Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7

Age of Empires III campaign storyline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) restore

I want this article back. It was one of the best Wikipedia articles. The campaigns were talked about in the actual article about the game, and that is the reason this article was deleted. Could you please bring this article back? 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I want it" is not a reason for undeletion. This was deleted (properly) at AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, speedy close No reasoning given. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• It's definitely not appropriate for Wikipedia (as the AfD concluded), but surely there is somewhere (on one of the Wikia wikis?) that this mass of content could be moved to? --Stormie (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I tried making a post with information about that company. It was immediately deleted because it written in too much of a promotional tone. The page was also protected because of too many recreations of deleted pages. This was my first time, so I don't know what happened there. So I edited the entry to get rid of the editorial-sounding parts and posted it on my talk page and the administrator (Hu12)'s talk page. But the administrator wouldn't give me any feedback on the edited version and suggested that I go to deletion board. The edited version is on my talk page. If a further edit is needed, I would like to know. The administrator simply wouldn't communicate with me after telling me the reason for deletion.

My question isn't with the deletion. If the article is not up to the standard, it gets deleted. I get it. But why is the page protected so I can't put up rewritten versions? --Floralpattern (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• When an article gets protected due to repeated recreations, the approach you need to take is: write a new article in your userspace, for instance at User:Floralpattern/Monitor Group, then post here to get people to take a look at it. If it addresses the problems with the deleted article (too promotional, didn't establish why Monitor Group is a notable company), the article will be unprotected and your rewrite moved into place. --Stormie (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Permit recreation of version at User:Floralpattern/Monitor Group. I copied the draft from the nominator's talk page and cleaned out even more unencyclopaedic/promotional material. The page still needs work but that is now an editorial matter and recreation should be permitted. BlueValour (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I moved the new version into article space. Relisting at AfD is of course an editorial decision, but from personal knowledge Monitor Group, as the consulting firm founded by Michael Porter, is undoubtedly notable. Trouts for a couple of admins who deleted/protected this without further research. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I count two mentions to keep the article about three or four mentions to delete the article. That is not a clear consensus. If there is no clear consensus, the article should not be deleted. Please re-instate this article. Or at least keep the AfD debate open for another seven days to get a larger pool of editors. (Note: I did not participate in the discussions of whether to delete or keep the article. I am not trying to defend my side. Kingturtle (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• OBJECT As closer of the debate, I was not notified of this DELREV. I just happened to come here to look at something else, and I noticed the article title. You ought to let the closer know that you are disputing their close, and attempt to resolve it before opening a DELREV. Please read the instructions which clearly explain this. I think this DELREV should be closed as out of process and discussed first on my talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I felt it was the correct protocol to bring it here instead of discuss it on a user's talk page. I apologize for not notifying you soon enough. Your objection came only six minutes after I posted this, and I wasn't done with my notification to you. Kingturtle (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then I guess we will run the DELREV, then. I don't have to like it I guess. 5 editors contributed to this AFD:

• Edcolins nominated it and !voted to delete; his criteria was non-notable subject per WP:BIO/WP:PROF.
• Lazulilasher initially !voted weak keep, changed his mind, changed it back, and then finally !voted delete.
• Avruch !voted delete, and elaborated with facts supporting the nom.
• Shoessss !voted keep, and stated that his !vote was conditional, based on it being determined that his google search was not flawed. Another editor sufficiently demonstrated that to be the case, so his !vote was ignored, as he requested.
• Wikid77 initially !voted keep and then changed it to strong keep. He cited as criteria:
  • For a young person, he seems notable enough (SUBJECTIVE)
  • claim for record world-traveller (USED WIKIPEDIA MIRROR AS REF)
  • has toured all nations in Africa (NOT NOTABLE)
  • he's more notable than a merged Pokemon character (BIZARRE)
  • let WikiProject Africa decide if they need the information (NOT PER POLICY)
  • possibly move into a list of recent UN Africa press officers (a MERGE CRITERIA)

So I count 3 deletes, a self-reverted keep and a keep with flawed reasoning. That equated to Delete for me, which is how I closed it. So I:

