Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4

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

Company meets notability criteria 68.178.100.214 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Proof of notability http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2006/07/03/smallb1.html?i=48911
• Proof of notability http://www.startupjournal.com/ecommerce/ecommerce/20050531-hanrahan.html
• Proof of notability http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001949623_amazonweb07.html
• Proof of notability http://www.sdtimes.com/article/story-20040315-03.html

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astro Empires was proposed and accepted for deletion because the game did not meet Wikipedia Notability requirements. This is no longer the case as the game as been featured in more than one press article in its home country of Portugal. The observatoriodo algarve Website, the largest regional News site in Algarve, Portugal the home of the game have published an in-depth look at the game link along with Correio da Manhã. The later, in December 2007 featured an interview with game creator Nuno Rosário. The game has expanded with four simultaneous servers with over 33,000 players.

After discussions on the achieve talk page for the old article of the game (here) it was recommended that the case if put forward here. Butch-cassidy (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree I, as administrator of Astro Empires, confirm that the game has been featured in two major Portuguese media. The second interview was in Correio da Manhã, which is the most read national newspaper in Portugal. We have also been contacted by TVI - Televisão Independente, a TV channel, for an interview as well, which should happen soon. This is one of the (or possibly the) most played online games made by Portuguese developers in the World and we believe it should be included in Wikipedia. Astro Empires (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Xaman, Administrator of Astro Empires

Comment Astro Empires (talk · contribs) has made no other edits on wikipedia, and is possibly a sock puppet. RogueNinja_talk 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Discussion moved here from February 5. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn This game has gotten wide public media coverage and is played world-wide. Sykvester (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has made only two mainspace edits, both were to add this game to List of multiplayer browser games, Their only other edits were the creation of their user page which was a direct copy of mine, complete with administrator templates. See WP:SPA. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Leave deleted The link provided in the request is not a critical article (or "in-depth look"), as would constitute a verifiable secondary source. Rather it consists solely of quotes from the game creators. Aside from these quotes, there is no encyclopedic content nor independent context for notability. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Coherence I have checked the wikipedia page “List of multiplayer browser games”, and have seen that most of game there if not all of them have an entry in Wikipedia. Most of those games have much less players that Astro Empires and are much less known. If you check on the Alexa Rank, some don’t even have 1% of the activity of Astro Empires. In a Google search by name, most of them have much less entries. If the others less played and less known browser games have right to be in wikipedia, don’t make much sense Astro Empires don’t be there to. Wizard, Administrador of Astro Empires - 5 February 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.10.89 (talk • contribs) — 85.138.10.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Proof of notability You can find the interview in Observatório do Algarve here and the interview in Correio da Manhã here. We can also provide the paper version of the Correio da Manhã interview if necessary. Again, I'd like to point out that Correio da Manhã is the most read newspaper in Portugal, as the Wikipedia article correctly describes. The only thing missing for us at this point is to appear on Television, which should happen soon as we already received an invitation from one of our TV channels in Portugal, Televisão Independente. Still I don't think that should be necessary at this point, as we have enough proof of notability, more than many articles already approved and published in Wikipedia. Astro Empires (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Xaman, Administrator of Astro Empires

— Astro Empires (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Leave deleted this seems too much like trying to get a new game air time in wikipedia. There is barely any coverage and citing other dubious articles in wikipedia is not a reason to keep this one. In time it may well be notable enough for wikipedia. It should not become notable because of wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Per David D., there is barely any coverage. Furthermore, this article has been reposted so often the page had to be WP:SALTed, and I am quite suspicious at the SPAs here, and suspicious that if the article is created it will be a promotional tool. Mangojuice^talk 06:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relist They are both substantial articles, devoted entirely to the game. "In-depth criticism" is not the criterion. SPA or no SPA , it has sufficient coverage by our rules. Of course once something is notable, people use WP articles for publicity. We cant help that. DGG (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Mangojuice and others. The new information is insufficient to overturn a very solid AfD consensus, and the SPA/sock accounts here are far from a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Accept it againSeriously, with such a player base, the game is spread word-by-word. Publification in Wikipedia would allow the less knowledgable persons to learn more of this without having to begin the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.227.250 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC) — 62.65.227.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This is exactly why we do not allow articles for new or non-notable games: Wikipedia is not an advertising service. -- Kesh (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JERRY and David D.. Non-notable game, no reason to let people advertise on Wikipedia. Further, I would suggest Astro Empires make him/herself familiar with WP:COI. -- Kesh (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

