's an interview, also on GameZone. There's a chance. Someoneanother 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn', significant new information which would be useful to write the article has come to light since its deletion, and I don't think the AFD had enough discussion to determine consensus. I encourage JeffL to not edit the article however, due to potential conflicts of interest. --Pixelface (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of companies in Wausau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

i was basing this stub off of houston's page that is similiar in context. it has continually been deleted by user Jmlk17 without discussion of resolution. there has been no explanation, voting or constructive feedback. IAH777 —Preceding comment was added at 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This page was just a redirect, the actual deletions are at List of companies in Wausau, Wisconsin. Logs here.
  I've also just notified User:Jmlk17 of this DRV. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Although on sight more than a couple of these are notable companies, we don't really have articles on them, and Wausau Insurance is now a division of Liberty Mutual. Fiskars is the most notable of the bunch but even its US division is headquartered in Madison. Removing such entities as county government leaves you with not much at all. The usual purpose of a list is for companies that are headquartered or otherwise significantly associated with a community, similar to the more obviously restricted categories. Information about a big factory owned by a company is suitable for the parent article, but misleading here. There's no reason, in other words, that this small, blue-link-less list shouldn't be in the Wausau, Wisconsin article (once you remove the inappropriate entries). --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. I do believe its important to have a page talking more specifically about the economy in Wausau, Wisconsin. If not a list a, better expansion on companies, history, etc. I know it's a smaller town, but it has played an important part in the development of Wisconsin. So as an alernative, make it a 'further information' link. Talk Oh, and as a side note, I have gone back to my original user name, so this is not a sockpuppet thing going on. I resigned, but later came back as under a different user name after taking a couple of months off. However, people that I work with (mainly Houston) know me by that name. So I no longer post under IAH777. That account will be closed. Urban909

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Yes, I know AFD is not a vote. But for those who care about such things, the "keep" and "delete" opinions were evenly split.