• Endorse my deletion JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Jerry, I am not questioning your integrity or your ability. I simply feel the consensus was not there. I'd like at least for it to be open longer to get more discussion going. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• It was open for 9 days. The requirement is 5. As for me, I'm gonna Endorse this one. It looks pretty straightforward. --Smashville^BONK! 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  I am not questioning the length of time it was open. I am questioning the level of consensus and whether it was reached. Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per JERRY's arguements. I don't think that keeping it open longer would have resulted in much more constructive discussion, anyways, since most AfDs get most of their comments in the first day or two. Consensus seems to be there just fine. As a side note, since JERRY doesn't seem like he is going to budge on this, it probably would've just been a waste of time to discuss it with him before bringing it here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • doesn't seem like he is going to budge . . . ? Where did that come from? Nobody has had a conversation with me yet to provide any sound reasoning for a different outcome. I'm perfectly willing to budge... just somebody tell me which way and why. I am dumbsrtuck by this DELREV. Perhaps this explains the backlog at AFD? How could a 9-day AFD closing be hasty? How long ought an AFD stay open? More importantly, how many open overdue AFD log pages should remain backlogged? The interested parties had more than ample time to weigh-in on this debate, it did not gain any new momentum in its recent hours, and the article in question had not been improved. I just don't get it. If somebody had asked me to please reopen it because they think that my closing was in error, please give me the good faith assumption, that I would have been willing to discuss it, as I STILL AM. Here's my new quotable quote: I'm perfectly willing to budge... just somebody tell me which way and why. Look for it on my userpage soon. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I offended you, that's the way it seemed to me. Striken. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Jerry, I never said the deletion was hasty. I am questioning whether there was a fair consensus. I count three opinions to delete and two opinions to keep. That certainly is not a consensus. Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern. I do not determine concensus as a count of !votes. I believe that the bolded recommendation in an AFD comment is the least important part of the comment. First the !vote is scrutinized for whether it is made in good faith (most are), then the rationale behind the comment is considered. In the case of Wikid77, his rationale was fairly out to lunch, it was clear that he wanted the article kept, but as I elucidated above, his !vote was given much less weight by standards of strength of argument and adherance to policy/guideline/precedent. The other keep !vote, as I explained above, specifically said "keep IF...." the if part was proven wrong to my satisfaction, and the editor who left the comment did not come back to continue the discussion (several days later). So I took his !vote on face value as "don't keep if not"... accordingly. So I counted 3 solid delete !votes, one discounted keep !vote, and one lower-weighting delete !vote. That makes it an 85% delete tally, by my standards, and that is why I closed it as such. So the main point I am trying to make is that AFD debate closures are not about counting !votes... if they were, we would use an "#" in front of our !votes, and sectionalize them to make the closings dead easy. Some very wise people realized long ago that this was not the way to handle such discussions. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for explaining your way of counting the !votes. I don't agree with your conclusion at all, but that's okay. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Jerry is quite right. Don't just tally boldfaced words, read the rationales. That's what closing administrators do at AFD. It's isn't like the processes that bureaucrats may be used to. This is explained in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. The maxim is that It's not about the votes. The irony of people's use of boldfaced words is that those boldfaced words actually count for very little. A good rationale for keeping or deletion based solidly in policy counts as such, even if one puts the opposite word in boldface next to it, or puts no boldfaced word at all. Closing admininstrators at AFD (and MFD, TFD, CFD, IFD, SFD, and RFD) do read the discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I never once said anything about votes. I never used the word once in this discussion. I am talking about clear consensus. I don't interpret the Maurizio Giuliano VfD as having a clear consensus. And I already said that I accept Jerry's rationale. I don't agree with it, but I accept it. Kingturtle (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, you did say "I count three opinions to delete and two opinions to keep." which walks like the same duck. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You may not have used the word "vote", but you were most definitely counting votes immediately above. Vote counting is still vote counting, even if one doesn't use the word "vote" when one is doing it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I already said I accept Jerry's rationale - still the discussion here goes on. Are you two trolling me? Let me repeat what I've already said: I don't interpret the discussion in question as significant enough to conclude a real consensus and delete the article. Jerry interpreted the discussion in question differently. Jerry made his case. I don't agree with it, but I accept it. As for the word voting, I was talking about consensus. Consensus, not voting. I am not the one here who went back and edited this conversation to cover up the five times he typed the word vote. I believe Jerry's quote used to read "So I counted 3 solid delete votes, one discounted keep vote, and one lower-weighting delete vote." Now that quacks like a duck. Please don't accuse me of using particular language, while you're using it yourself. Shake hands? Kingturtle (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• You have crossed the line, Kingturtle! I will not have you slinging accusations around like editing to coverup in this process. Editing to correct errors would be fine, but coverup implies wrongdoing and intentional manipulation of the process. You have done a bad thing and need to go think about your commitment to this project and whether a beaurocrat should behave this way. You will stop this now or we will have a dispute to resolve elsewhere, capisce? Will somebody please close this DELREV as endorsed deletion... it is obvious that there is no need for further discussion here.JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I took a brief break from wikipedia and got some fresh air, and I am not seeing red anymore, so I will try to restate my opinion on your last comment a bit more calmly. First off, I do not appreciate the statement "edited this conversation to cover up". My hope is that you will reflect on this and realize that it was an unkind and thoughtless thing to say. Perhaps even an apology would be in order. Now for the situation at hand... you are still apparently confusing language for action. In my comments, even as unedited, where the word "vote" was used, I was describing the process of determining concensus found at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough concensus, not a tally of the comments that request deletion versus the ones that request keep. In your comments you were doing the latter, hence my calling it vote-counting. And the two edits you described, one where I used the word "vote" and the other where I edited it, are consecutive and come within 2 minutes of eachother. My edit summary clearly says that I changed the vote's to !vote.:

06:32, 8 January 2008 Jerry (Talk | contribs | block) (63,518 bytes) (→Maurizio Giuliano - !'ing the vo~es)

06:30, 8 January 2008 Jerry (Talk | contribs | block) (63,512 bytes) (→Maurizio Giuliano - reply).

The reason I changed the "votes" to "!vote" was for consistency. I thought it would be confusing if I sometimes said it one way versus the other since we were discussing votes and voting, as you and others may have thought I was contrasting one with the other, and therefore my entire comment would either not make any sense, or would be interpreted as other than I intended. An assumption of good faith on your part or a question about it on my user page would have probably helped you to see that possibility and prevented you from making the bad faith assumption that you apparently did. It might be helpful to all concerned if you requested an early close of this debate, as you seem to have conceded and even seem like continued discussion may be annoying you. I think the outcome of this delrev is obviously going to be endorse deletion, so if you agree, you can help end the discussion in that way.JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, the closer captured the consensus. Hiding T 14:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson IV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The content of this article, the references provided, and the discussion on the talk page provided a sufficient assertion of notability to render its speedily deletion under CSD A7 inappropriate. The article should have been discussed at AFD, not unilaterally deleted. John254 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. There is no implicit assertion of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing "implicit" about it. Notability is explicitly and non-frivolously asserted in both the article, and the talk page. Are we going to start speedily deleting articles that cite two newspaper articles as references? In no way does this constitute an acceptable use of CSD A7. John254 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Two, that looked like the same reference twice. You asked for a review, you got my opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a total of three citations between two different sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Former reporter and current media analyst are not claims of notability. Neither is being named for somebody else who was famous. Speedy deletion was proper. Corvus cornix_talk 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I'm honestly not seeing any notability of Adlai Stevenson IV. Maybe add a mention to the Adlai Stevenson III article. --Stormie (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. A7 says "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", not does not indicate why its subject is notable. It specifically states that this is separate from notability. I just don't see from the cached version why he's important or significant. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion reporter at 3 tv stations is a claim of importance. Also it cited 2 newspaper articles. --W.marsh 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, per the criteria for speedy deletion, speedy deletions should not be used to effectuate controversial removals of articles:

These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.