John major jenkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John major jenkins was proposed for deletion, under Afd procedures, as a non-notable biography. Investigating the individual, I found a number of reliable –verifiable and credible sources that allowed for a contention that this individual did met the standards for inclusion at Wikipedia as noted here [1]. It so happens that RogueNinja actually places a CSD G11 tag on the article itself, resulting in a Speedy deletion. However, the supposed copyright violation was from the page of the individual the article was written about. Was there a copyright violation, I am not sure, in that I can not compare the versions of the articles at this point. But typically, notice is given, by the individual placing the tag, to both the author and any other interested parties that there is suspected copy right violation and either correct or the article will be deleted. This did not happen. My requests is either have the article re-listed at Afd or, provide the original text to me. In which case, I will rewrite the article with the proper references and cites to establish clear notability. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment "However, the supposed copyright violation was from the page of the individual the article was written about." I'm not sure where your going with that. I can't see any relevance, unless the person releases their work under the GFDL (or "compatible", e.g. PD) we cannot use it here regardless of if the article is about them or not. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – I just now checked the web-site in question and it is not copy righted. In that light, I would like the article to at least be reposted to finish out the Afd, in that it was prematurely closed because of the speedy deletion. Thanks.Shoessss |  Chat  23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "not copyrighted"? copyright is automatic and implicit, you don't need to put a copyright sign/notice on something nor register it anywhere. It can only be considered to be not copyrighted if the author has explicitly placed their work into the public domain (or it is in the public domain for some other reason such as sufficient time passed after death of the author etc.). Alternatively if they explicitly release it under the GFDL (or compatible license). You cannot just assume that no copyright notice = no copyright, it doesn't. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The website was developed and is maintained by the individual the article was about. Which I believe was the original author of the piece here at Wikipedia. Hence, I do not believe we have a copyright situation. However, my problem is I do not have access to the original piece to verify, in that it has been deleted, hence, I cannot compare. In addition, I do not want to recreate the article and have these issues surface immediately that this piece was just Afd why is it being created again. See my points. I am more than willing to rework the piece and repost but I just to not want to exercise the process again if it can be avoided. Also, would it be possible for you to use your user name versus just your IP address? Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered peeking at the google cache? JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately "I do not believe we have a copyright situation" is inadequate. Until the person either (a) updates their website to indicate a copyright status which we can use of (b) sends in a release to be registered in OTRS, we can't use it. The speedy criteria is quite clear, we don't keep things we know are potential copyvios in place whilst we make further enquiries no matter what you or I believe the status to be. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, we have no way of knowing if the owner of that website is actually the editor. RogueNinja_talk 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right in asking that question, but typically, in situations like this, a note to both the originator and also to the website involved can clear up the problem. I have sent a quick message through the website asking for clarification concerning free use. Which I have seen done very frequently at Wikipedia Copyrights Violations, without the article being deleted. Concerning JERRY suggesting, no I did not know about this feature. However, now I do, and will use in the future. After seeing this, yes I admit, I would have tagged for copyright violation also!. However, I go back to my original request, either repost the article to Afd, to clarify consensus on notability, or to my page. I still feel the individual has warranted a place at Wikipedia and will rewrite the piece to fulfill requirements to meet notability with copyright infringement resolved. Thanks for the help. Shoessss |  Chat  02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Copyright violations must stay deleted until there is proof that the text has been released to the GFDL or a compatible license. Lacking that, there's no way this can be restored. Corvus cornix_talk 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Close as Copyvios are never undeleted at DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AFD1|DRV|AfD2|MfD for AfD1)

This person (also known as Corey Delaney) is all over the news and internet after holding a large party and making a number of appearances in the media which garnered a lot of reaction. The article was deleted awhile ago and I undeleted it starting from scratch, thinking he is a notable person. Another admin deleted it again 6 hours later, and I believe the re-deletion was not justified and ignored the information I put in the article about what has happened recently.

I had created the new page from scratch with something like 21 news articles from the BBC[2], International Herald Tribune[3], and major Australian newspapers, and American shows like Best Week Ever. The Times of London [4], AP [5],etc also talked about him.

I also added on a section about the aftermath and his activities after the party, which was one of the major concerns from before - his future prospects have been the subject of much media coverage - he has been "earmarked" to host the Australian Big Brother[6], he's going on an international DJ tour,[7] he's modeling in Australia[8], Ozzy Osborne was interviewed about him[9], hosting parties[10], and even smaller stuff makes the news - a contest to win his sunglasses[11], which also led to sales in those sunglasses exploding[12], he was beaten up outside a mall, which got a lot of press coverage (for example [13][14]) and when it came out that the fight might have been staged, it got more press coverage (i.e. [15]). There are tons of Facebook groups, t-shirts, etc for the guy, he's been called an "international hero"[16], "one of the world's most famous teenagers,"[17] and so on.