Yes, I did try to contact the closing admin before bringing this to DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closing admins -- I would like to ask that this DRV not be closed early. It is, IMO, a very significant DRV, and I am drafting some additional relevant points I hope will be considered. Thank you. Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Your assumption that "counter-arguments were offered, and ignored" seems at odds with the actual closing statement. It's not reasonable to ask the closer to address each and every argument put forward. Any time I've seen a closer attempt to do so, they were then accused of bias or debating the AfD instead of remaining independent in closing the debate. Guy addressed the policy-based arguments in the AfD, and I see no problem with the close. -- Kesh (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have to differ from your suggestion that the closer addressed the counter arguments. Closing admin wrote: "The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources." Whether these memos are secondary sources was addressed, in detail, both in the {{afd}}, and in the previous discussion on WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • And there was no consensus that they fit WP:RS. I understand you disagree, but Guy did address this. -- Kesh (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think JzG summed it up very well. And there's no need to post below saying you have to differ, because I know you do. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• I thought I explained this reasonably well. I looked at the detail of the arguments and weighed them carefully, in each case assessing whether they went to the primary subject or argued for the significance of some related subject. We have become a lot firmer about WP:BLP in recent times, for good and sufficient reasons, and this is just one of many articles that was not actually a biography of a notable individual, rather a page extensively documenting the wrong done to him, but without identifying how that wrong was distinct from the similar wrong done to others. In other words, the subject of Guantanamo detainees and their treatment is unquestionably notable but that notability is not inherited by the victims. Notability not being inherited goes back a long way, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have several concerns over this comment from Guy, the closing administrator. I am a wikipedian committed to complying with the wikipedia's policies, and to the firm consensus from the wikipedia's general membership. None of the article's challengers asserted that the article represented a BLP problem. Guy did not mention a BLP concern in their concluding statement. But he is asserting that the article represented some kind of BLP problem now. I am not a mindreader. If, for the sake of argument, Guy's assertion that articles like this one don't comply with "the current BLP climate" is a valid concern then I really think he should have made that assertion in his closing statement. I know how to comply with a policy. I know how to comply when I understand that the wikipedia's membership in general holds a firm consensus. I don't know how to comply with a "climate". And I don't know how to comply with a quicksand of shifting post-hoc justifications.
  • Above the closing administrator mischaracterized the article as "...rather a page extensively documenting the wrong done to him, but without identifying how that wrong was distinct from the similar wrong done to others." Pardon me, but the article described the context of the administrative procedures that reviewed whether the Ajam should continue to be detained. And it listed the allegations he faced. Guy is free to conclude that Ajam had "wrong done to him". Need I point out that many people continue to feel that the conditions at Guantanamo are far too lenient, and they would strongly dispute that Ajam had "wrong done to him". Ajam's article should not assert Ajam had "wrong done to him" -- and it did not in fact make that assertion. To have done so would have been a gross violation of the wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. I am very surprised at Guy's continued suggestions of violations of WP:NPOV. Closing administrators should bring enough objectivity to their readings of articles nominated for deletion that they can distinguish between what the article actually said, and their interpretation of what the article said. They should be able to bring enough objectivity to bear that their ruling is based on what the article actually said. If they can't do that they should walk away and let someone else do the closing. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Guy did, in fact, present BLP concerns in his closing statement. Quote: No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. I know you've been campaigning for articles on these individuals, but the fact remains that articles which lack biographical information outside their detention fail BLP. If you want to write an article on the conditions at Guantanamo… well, there already is one, I'm sure. But we can't write an article about a person without making sure we have actual, biographical information about them. Their detention at Guantanamo would be a small section in the overall article, lest it become an argument about Guantanamo rather than an article about the person.
    • Again, Guy did address this in his closing. I'm not sure how you've overlooked these facts twice. -- Kesh (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As above. Does not meet WP:BIO. The incarcerations have gotten widely signficant coverage, this person has not. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment Unfortunately, the close expressed the consensus. I think the consensus on this is altogether wrong, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and kudos to Guy for a good close. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus is... long, but Guy has a good reading of it. I'm not really sure if the consensus here is right or not, but that's really not a reason we can use to overturn. I'd say that, if you want the article around, try finding some more sources. There's a comment in the AfD about Arabic ones from Syria; those might work. Oughta' ask here again before putting it back in article space, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Fails WP:BIO, hence the deletion. Jmlk17 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy's comments above. If there are any independent reliable sources about the subject to establish his notability (as opposed to primary source documents generated during legal proceedings he was involved with), they have not been identified yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• endorse per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse For the reasons summed by Guy. In short (and IMHO), the lack of multiple reliable sources kill the ability to meet WP:V. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Apart from the AfD being inappropriately non-admin closed, the deletion issues weren't addressed at all. No reliable sources exist for this site and there's been much better referenced articles than this that ended up deleted. This wasn't speedied because the number of articles that links to this page could've suggested notability. But there's no sources out there suggesting this site meets WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, not at all inappropriate for a non-admin to close a unanimous AFD. DRV is a place to explain how the deletion procedure was not properly followed, not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the close was incorrect because none of the reasons for deletion were addressed and the keep arguments weren't supported by WP:WEB. I've yet to find one reliable source out there and that's likely because there isn't any yet. Although it's linked to a lot of pages, the article doesn't even pass WP:CSD#A7. Spellcast (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relist to generate a more thorough consensus. Only the first !vote addressed policy issues, and the source mentioned is still a bit dubious. Not a strict overturn, though. -- Kesh (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. Low participation, and "proof by assertion" of notability without the backing of actual sources. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Relist seems appropriate given the level of participation in the debate. Arkyan 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Boston Bruins-Montreal Canadiens playoff series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to be able to transwiki this page to wikia:IceHockey. Ditto for the similarly deleted List of Detroit Red Wings-Toronto Maple Leafs playoff series and List of Chicago Blackhawks-Montreal Canadiens playoff series. I guess emailing the wikitext to me (djvasi on gmail) is best. Apparently I'm supposed to include the history when transwiki-ing, but my understanding is that the history was lost when the articles were deleted. If I'm mixed up and that's not the case, then I guess I'll want the history too. vasi (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tangled Up Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangled Up Tour A few members have tried to recreate this page, but it has been deleted due to "recreation of deleted material". I would like to bring the debate here, because I feel that the page is Wikipedia-worthy. If the page had more references from various news sources, would it not be just as worthy as the pages on any other pop tour? I feel that this was the main issue, as well as some bias due to the fact that Girls Aloud are widely considered a "pre-fab pop group", as one Wiki user put it in the AfD. I would gladly find sources for the page. BambooBanga (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Recreated page did not address the arguments articulated at the AfD resulting in the deletion; if anything it was a step backwards. A new page can be created and if it does address the AfD arguments, it is not subject to WP:CSD#G4. That means that you, BambooBanga, are free to create this page in a better form, i.e, with citation to reliable sources and with material that is substantially more than a list of venues and dates. I strongly suggest working on it in a subpage until you are ready to "go live".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close - good advice above. A tour by Girls Aloud is self-evidently going to be notable so it is a matter of reliably sourcing. I suggest starting with this since the bit about the non-split adds some external context. BlueValour (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• User:BambooBanga/Tangled Up Tour - Would this article be okay do you think? BambooBanga (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation of the version suggested above. Looks pretty good. That's quite a bit of coverage, though it seems like a little many of the cites are in the list of venues. Could probably do without that list completely, really. Also, just an editorial note, but the dates in the article are inconsistent; was the tour in 2007 or will it be in 2008? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Allow recreation - the user page version looks fine for a recreation. It also has to survive any AFD that might be brought so to help notability I have started an 'Implications' section (hope you don't mind my encroaching on your user page}. BlueValour (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your opinions. My bad about the inconsistent dates, I used Girls Aloud's 2007 tour as a template for that section. I have proposed that the Tangled Up Tour page be unprotected and hopefully I can move my page there. Thanks for the implications section too. Hopefully, that will stop another AfD! BambooBanga (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I forgot to add this. Is there any way that the tour dates can be included without seeming superfluous? I just feel that they are an important part of a tour, but I realise it does look excessive with the multiple dates.BambooBanga (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, the request for unprotection has been correctly denied. The correct procedure is for this DRV to be disposed of first, and if the closing admin supports recreation then he/she will unprotect and move the page for you. BlueValour (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't get this at all. Wikipedia can be quite confusing. Do I just wait until this is disposed of then? Sorry to be a bother, I just never get involved with this aspect of Wikipedia. BambooBanga (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is a matter of waiting until this DRV is closed. DRVs normally stay open for 5 days so this is due to be closed on 9 April. However, it can be closed earlier if an admin considers that the consensus is clear and unlikely to be changed. BlueValour (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This was speedied as "patent nonsense". However, speculation about living dinosaurs is quite common among creationists and cryptozoologists [1], and I think it's possible to write a detached, objective article about this subject. Zagalejo^^^ 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin short-circuited the AfD process. See the AfD discussion and the messages on his talk page. Request restore of article so AfD discussion can continue. —BradV 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and reopen AfD. Not an all nonsense. The WP:CSD aren't mean to be used to delete anything that might remotely be good. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist AfD. Patently not within the ambit of G1; not even close. Poor form for this to have been deleted by an admin who participated in the AfD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen per Fuhgettaboutit- I also found it odd that someone who participated in the debate promptly deleted it. I can't find anything to know if anybody even posted a speedy template before it was deleted, but if they did, it wasn't mentioned in the deletion discussion. You can see what it looked like just a few days ago from the google cache- it's considerably referenced, more so than most articles that come through AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Reopen After reading up on this article I suggest the article be given its full course.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist Seems more like an implausible theory than nonsense. So not at all appropriate for G1. Taemyr (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Was not a G1. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AFD While the discussion was going that way, an early closure seemed premature at this point. There is no harm in leaving it open the full 5 days. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD as per above. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD - a bad page notably lacking any inline references and combining several POVs. However, these are matters for the AfD not here. Patently not a G1 so there was no basis for an out of process closure. BlueValour (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of church management software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I do not believe that this page qualifies under WP:CSD#G11, as from what I remember about this page it was not blatant enough to qualify. Furthmore most of the arguments in the "debate" seemed to center around Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF or easily correctable issues WP:OR. Furthermore, the article had seemed to have plenty of sources (not sure they were Reliable) NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Might be a good idea to rewrite your reasoning here, and explain it a bit better. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion - unlike other software lists such as comparison of wiki software, none of the entries on this list had articles (link to nativity is a dud). This plus the massive amount of external links makes it deletable per the spirit of G11 and A3. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Overturn and relist - This seemed to just be a pile of external links, with some original research tying things together. (For example, "Easy to use" -- as determined by whom exactly?). Seems unsalvageable. However, it's not blatant advertising, and doesn't seem to fit another CSD category. Relist or invoke the snow shovel to jump straight to the probable conclusion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - CSD#11 is for pages that exists solely to promote some entity. The fact that the page lists several competing products means that the criteria is beeing severly stretched in this case. It's extremely worrying that the admin took it upon himself to carry out a speedy deletion with no prior nomination. So relist or delete per WP:SNOW rather than G11. Taemyr (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: "The fact that the page lists several competing products" could also mean that they are all being promoted. G11 does not demand exclusivity of a single product (as if promotional tone wasn't bad enough already!). Phrases like "Extremely easy to use and learn" and "[training:] Yes, Contact us for pricing." are typical phrases in a marketing brochure. They are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and it should be stated that we can only judge based on what is written, not on the intent of those that wrote it. If an article clearly has an advertising-like tone that is clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it is the purview of G11 and can be speedy deleted as advertising, even if the person who actually wrote the article has no affiliation with the company/product being advertised. We have no way to read the minds of people, so we cannot judge intent. We can only judge content... And has been noted, G11 is nto limited to advertising single products. An article that advertises multiple products is still adverstising. And deleting an article is not killing it in perpetuity... if someone were to come along and write a compliant article with the same title, then that would be fine. However, this article, as is noted in G11, is beyond rescue, which is why I endorse its deletion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I read entity as different from entities. But my point is that the page lists several competing products. The problem with the page is poor sourcing, which leads to personal opinions such as "Extremely easy to use and learn", or copying what the vendors have to say for availability of training. Rescuing this list, that is turning it into a useful comparison, does not require a complete rewrite of the page. It requires secondary sources. Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The article should have gone through the proper AFD process, since the speedy deletion criteria didn't really apply. I don't know if WP:CSD G11 should really apply to articles that are advertising more than one product from more than one vendor. (And "advertising" is sort of a stretch here, too. It appears to be a subpage from Church management software.) At a regular AFD, arguments could be made that the material isn't encyclopedic and that Wikipedia is not a directory, but that really should be determined through AFD and not through speedy deletion. Having said that, I probably would have submitted a delete vote at AFD. I'm mainly concerned about the process of applying speedy deletion criteria. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can always be brought back (or merged) with sources if such a comparison is deemed notable by editors. Endorse deletionOverturn and relist Looking at the cache, this was not a narrative article, but a standard comparison chart of over a dozen software programs. This was not blatant advertising and I would think it a stretch to call it advertising at all. There may have been notability or PoV worries but this was not a G11. My mistake, I didn't see the "contact us for pricing." Stealthy G11. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Boderline advertising - it had text like "Yes, Contact us for pricing" and "Churches just getting started should phone for information" and clearly unencyclopedic - articles like this are commonly deleted. This should have been closed under WP:SNOW rather than been speedy deleted once there were more than two delete votes, but I don't see any point in re-opening the AfD so it can run for a few hours before being a clear WP:SNOW case. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. It wasn't blatant advertising; we shouldn't bite the newbies simply because they don't know how to properly contribute. If consensus is to delete, then it will be deleted, but a chance should be given for that to develop rather than having a sd tag inappropriately slapped on it like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - not a clear G11 so the AFD should have run its course. What has happened is that there has been a poorly judged content split from Church management software and the result is OR by synthesis. A merge back of those bits that are sourced may be a pragmatic solution. BlueValour (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Borderling advertising, as mentioned above. Contained many redlinks inviting the creation of articles about a subset of non-consumer business management software packages. There seems to be little purpose in holding a full-scale trial to excommunicate a corpse. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. This should be merged into Church management software. One spam-like sentence in an article doesn't make the whole article blatant advertising. —BradV 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• "Endorse". I don't think that a G11 was a very good way to go here, but there's no way it was gonna' make it through that AfD. A complete rewrite could've been done, yes, but it still can right now. No point sending it through a process it'll just fail at, right? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that speedy criteria is intended to be interpreted narrowly. G11 simply does not apply here, so the deletion is inapropriate. If it instead had been deleted pr WP:SNOW we would not be here. Taemyr (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm suggesting here. I'm aware that the CSD are narrow, and rightly so, but there really isn't any chance this is going to survive either way. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist G11 just plain did not apply to the article. What happens at AfD will be best determined by taking it there. Speedy deletion criteria are not to be interpreted as "anything which an admin thinks will be deleted at AfD"DGG (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. 6 months old page with many contributors and multiple independent products. There are versions in the history with less advertising, for example [2] which is the last version by the creator and doesn't make any claims about ease of use. G11 should not apply just because easy to use claims are added by new contributors to an existing page about different entities. Speedy deletion 73 minutes after AFD nomination was not appropriate. Maybe somebody (for example the creator who may be in good faith with no COI) would have cleaned it up during a real AFD. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist', it shouldn't have been speedily deleted per G11. If a comparison of various computer programs is "blatant advertising" then Category:Software comparisons is in alot of trouble. --Pixelface (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