Consequently, as there is a disagreement between administrators as to whether this article should have been speedily deleted, the deletion should be overturned, and the matter discussed at AFD. John254 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD. I don't see this as an A7. An A7 does not provide enough assertion of significance for a deletion debate to be based on, which makes it clear that a deletion debate is not worth having. That does not seem to me to be the case here. Chick Bowen 04:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion A claim of notability was made in the article based on the subject's profession, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. While editors may object to the details of the claim, this is a subject that should be determined based on consensus of Wikipedia editors, and not on the whim of a passing admin who refuses to respect consensus. Given that there was a clear violation of Wikipedia process and policy, the deletion should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as above. Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)\
  • Except the part of process that says "as there is a disagreement between administrators as to whether this article should have been speedily deleted, the deletion should be overturned, and the matter discussed at AFD". So this is indeed out of process, quite literally. --W.marsh 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, supposed assertion of notability isn't actually an assertion of notability. Notability is not inherited, so being the descendant of a president is not an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are multiple newspaper articles and he has a real job. And his inheritance should be enough to save it from A7 and mandate an AfD by itself. Gothnic (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and send to AfD Obviously debateable, so should be debated. And not here, but at AfD. A claim to notability, even one not founded on policy, is a claim. Thee is also a claim of professional standing. I am not sure if it is sufficient, but it's enough to prevent speedy. DGG (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, list at AfD Presence of sources make a merger into Adlai Stevenson III possible, even if the article is not kept. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

&overturn and list at AfD as Marsh and DGG say. Gothnic (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eerie Horror Film Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Why is our page always deleted after posting? I can completely understand not using this site as advertising (and we respect that), but our Festival has a history and we'd like to be able to share that data with your readers. Please send me a reply: greg@eeriehorrorfest.com to allow the Eerie Horror Film Festival an entry on this site. Thanks! 71.116.18.69 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well I can't see anything from the log, but read WP:COI and WP:N Secret ^account 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I sent him a message explaining our policies on the matter and how they impacted the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was deleted citing CSD A7. However, semi-professional baseball teams assert notability, and should not be speedily deleted. John254 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• How did this particular team indicate it's notability or significance? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merely being a semi-professional baseball team is a sufficient assertion of notability as to preclude the application of CSD A7, which is designed to facilitate the deletion of blatantly non-notable material such as vanity autobiographies, garage bands, and personal webpages. This issue should really be discussed at AFD -- often further evidence of notability is provided, if the article isn't deleted before the discussion has even begun. John254 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please being semi-proffesional isn't a claim of notabilty, I doubt it's even that as well, as it's one teams out of thousands in National Adult Baseball Association, which is non-proffesional. Endorse my deletion Secret ^account 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Merely being one member of a group of thousands doesn't imply the non-assertion of notability -- are we going to start speedily deleting publicly traded corporations next, on the grounds that the stock exchanges list thousands of them? John254 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Hello there. Just a quick note - we already do delete companies, unless the company is a member of a benchmark share index, such as the FTSE 100, or some other assertion of notability is made, such as awards or press coverage. Nick (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
          • We may delete publicly traded corporations as non-notable, but such deletions are effectuated through AFD after prior discussion, not via speedy deletion. CSD A7 is designed to quickly dispose of blatantly non-notable material, not to be applied to questionable cases. John254 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Hello again. You're quite mistaken, CSD-A7 is for articles where no notability is asserted, that normally includes non notable articles, but not always, sometimes non notable articles will need to go through AFD is there is an assertion of notability, but the community judges the assertion is insufficient. This article was quite correctly deleted as no notability was asserted, there is no prejudice to recreation, and if you think the subject is notable, please feel free to create a new article on this subject. Nick (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Considering the entire league lacks notability...I fail to see how being semi-pro equals notability. It means just the opposite. --Smashville^BONK! 