I would argue that he's notable not because of the party, but because of his appearances on the media, the reaction to those appearances, (such as [18][19] and even a t-shirt [20]) and what he's doing now, (TV gigs, tour etc) which to me would invalidate the argument that he is famous in connection with only one event. Even what his name is has been in the news.[21] So in short, I think he's notable, not just for one incident, and deserves a page here. It adds to the encyclopedia. AW (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• overturn The nom makes a strong argument. This is past the point of the basic BLP1E lapplying. BLP1E does in any event have clear limits, for example we have a separate article on John Hinkley(ok, obviously more notable than Worthington/Delaney but it should get the point across). Worthington/Delaney is now highly notable per the above and many other news stories. This has been more than 15 minutes of fame. I can also provide even more sources if anyone is interested. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Amazingly, as the starter of the last AfD, I'm going to say weak overturn. You do have me convinced that this person has established some more notability than I thought before. For a precedent that is similar in its nature, see John Smeaton (baggage handler) - which I would advocate keeping.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• overturn - I don't think we're dealing with single event anymore. The kid has made a name for himself, like it or not. - Philippe | Talk 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - god, this was on DRV only two weeks ago. Will ^(talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it was, and the circumstances have changed since then. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How have they changed, it still seems like a trivia article? David D. (Talk) 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • David, what do you mean by a trivia article? Trivia very often seems to mean things that people aren't interested in as a topic. Frankly, I think its a pretty dumb topic myself. But our inclusion criteria aren't determined by that. Since the last DRV Worthington/Delaney has given multiple interviews, was hired to run/host large parties and was later in the news for his altercation with gang members. This is extensive enough to not reasonably fit BLP1E. If you mean something else by "trivia" it would be nice if you would define trivia in some fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • What i mean by trivia is the medias fascination for gossip. This seems to come into that class of "news". Where do we draw the line, this seems to be a trend that moves wikipedia more towards becoming the online version of People magazine. David D. (Talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia covers many trivial topics but does so , or at least should do so encyclopedicly, no need for this to be any different. Benjiboi 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, our penumbra BLP concerns have if anything moved strongly in the other direction. Furthermore, once we start deciding that our personal views on a topic should influence whether or not it is kept then everyone will want a specific subject removed because it is trivial. I for example really detest soap operas and reality television. The only really objective standards we have are whether or not we have enough reliable sources for this. And gossip rags and such are rarely actually reliable sources. However, this has been covered in major news publications so that isn't an issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
            • For the record, I'm not disputing the reliable sources I'm disputing the notability. It has noting to do with my personal views other than I thought our inclusion criteria were higher. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• overturn due to the substantial and ongoing news coverage information presented. R. Baley (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we now saying that substantial news coverage equates to notability? Does gossip column type coverage even count as news? David D. (Talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We are stating that he has more than enough verifiable reliable sources surpassing notability requirements. No need to even use sources deemed merely gossip. Benjiboi 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, WP:N does more or less say that but even then that's not relevant. Many of these sources aren't gossip columns but major mainstream newspapers. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As we all know, even mainstream news dabbles in gossip and trivia. This alone does not make it notable, IMO. Are wikipedia's notability requirements now so low that if one appears in mainstream media that is enough? Is there not also a quality requirement? David D. (Talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well such an appearance is not by itself enough, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E but aside from those issues WP:BIO does make it clear that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject"(wikimarkup suppressed). Now, if you want to make an argument based on either of those grounds or a general BLP penumbra ground (which seemed to be the main arguments in the previous DRV and AfD) I'd understand but he clearly does meet basic notability criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Of course the basic notability requirements are only guidelines, I'm surprised they are so low. I certainly don't care enough to try and hold back the tide. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Wikipedia looks foolish for not covering someone who made headlines worldwide and has become an icon to teenagers worldwide. When anyone turns to the encyclopedia that can churn out the latest Simpsons episode in hours all they find is a lengthy discussion why we're protecting a teen who's booking his own media interviews. In the few weeks of his leap to international fame he's got more RS's than a sizable portion of biographies we let gather dust. Let's get on with building that article his fragile dented ego seems to have survived intact so what little damage we're likely to inflict seems minor to what the press would have or could have done. Benjiboi 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn the deletion - I did not see the first article or the first AfD, but I have the impression that the second article is substantially more thoroughly developed than the first and was mislabeled when it was called a recreation of the deleted article. As I stated in the 2nd AfD, I pay little attention to "fluff" news, and I had managed to be totally unaware of this person until seeing a blue link at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies, which I clicked on out of curiosity. Reading the article that AW had created, I noted that (1) the article was well-documented, well-written, and informative; (2) this guy had been the subject of numerous different published articles by reliable secondary sources, so he met the primary criterion for notability; and (3) although he is notable as a result of just one event, his story has not ended there, and reporting of the story of that one event and subsequent developments is now so widespread that many previously oblivious people (like me) are likely to come to Wikipedia to try to find out who "Corey Worthington" is. Restoring the article will help Wikipedia serve the needs of users who (like myself) expect Wikipedia to answer our questions about matters of popular culture about which we were ignorant; excluding it reduces the value of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relist The new article is sufficiently different to not be a recreation of deleted material. I think that WP:BLP1E will still govern the outcome, as I am not impressed by the subsequent coverage. One article indicated that the article itself was unbalanced due to legal requirements not to publish certain aspects of the ongoing activity. The BBC article was clearly primarily a promotional puff piece by the booking agent in that country. But all of this is an issue for AFD; at DRV we should simply judge whether or not a new discussion is needed. With major differences in the article, the answer is clear to me - a new discussion is needed. GRBerry 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that article you mention was referring to the previous Wikipedia article. This one I started from scratch. --AW (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: I don't think we should be re-hashing the same debates over and over and over again until someone gets the result they want. This kid is not notable. He's just a punk kid who got caught up in an event, and now has a job. Big whoop. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I recreated the page because more has happened since the first deletion - lots more news articles, international tour, offered to host Big Brother, etc. All of that makes him notable, not the party, in my opinion. --AW (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Which all still violates WP:BLP1E. He's just a punk who hosted a party while his parents were away. Gee, that's unique, huh? YAWN. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Despite the conversation above, i still see no reason to think this has passed any threshold for notability. David D. (Talk) 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If this is evolving into a discussion of notability, IMO it would be appropriate to restore the article for now and let the second AfD run its natural course. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Might be a good idea. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Overturn As the editor who nominated the original Corey Delaney article for deletion when I discovered it, I'm not sure if being a model or being merely earmarked to host a show makes one noteworthy according to WP policy (I almost never nominate articles for deletion because noteworthiness is so fuzzy to me that only those that are most egregiously and blatantly non-noteworthy to me will get my attention), but given the news stories of him since the party, I conceded that he may be closer to noteworthy now. Ultimately, I defer to those with greater expertise on the noteworthiness policy and all its nuances. Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per nominator here. Yes, there were issues but this is no longer a WP:NOT#NEWS case, the coverage has been substantial and sustained. Mangojuice^talk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I was fully in favour of the original deletion, but since then there has been a good deal of further coverage on far more than just the original issue that made Delaney famous. Quite simply, the original reasons for deletion no longer apply (and in hindsight, perhaps we shouldn't have been so hasty in deleting the article). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to say i told you so... but... :-) Fosnez (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn this or Corey Delaney. Just last night another story [22] about him appeared on TV. --WikiCats (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We use Today Tonight as a barometer for newsworthy? :| Orderinchaos 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - Notability has been establish by Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject.. WP:ONEEVENT has been satisfied. Fosnez (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion It no longer matters if he was notable enough the first time around (original article, AfD1, DRV1, etc.), as he certainly is notable enough now, based on more than sufficient reliable sources. Even if this was sparked by an otherwise non-notable one time party, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E clearly no longer apply based on current notability. Reinstate the new article as the deletion was for recreation of deleted material, but the arguments here clearly indicate that the new article was sufficiently different, reflecting a changed situation. Deal with any issues in the AFD process, if necessary. The aggregate overturn and keep arguments seem compelling to me. — Becksguy (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - much of the coverage of him is tabloid in scope and not reliable in nature, much is speculation, and we're still talking WP:BLP1E. Those Australian editors who remember the incident involving a boy who met a woman on the internet, who have since married, that was all over the media for more than a year, or a certain family who attracted a great deal of attention a number of years ago for being unemployed and quite unwilling to change that. There is no basic change in the circumstances. Orderinchaos 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the articles are from reliable sources and most are not gossipy - BBC, International Herald Tribune, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Some are downright academic in looking at what his celebrity means, like the IHT article, saying "In the process, Worthington has become a symbol of the gulf between members of the wired, social-networking generation, who regard celebrity as an end in itself, and their parents, who see fame as a byproduct of other, worthier efforts." --AW (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Speaking as someone who's spent most of my adult life in some form of higher education, this is not "academic", this is just blatant speculation. Orderinchaos 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Notability is certainly not a question, nor is BLP of a minor. Should have never been deleted in the first place. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Come on, this was discussed at length a mere two weeks ago and consensus was clear. Nothing has changed and any fame he may have is likely to be fleeting. The BLP issues certainly have not gone away. WP:ONEEVENT still applies as without the party nothing else he may have done would be newsworthy. A quote from another user I found particularly relevent "There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper." -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The point I'm making is that a lot has changed since then. He's still in the news for a lot of various things, has been offered to host Big Brother, doing on an international tour, etc. He's a lot more notable now than he was two weeks ago as many commenters here have noted.--AW (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Star Endemol people have others lined up for the Big Brother role, so this was clearly a media flight of fancy, for the record. Orderinchaos 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Things widely discussed on an international basis in news sources are notable. Enough news coverage make a person no longer a private individualDGG (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. At the moment this matter has not progressed from "news" to "encyclopedic". A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Corey has not yet demonstrated that anyone will remember him in five years time. Let's try again after his "world party". WWGB (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is roughly zero chance that anyone will give a crap about this guy in six months time, let alone five years. Rebecca (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. The above endorse !votes have little or no merit due to the fact that a) most of the original nominators for deletion are sufficiently convinced enough to overturn, as above, and b) the sheer weight of the references supplied by the DRV nominator. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong overturn - widely discussed in news sources, and Wikipedia is not paper so the fact it's slightly unusual as an article is not a reason to delete. If this is not overturned, some information should definitely go into the article on the suburb in which Corey's party took place. JRG (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - Despite my initial comments in the first AFD/DRV, I am now convinced that he has gone beyond the scope of one event. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Here is a good chunk of the coverage by the media in one convient location. Fosnez (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The story has gone on beyond the stage where it is 'just one event' and therefore G4 should be avoided; but I'm still not convinced about notability so deletion should be considered afresh. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Rebecca and Mattinbgn. -- Chuq (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment AW claims that he created this article from scratch. Here is a question for the admin who speedy deleted the article: Did you compare it to the previous deleted content to ascertain if it was "substantially the same"? If you did not compare it, please keep in mind that admins can see deleted material for a reason, and that you cannot claim G4 "recreation of deleted material" if you have not actually viewed said deleted material. If you did compare it, and it was substantially the same, then I would endorse deletion. If, however, it was not "substantially the same," or if you did not even compare it, then, regardless of the guy's notability or lack thereof, I would have to say that the deletion should be overturned and the second AFD allowed to continue its course. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It wasnt created from scratech it was the original restored. Gnangarra 01:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion according to the logs User:Awiseman who signs using AW restored the article saying the subject is notable in this the deletion as a recreation is correct as AW didnt create a new article as claimed but restored the previous article. Gnangarra 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, even if that is the case, is that relevant? If Worthington/Delaney is now notable enough to have an article do those details matter? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • AW/Awiseman is saying that he created a new article when he actually restored the original article as the restoration of previously deleted article (due to BLP issues) and which deletion was endorsed at DRV as well, is the basis for the deletion now being questioned. It also questionable use of admin tools by AW to perform such an action claiming "the subject is notable" (without discussion) when there had been significant discussions recently as to the subjects notability where consensus was that the subject isnt notable. Gnangarra 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Great, so file an RfC against him if you disagree with his actions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The primary issue here seems to be is Corey notable enough now that we should have an article on him. Whether AW did something wrong doesn't seem that relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • • Wikipedia may not be a bureaucracy, but one of the purposes of deletion review is: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." There has already been a deletion review to determine if the original AFD was interpreted correctly, and the concensus was that it was - hence the article was deleted. There was an ongoing AFD for the "second/recreated(?)" article when that article was speedied as recreated material. The question this deletion review should be trying to answer is; "was that speedy deletion done outside the criteria for such deletions or not?" We should NOT be arguing here about this guy's notability or lack thereof. That is the question posed in the second AFD. If the deletion as recreated content was proper, then someone should be allowed to create a new article from scratch (literally), and we should debate THAT article in AFD. Not here. 206.246.160.29 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment. I find it very difficult to believe that AW's article was a copy of the article that was deleted on January 15, since most of the sources that AW cited were published after January 15. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • User:Awiseman restored one edit of Corey Worthington (the redirect to Corey Delaney) and subsequently wrote a new article in roughly 50 edits. There is some overlap in content, but the article is not a recreation. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Thanks trialsanderrors, that's what I did, and what I mean by "started from scratch." --AW (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• overturn clearly notable. Gothnic (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• As is any teenager with a job then? Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Really, hosting television shows and parties on the level of a Paris Hilton and conducting media interviews related to the same ... doesn't sound like the average teenager jobs in any respect. Benjiboi 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• What TV show does he host? David D. (Talk) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Rebecca. It's still trivial tabloid news but WP:NOT#NEWS seems ever-so relevant. Try Wikinews. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion/deny recreation per above comments. By the way, two facts of process: 1) if there's no consensus to overturn, the article must be left deleted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; 2) even if this is overturned, it's going straight back to AfD within 24 hours, as this DRV is merely procedural to see if there's a consensus to allow recreation, which isn't the same as what AfD determines. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• strong Endorse Just another mug who got a few media hits for misbehaving. We're not going to have an article for every guy who turns up on Today Tonight or A Current Affiar because they trashed a house, created a website encouraging people to rort the tax system Dole Army, some landlord who illegally drops into his tenant's house, some tenant who squats in a house and doesn't pay etc. People will forget this clown within a few weeks. If he does become a TV star, then he'll become notable in due time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There's still more articles recently - a TV reviewer used him to frame a review,[23] and an admittedly gossipy column says his style is being copped by a NY fashion designer.[24] My point is, it's not letting up. I saw a card at my local record store in Washington DC for a dance night with a drawing of him today. That's not a source obviously, but to me it says the guy is penetrating culture, like him or not. How many news mentions does he need before he's notable? --AW (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• When those news mentions are actually not there to have a laugh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is the fashion suit notable? No. Is the fact that an artist made a pic of him notable? Not by itself. Many artists do free paintings for family and friends. It's not as though the picture was a notable work of art. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I said there, the picture obviously isn't a source (i.e. not notable), it's to me an example of how he's all over the place. And most of the previous news items aren't having a laugh, they're talking about what's going on. --AW (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• They are talking about whats going on because many people find it entertaining. Just like the talking dogs that always show up on these talk shows. David D. (Talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• For better or worse, Wikipedia has articles about some of those dogs, too. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nice to know we have such breadth, sigh. Do we have an article on snails that like to drink beer. I've seen those on TV before too. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn notability well established.Sestertium (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, WP:BLP1E, WP:TABLOID and WP:Wait until she's done something a bit more notable than have one wild party. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Teen parties that go out of kilter due to open invitations is a common theme in the news and movies. I suggest that the Cory Delaney incident be included in a parts gone bad page (which I think exists, or did at one time) Geo8rge (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, lack of sources has never been the issue here, the issue has been WP:BLP1E. As far as I can see, that is still the case. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
• Very Strong Overturn As an editor who has twice put up a page on this person, I have noted the following has occurrences which suggest some extreme biases at work: First time, the page was deleted within hours, before I could add the references (why not a tag about lack of references like the other thousands of other pages about topics and people that no-one's every heard of, but don't offend anyone's sense of 'good taste'?); Second time, I'd read the discussion about deletion, I'd found even more references, including the ones in the national media about WP deleting these articles - (aha! there is something at stake here I thought, the significance is clear if there are such diametriucally opposed views and the pages are going up and coming down with such speed - this fact in and of itself is part of its significance) - and so I carefully constructed an article that stated very clearly the significance of the subject beyond his mere notability (which is a no-brainer), and provided an extensive list of only the reliable sources (ABC News online Australia, BBC News online, Sydney Morning Herald, The Times online, The Age, The Australian, The Guardian online). Within a day, the article was deleted, with an unsubstantiated assertion that the significance of the subject had not been stated. There had been a few entries on the discussion page, but this deletion occurred without going through AfD of anything. So, I have to ask, What is going on here? it looks like there is a lot of kneejerk reaction happening on the part of those at WP empowered to use the deletion tools. Is this a good look for WP? What does it say about the validity of all those policies and processes that have been set up to democratise the creation of this encyclopedia? Surely, the article should be re-instated immediately, and the arguments for its deletion or otherwise can be allowed to run their course in full public view, along with enabling the continuous input of those editors who wish to improve the article at the same time. As it is, a number of editors who have acted in good faith have effectlively been silenced by editors with the power to arbitrarily delete on the basis of a set of values which are highly debateable, and certainly not consistently applied anywhere in WP. Eyedubya (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia is not a tabloid, the news is going to stop caring about this kid in a week or so, WP:BLP1E still applies. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc, much in the same way that this incident was front-page news less than a year ago, yet I suspect that even UK editors have completely forgotten about it by now. Black Kite 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the link - it makes a very pertinent comparison: while the incident itself has some superficial similarities (party got out of hand), no-one is identified, the damage was private. However the significance of the Worthington case is that a) an individual has been identified; b) The damage was of a far more public nature, and therefore of public interest; c) the matter was not subject to media interest in the same way as Worthington has been, nor was it the subject of such fierce disagreement on WP that was picked up by the media. If the issue is WP:BLP, then let the merits of whether or not it meets the relevant criteria for BLP be discussed, rather than confusing the issue. Eyedubya (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Andy Warhol said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. I'd say the 1r5 minutes were up and we need enduring evidence of long term notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