changed bio here Sarahmckem (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (link added by Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

• Comment: deleted by me twice as copyvio. New version does not satisfy WP:MUSIC as written presently - he does not appear to be signed to any notable record label. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. We do not overturn deletion of copyvios unless shown it wasn't. There has been no deletion of this articles on "the merits", i.e., by consensus measuring whether the subject should have an article at all; just a speedy deletion that was profoundly within policy. Nothing in these past deletions stops you from creating the article in a form which does not violate anyone's copyright. Please note, however, that any new article that is not verified and does not show bases for establishing notability is likely to be deleted on separate grounds. Please review WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Userfied version still has a promotional tone, and no independent sources to verify the information presented. -- Kesh (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Userfied version has insufficient independent sources, too many non-free images, fails to be in a neutral point of view, and links violating the external link policy. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per Fuhghettaboutit. You haven't shown us this isn't a copyvio, and you don't really need this to move that into article space. I don't suggest you do right now, either, since the guy doesn't appear that notable from where I stand (but that could just be me). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment 2: As an afterthought the main contributor to the article, User:Sarahmckem identified themself as the manager of the subject on my talk page - strong conflict of interest here. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Conflicting identity claims by User:Sarahmckem indicate at least two people and maybe more are using the account which has only been used for edits regarding Simon Bruce. The following quotes are all by the account.