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Being a semi-pro team with no other claims of notability clearly fails notability. There are 25,000 people who play semi-pro? That would mean that every one of those teams would qualify, and I don't buy that for a minute. What makes this team stand out from the multitudes? Nothing in the article says. Corvus cornix_talk 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this is clearly an "article about an organization (band, club, company, etc.) that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". If the Pittsburgh Bulldogs are for some reason more significant than the thousands of other clubs in the NABA, that needs to be stated in the article, with reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. The cached version doesn't assert the importance of the team. Granted, it might well be notable, but that is beyond the scope of WP:CSD#A7. There isn't anything preventing anyone from going and writing a better version anyways. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion a team that's a member of a notable league is a claim of importance. Shouldn't have been speedy deleted. --W.marsh 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not really part of the league, the league the team is "in" is like a the little league for adult baseball with thousands of teams. With your criteria, all little league teams have a claim of importance because they are a member of a "notable league". If it's a league with a limited number of teams I understand, but this isn't Secret ^account 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Little league is not semi-professional... but I guess it's a fair point, I was thinking this was more of a small league than a large association of teams. --W.marsh 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nither is the league in which the the Bulldogs is on according to the article, I have no idea why they said that the Bulldogs were semi-proffesional. Secret ^account 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think the "semi-professional" part is misleading because virtually all adult leagues in any sport are technically semi-professional...as former professional athletes are allowed to play...--Smashville^BONK! 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The NABA is not a league, it's an umbrella organization for many individual leagues. Chick Bowen 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the team has no assertion of importance and only fully professional teams get a free pass. — Coren ^(talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion WP:CSD and WP:deletion policy clearly says that an assertion of importance is sufficient, not that the assertion must be sufficient to prove notability. Questionable notability deletion should go to AfD, (or Prod) and are not speedy. DGG (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But there wasn't an assertion of importance, can you name it Secret ^account 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moreover, per the criteria for speedy deletion, speedy deletions should not be used to effectuate controversial removals of articles:
    These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.
    Consequently, as there is a disagreement between administrators as to whether this article should have been speedily deleted, the deletion should be overturned, and the matter discussed at AFD. John254 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please with that crteria almost all articles that goes though DRV would be overturned, and same with many AFDs, btw I'm surpriced that no one mentioned the sources concern, there isn't any reliable sources I could find in google, or google news, there is not a chance that i'll survive AFD. Secret ^account 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• overturn per nom and DGG. Gothnic (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Based on the evidence in the article at the time it was deleted, I have to endorse the speedy-deletion. I could find no credible assertion of notability in the deleted versions. The allegations here may qualify but I'm reluctant to recommend restoring and listing to AFD primarily because I don't think this page has any reasonable chance of passing the AFD. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment not having a reasonable chance of passing AfD is not a reason for speedy. Notability does not have to be sourced to pass speedy. A bare assertion is enough. I am seriously alarmed at the views otherwise--it basically amounts to deleting anything an admin thinks is not notable enough. No one person should ever have the right to make that decision. DGG (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that it was a reason to speedy something. I have a long history as one of the strongest advocates of a very narrow and strict interpretation of the CSD criteria. What I said above was that I believe this was validly speedied for not even having an assertion of notability in the version that was deleted. All assertions of notability have been made since the deletion. They have also been investigated here and largely rebutted. In my opinion, this discussion has made any prospective AFD discussion now moot. Why should we spend the time, effort and cost to restore the page, duplicate this discussion in an AFD and redelete the page in a week? Process wonk that I am, even I have to question the usefulness of that course. Rossami (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There wasn't even a bare assertion of notabilty. Secret ^account 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Where I'm having trouble is that in the cached version, there isn't an assertion of notability...it's a season by season account of an amateur/semi-pro baseball team... --Smashville^BONK! 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