If you look through the votes, many of the votes have poor reasons to keep, and nearly all the keep votes were shown to be ignoring wikipedia policy and precedent. RogueNinja_talk 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• endorse close Seems like no-consensus was the correct call. There are decent secondary sources for many of the movies in the lists talking about their frequent use of the word "fuck". JoshuaZ (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I don't think that either side "won" the argument. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close No arguments for deletion from a policy that overrides consensus are made in the AFD. No consensus is a reasonable closure of that debate, well within administrative discretion, even ignoring the five prior discussions. The five prior discussions, not having resulted in deletion, tend to raise the bar for demonstrating a delete consensus. So that was clearly an acceptable close for the discussion, which frankly consists mainly of poor arguments on both sides. GRBerry 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close, an obvious no consensus from the number of arguments on either side. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It doesn't matter if the consensus is irrational or the arguments made for "keep" are unfounded. Consensus > logic. All that matters is the votes. Wikipedia is a democracy and a bureaucracy. This article is silly, but I like it, it's interesting, it's funny, and it's good. By default, "no consensus to delete," means "KEEP" even though WP:V says the burden of proof is on people trying to add material. This is sort of the same way that if you're at a blackjack table and you and the dealer both bust, dealer wins. It sucks, but that's life. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The votes don't matter, because AFD is not a vote. What matters is the weight of the arguments. One good argument trumps 15 bad arguments. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments: This article says a lot about American culture, if that's the proper term. The Hays Office fined Gone With the Wind due to the "D-word". The film version of M*A*S*H was initially rated "X" because of a single occurrence of the "F-word". Yeh, we've come a long way since then. But forgetting all that editorializing, the question is whether the article violates wikipedia rules. Well, it seems like it is multiple-sourced, from various sites that have already done the counting... so it is neither "original research" nor "original analysis", which is what I had first suspected it would turn out to be. And the fact that it even inspired some thought says it's got some encyclopedic value. Not that I would expect it to turn up in Encyclopedia Britannica, but wikipedia ain't that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Unless the article is violating some core policy like verifiability or original research, we go with consensus (and even though we have the cliche "AFD is not a vote", the number of people endorsing a particular opinion is part of the equation when determining consensus.) Opinions about the article's subject being arbitrary, trivial, non-notable, etc. are all fair points to make, and valid and good faith reasons for deletion. Had they received community support, deletion would have been the proper outcome. But those arguments are not so strong that they override consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close AFD's not a vote and all that, but a "good argument" should not trump several "bad arguments" - it should sway consensus by convincing people to change their opinion, and convince subsequent editors to endorse it. I've followed all of what seems like 16 deletion discussions for this article and none of them have resulted in a clear consensus to delete. --Canley (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was no fucking consensus to delete this fucking article, just like the last fucking time. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close - even though this article remains utterly and ireedeemably a failure of mulitple Wikipedia policies and guidelines and even though I've nominated it for deletion myself previously, this particular AFD was correctly closed as no consensus. It is unfortunate that so many editors are able to wrap their WP:ILIKEIT arguments in just enough gauze to make them look like they have some basis in policy or guideline but, there you go. If I ruled the world this article would have a Wiki-stats wiki on which to reside instead of befouling Wikipedia, but sadly I don't rule the world just yet. Soon, but not yet. Otto4711 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Page was deleted via PROD, with the reason stated "This is pure advertisement and PR" on the deletion log. I would like to improve the article and attempt to fix any of the advert and "PR" problems with said article. I'm requesting that the content of the page just prior to its deletion be restored in my userspace, as well (if possible) any pertinent discussion which existed further explaining its reason for deletion so that I may use that to improve the article. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The New Regime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now confirmed on myspace.com/thenewregime as a solo project from Ilan Rubin of Lostprophets, therefore associating it with an undeniably notable band U-Mos (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Restore as redirect to Ilan Rubin per WP:BAND ("note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such."). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Myspace is not a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 17:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse CSD; we can't use MySpace for sourcing. If a reliable source were to come forward, things might be different, but this was an obvious A7. Admin acted properly. Heather (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't deny the admin acted correctly, but new information has come to light since then. If myspace isn't an acceptable source (which is idiotic by the way, as it's a direct source from the artist), will this do? U-Mos (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• It looks reliable, but I don't know buzznet.com, is it a reliable source? We generally don't accept Myspace as a reliable source because anybody can claim to be anybody there and can put anything there without any verification. Corvus cornix_talk 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Notable enough, the focus of national press and ongoing investigation of the murderer, who is likely a serial killer. Should be speedily undeleted and moved to Murder of Meredith Emerson. Does not fulfill WP:BLP1E because well referenced. See also User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP 3sides (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The rationale for deletion was not WP:BLP1E. It was WP:N and WP:NOT. The references listed all mentioned her tangentially; she happened to be the victim of a crime. She is so unknown that there is no way to create an article with sufficient fullness (read encyclopedic content) to ever be more than sub-stub. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and move as suggested. There has been continuing coverage since then, and since the event will go to trial, there will be more. DGG (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete as Murder of Meredith Emerson per nom & DGG. From the debate, I saw a reasonable consensus that we shouldn't have a biography on Meredith Emerson, but not a consensus that the murder itself doesn't qualify for coverage. (I wouldn't really call that "overturning" the decision, though.) Mangojuice^talk 18:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a redirect to the section on the Murder in the Murderer's article? That seems to be the precedent that I have seen and which I have used in the ones that I have written. Unless the victim of the crime was notable, and the murder is just another encyclopedic fact in thier life, creating an article about them saying when and where they were born, what sports they played in school, and their fasvorite flavor of ice cream just to then say they had their head chopped off or whatever, does not seem right. The murder itself may be notable, if the national headlines read Murder of Meredith Emerson shocks community or Suspect apprehended in Murder of Meredith Emerson. But all too often it's more like Joey Jojo Jabadoo was apprehended for Murder yesterday -- oh, and the victim's name was jenny foo. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have said that if the murderer had an article. But that may be the best way for this to end up, depending on how things develop in the courts. Mangojuice^talk 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• weak overturn and move as per Jerry and DGG. I agree with the basic point although I do have some reservations in general about making articles about criminal victims. (I'm also not sure I understand why precisely the nominator references my thoughts on the matter,especially since a more or less valid AfD did occur). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• The AFD was certainly correctly closed. As far as I can tell, we don't have an article on the alleged murderer (yet?). After we've determined that he - or someone else - is notable (by demonstrating that a well balanced article is feasible) would be a good time to decide what to do with this. I suspect that it will be a while (months at a minimum) before we can have a good, balanced article on the murderer - at which point in time the deleted text will be of no value to creating an article, and somebody should just create a redirect as needed. The deleted text is definitely not a good start towards an article So I think we should endorse deletion and take no other action now. GRBerry 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As the nominator said, we can't write a biography because there are no sources about her entirely humdrum life. Wikinews is down the corridor, third on the left. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No consensus. On argument against this article was the use of primary sources. But these were published sources, not eye-witness accounts etc., and Wikipedia's guideline is that Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (which these have) may be used in Wikipedia. (Moreover, many modern newspaper reports might be considered primary sources and newspapers' reliability is not always good. ie: "Titanic sinks - passengers saved!") Please see the Keep comments on the AfD discussion page. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The rationale for deletion was not that the article used primary sources. These of course are allowed, as you pointed out. It was deleted for the lack of availability of secondary sources covering the subject, suggesting strongly that it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, non-notable per WP:N. The closing administrator in determining rough consensus is required to give little or no weighting to "keep" !votes that do not cite a valid policy/ guideline/ precedent or otherwise explain a valid point for keeping the article. My read on this AfD is that the closing administrator got it right. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment:Well, Jerry, just looking at your last 50 edits it looks as though deletions are your big thing. This article could have been further researched in secondary sources had the chance been given to editors to do so. As it were, it hardly had a look in before it was attacked by the deletionist brigade. I would also point out that the guidelines you refer to are just that guidelines only. They are "not set in stone". If someone were entirely non-notable they would not appear in anything. That was not the case here. David Lauder (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but also please look at the closing decisions on those that I close: first several going backward in time: relist - keep - speedy keep - delete - relist - keep - keep - merge... I don't think there is a precedent for me being a deletionist, per se. In fact most real deletionists would probably blow a gasket to see ME referred to as one. They often get upset with me for closing their AfD's as keep or for my participation in their high school AfD's. (Although I have deleted over 400 things a week since being administrator, so.... I can see how it might look a little bit that way.) JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice example of playing the man and not the ball David. Comment on edits not editorsSpartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• endorse covered only in primary sources, none of which specified anything particularly notable: routine military service and court appearances. Such data is available for figures who have never done anything else in countries with well-preserved records.. Sometimes they are used by historians as the basis for their further research, and then they can become notable. This guy hasn't been. The WP article was a perfectly good piece of basic historical OR, but that's not what WP does. David, first find the secondary sources, and then bring the deletion review. I'm somewhat more of a inclusionist than Jerry, but I think Jerry-- and Tim, who closed this one-- habitually close AfDs in an objective way in accordance with the consensus as shown--as Tim did here. The deletion rationale was obvious from the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• endorse this is primarily a notability issue. While wiki is not paper I think there still needs to be a threshold. I think it is reasonable to have a secondary source as mentioned by DGG above. David D. (Talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion below from Tim Vickers talk page.