"I am Simon's manager, I wrote the bio on his webpage"[3]

"My son heard of this kid Simon Bruce in Nashville and there is a huge buzz around him getting signed. I know a bit about wiki and wanted to make him a page. Thats all. I have contacted all the copywrite owners of his webpage etc to get authorization to use it on wiki. I have had a wiki account (caponofrio) for over 2 years. I made this new account so that my son's friend could monitor it, and at the same time teach them how to use wiki." [4]

(note: User:Caponofrio was created 1 November 2006 [5] and has edited User:Sarahmckem/Simon Bruce‎)

"No, he is not my client ... I have no connection at all ... I contacted the girl who made his webpage and asked since she wrote the bio could she make the wikipage page account ... (i have had my own account for 3 years)"[6]

"given that these are 20 year old kids who work at Walmart trying to use Wiki to bring awareness of their talented friend You have really given them a hard time. I have instructed Sarah to close her account."[7]

"How do we delete our user account?"[8]

PrimeHunter (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a role account, I'd say, it's just plain old-fashioned astroturfing, but done in a spectacularly inept way. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The account has now been blocked for admitting more than one user has been editing under it. -- Kesh (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Move new version to article space. Despite the concerns about the editor, the article in the editor's User space seems to assert notability. Touring with Tommy Emmanuel, signed to EMI, those are assertions of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)