the question of what counts as "assert" is perhaps a little tricky./ I hold, with John,that it can be anything which ay reasonable editor thinks might amount to suitability for an encyclopedia--even if it does not happen to fit ours' when anaylzed. It should be something that can be safely deleted by any admin who has no knowledge of the criteria for a particualr subject. No one can think being in an unrecorded garage band is notable, or a pickup ball team. But an an organized team in an organized league is a good faith attempt at an article. and there's another factor--when a speedy deletion is opposed by one experienced editor acting in good faith, which I hope nobody denies, it's better to let it be heard. We could have disposed of this by AfD with one-tenth of the effort being spent here. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of the speedied version, which failed to make a claim of notability. The current wording of WP:CSD#A7 is nonsense btw, since it implies that there is an inclusion standard separate from notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The point isnt there's an inclusion standard other than notability, but that the speedy standard is much less than that it has to meet WP:N. please join us at the talk page there in improving the wording--we could use some help clarifying this.DGG (talk)
    • "Notable" as we use it is the combination of noteworthy and noted. "Noteworthy" means the subject has an attribute that makes it very plausible that the subject has been noted. "Noted" means the subject has been covered by enough independent sources to allow us to write a policy-compatible article. To survive CSD an article just needs to meet the noteworthiness standard. To survive AfD it also needs to be shown (or at least successfully argued) that it has been noted. That's it in a nutshell. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7. However, churches assert notability, and should not be speedily deleted. John254 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• As above, how does this church indicate notability? And a question, was the article about the church itself (as a building or place of historical significance), or the group of people who meet there? If the former, it should be an overturn, since buildings aren't eligible for A7. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merely being a church is a sufficient assertion of notability as to preclude the application of CSD A7, which is designed to facilitate the deletion of blatantly non-notable material such as vanity autobiographies, garage bands, and personal webpages. This issue should really be discussed at AFD -- often further evidence of notability is provided, if the article isn't deleted before the discussion has even begun. John254 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• A church is a group of people, A7 applies, Endorse my Deletion Secret ^account 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, A7 doesn't permit the speedy deletion of any article concerning a group of people, as Secret appears to be claiming. As churches are frequently notable institutions, an article concerning a church asserts notability, and shouldn't be speedily deleted. Also, A7 expressly provides instructs: "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead" -- churches are generally institutions with notability comparable to schools. John254 18:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please, churches rarely survive AFD, most of the article was on the church basketball grips and groups are valid A7. Secret ^account 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • While it may be true that "churches rarely survive AFD", this one might have -- and might have been expanded and sourced during the AFD process. It is not for an individual administrator, acting unilaterally, to decide that this church couldn't be notable. John254 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - and trout the nominator who is trying to make a WP:POINT because of some quarrel with the deleter. Yes, a good article /might/ be written about this church - and who knows is /might/ be the most important church in the world. But there was no assertion of notability here: the entire text was "Located on Wallings Road in North Royalton, OH, St. Paul is a Greek Orthodox church, and is therefor a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The head priest is Father Dimitrios Simonidis, with Father David Zuder as the other priest of the parish". Now if that's counted as an assertion of notability we might as well remove A7 and send 2,000 substubs to AfD every hour. By the way, it is perfectly permissable for someone to recreate an article deleted under A7, giving a proper assertion of notability - and only two sentences will have needed retyping. Oh, speedy close this as tendentious nomination--Doc^g 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - and suggest churches or congregations be added as a criteria for A7 deletion. The justification of a DRV paves the way for many nonsensical churches to be created without being speedily deleted via due process.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course "nonsensical churches" can be speedily deleted. However, the article deleted here appears to be describing a church with a dedicated building and lands. Churches of this type can be important community institutions, and can be notable because of press coverage in local newspapers. John254 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And, while it is true that anyone could recreate this article, providing, say, sufficient references to coverage in third-party reliable sources to preclude its speedy deletion under any imaginable application of CSD A7, as a practical matter, it is far more likely that the article would be improved if it were retained or discussed at AFD, than if it were to remain speedily deleted. John254 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If this were a cathedral, then its mere existence would be an assertion of notability, but just being a church is not grounds for notability. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Let's be clear "just being a church" isn't an assertion of notability any more than "just being a person" - however, if there is any other assertion - significant age, impact, size, famous pastor, quirky theology then it goes to afd. We don't speedy delete things because we judge them not notable - we only speedy delete if there is no assertion of notability - that is nothing that anyone could possibly argue is notable. This was a very valid deletion because the text said "this is a church" and nothing else - but if there's ever any doubt, it goes to afd. Further, articles deleted under A7 as lacking an assertion of notability, can be recreated with an assertion if that's indeed possible.