My comment: four versus three, without any serious consideration of the academic (as versus the dogmatic) comments, constitutes an absolute for deletion of an article? What a pity people like yourself couldn't put your efforts into creative rather than destructive work. More and more people on Wikipedia need to assume good faith towards other users - you know, like the fellow who commenced that article, don't you think? David Lauder (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If this article is acceptable for wikipedia what is to stop every geneologist to upload their files here? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Every genealogist" is not proposing that so you digress. Lets face it, what is to stop every stupid pop star or skateboard rider who has ever got a mention somewhere having an article on Wikipedia? Could one ask: did you manage to read the Keep comments, or did you find them worthless? David Lauder (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that ""Every genealogist" is not proposing that so you digress" but the point is that it sets up the precedent. And I agree, wikipedia should not have every "stupid pop star or skateboard rider". Another example of a bad precedent.

As for the keep arguments. I did not find them worthless but I found them less than convincing. Was there some specific plan you had for this article. for example, what will be linking to it, is it part of a planned series? Or will it just stand alone as an orphan? David D. (Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not write it so trying to remember exact content is not easy, but I seem to recall that both his children and grandchildren were quite notable, one of them being a Judge of Admiralty and another a noted Yorkshire poet. I thought this was a relatively interesting article for the century concerned and that was why I ploughed in and tidied it up. David Lauder (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and his son was Matthew Dodsworth, whose son was Roger Dodsworth. The latter is certainly a good article for wikipedia, but even the Matthew Dodsworth one seems a little light. Being the grandfather of Roger Dodsworth seems to be the chain that has led to Simon Dodsworth's article being created and does not appear to justify inclusion. If this kind of exercise in geneology is worthwhile then I would say keep but I think this is a bad precedent. A potential solution might be to write a geneology section in the Roger Dodsworth article to include both Matthew and Simon? David D. (Talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. While primary sources are certainly acceptable for backing up claims in Wikipdia articles, they are not sufficient to establish that a topic is notable. Mostly, to see that a topic is notable we need to see independent, secondary sources on the topic. Lacking that, it at least needs to be clear that the topic is important enough that such sources exist, even if they haven't been shown to us. The former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't happened either (and if it could happen, the AfD debate would have been the time). Mangojuice^talk 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't understand The claim has been made that this person is noted by historians because of (as put in the AfD) his lack of general notability. Do we have secondary sources from historians talking about Dodsworth or not? If yes, we should overturn since we will have secondary sources. If not endorse. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• The deleted article cited as a first source, Harleian Society, Vol 37, Familiae Minorum Gentium, London, 1894, pp 418 - 419: Pedigree of Dodsworth. The question before us is what is this work? Is it a collation of primary source material or a secondary source? Searching Google on this title yielded the following descriptions: 1) "The Rev. Joseph Hunter, "the Historian of Hallamshire and South Yorkshire", was born in Sheffield in 1783. During his life he amassed a considerable collection of manuscripts related to historical and genealogical matters, which, on his death in London in 1861, became the property of the British Museum. "Familiae Minorum Gentium" (or Families of the Minor Gentry), (catalogued as Add MS 24,458) is a manuscript book containing a collection of pedigrees mainly relating to families in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Cheshire and Lancashire. This manuscript was transcribed and published in a series of volumes by the Harleian Society in 1894-7. and 2) ..A thick folio volume of some 650 pages completely filled with pedigrees, chiefly of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Cheshire, and Lancashire families, though of course their branches extend over other counties. Mr. Hunter, by reason of his large genealogical acquaintance and also of his connection with the leading Unitarian families of the day, had the opportunity of gathering together such a mass of information that this book has perhaps been as much consulted as any work of a similar character in the [British] Museum." -Taken from the Preface, written by the book's editor John W. Clay.. Based on these descriptions, it appears to be a primary source. The other sources in the article were all clearly primary sources (possibly excluding one being used to support a statement about the context of his life, rather than to reference a discussion of him). A reasonable article for transwikiing to a different project, I just don't know of a project that would take it. Wikibooks doesn't seem right, and there sadly isn't a WMF project for genealogy to the best of my knowledge. I'd say that the discussion and close accurately represent the consensus. GRBerry 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  Hardly a contentious article and this all sounds to me like bureaucratic claptrap. No hope then for WP:Eventualism here. David Lauder (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  Nah, the issue in my mind is WP:NOR. An article written entirely from primary sources clearly is original research, which is not allowed here. GRBerry 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, per closer: "no independent sources that discuss the subject or his notability". Eventualism was fine when we had thousands of articles, we now have millions, and much firmer application of guidelines on sourcing. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_Notability Bydesignonly (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above username is the name of a webdesign company in Canada. All the articles created by that account are promotional articles for organizations in Canada...with websites created by "Bydesignonly". The above user stated: Did you not find our submissions written "in an objective and unbiased style"? Note our. This is a promotional account for a company which is using Wikipedia to further advertise its clients. IrishGuy ^talk 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and block the nominator as a role account. --Coredesat 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and block the nominator for persistent vandalism. --3sides (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and IP block nominator for persistent spam by WP:ROLE. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of blatant vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Claim to notability:

A quick search on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sheraton+cadwell&btnG=Search) displays about 10 pages of references to "Sheraton Cadwell", including the many CD albums the musical organisation has released with its various orchestras.

In addition, the article has been re-edited, with external links removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, a textbook case of G11. And to Bydesignonly (talk · contribs): noone has questioned the notability of the subject. The issue here is WP:SPAM. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The editor(s) have abandoned it, after being posed some important questions by an editor who showed good faith and tried to help. Editor(s) both rebuffed help (while sugar-coating it) and took verbal shots at wikipedia admins. [25] Article should be deleted and user should be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we get User:Bydesignonly deleted as spam, as well? Corvus cornix_talk 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is within the remit of Delrev to reach for new consensus to delete a page that has not yet been considered for deletion; it needs to go to MfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I listed it at MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Bydesignonly JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)