--Doc^g 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; "the church is at X, is in Y dioceses and has Z as priest" does not importance assert. — Coren ^(talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD a church is a not a group within the sense of CSD A7--this was originally intended to include musical groups, and the meaning has been enlarged without justification.DGG (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy per DGG, and list on AFD. I also dispute the "A church is a group of people" opinion, since a church is also a building. Sometimes there are architectural notes about such buildings (several churches have entries in the city encyclopedia for Bergen), and therefore such subjects should have some more eyes on them before deletion (hence: Prod or AFD.) Possibility of merging the church with the local community should also be considered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A church is a group of people who comes to worship religion in a building. The article didn't discribe the church building in detail, also merging this to the local community is far out of reach, as where the church is located, it's one of the largest cities in the United states. Secret ^account 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; A building is hardly something interesting; most streets aren't notable, which means a building (of which there are dozens to most streets) doesn't come close. C7 specifically mentions company, and companies tend to own buildings too. So this is a fine C7 deletion. It doesn't come close to notability, and the only arguments for are based on policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion. While an article about a church might in rare cases assert notability through architectural features of the building, this article had no mention of the building at all. The assessment of "church = group of people" is appropriate for this article. The application of A7 was within reasonable bounds. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Incorrect close of the AfD as "no consensus". I count seven "deletes", all with reasoning, and 4 "keeps" - of which 3 are: the author (who is also the subject of the article), one SPA or sock and one person who it doesn't appear has read the article or debate and is basing their views on a different article. To me, this is a clear "delete". The closing admin says that, since the article was edited during the AfD to add sources, a "keep" close is valid. The people arguing for deletion don't mention sources as being the main issue. The admin will also not reconsider due to the weekend passing between closure and request for review. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete AfD decisions should also be judged on strength of arguments. Delete arguments were rooted in policy (Wikipedia:Notability being the big one), while the keep arguments were rooted in the idea that notability is inherited (in this case from the site the subject in question was spun off from), which it is not. (The conflict of interest of the creator doesn't help the keep voters, nor does the sock/SPA getting involved.) The sources provided don't show the notability of this site, just the site it originated from. The article should've been deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom and NeoChaosX. I believe that the AfD was improperly closed for the reasons stated above, and see no reason to restate them. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom. Extremely poor close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral - just to point out that there were actually 5 editors (including potential sockpuppets or SPAs) who were of the opinion the article should be kept, 8 editors (inclusing nominator) who thought it should be deleted and 1 who thought the article should be merged. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• Overturn and delete Obvious as I voted for delete in the first place. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability; the references in the article are weak at best and not applicable at worst. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep first of all as was pointed out in the discussion, deletion is not a vote, it's a discussion. The page should be kept as it satisfied notability and further issues of COI have been addressed as the author of the page (me) has agreed not to continue to contribute to it. Gkleinman (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, possibly relist. It's a "no consensus". Reading that discussion myself, I think that's proper. There's no problem with relisting this if concerns about notability still exist. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus per Gkleinman and UsaSatsui. John254 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete the keeps has no policy based reason Secret ^account 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - Initially I was endorsing the "no consensus" but after reading the arguments and comments and following up with some of the comments on the links etc... I find that the arguments clearly were in favour of delete, based on strong Wikipedia policy and arguments. --Pmedema (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. As the closing admin I am going to leave it you all to decide. I will however reinforce my view that it would have been improper to change my closure three days after it occurred. For editors to be told on one day that the article they had worked on had survived being deleted and then told three days later that it had gone, would be unacceptable. I also take the view that deletion should occur only after a clear consensus or very clear policy reasons. I did not see either. There are references. It comes down to arguments about whether these references are good ones, and that is never clear-cut. It needs someone who understands the topic of the article, but we do not expect that of admins closing debates. --Bduke (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, Wikipedia tends to applaud those who are able to admit that they made an error and frown on those who consider self-correction to be "unacceptable". I find it somewhat scary that someone who holds such views is closing debates at all, frankly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete clearly incorrect close. Eusebeus (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn; the close was an error, especially given that the keeps were at best in conflict of interest and at worst WP:SPAs. — Coren ^(talk) 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - the waters were muddied by the large number of references included in the article, but virtually all of them are either (a) actually about DVD Talk, not the spinoff XCritic, or (b) mere passing mentions. The one exception seems to be [1], which really appears to be more germane to the notability of Digital Playground than XCritic. Add to this the clear COI and self-promotional issues. --Stormie (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as no consensus, but relist at some future time. (The article is probably delete-worthy, though the closure as no consensus is not unreasonable.) First off, I am astonished to see the assertion that DGG and AnonEMouse (two of the "keep"ers) are SPAs (OK, actually the assertion is that "keeps were at best in conflict of interest and at worst WP:SPAs" or "4 "keeps" - of which 3 are: the author, ...etc.", but the point is that the assertions that all the "keep"s were bad faith don't appear to be true.) The arguments presented by on the keep side, and the conviction of their opinions, were admittedly a bit thin, but they were based on the sourcing which they found adequate, and I cannot say that they were unreasonable in concluding that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment WP:AGF doesn't apply here, hey? Please note that at no point did I mention DGG and AnonEMouse, let alone assert that they were SPAs. The 3 contested "votes" were from Gkleinman (talk · contribs), the author and subject of the article; Scottshootsdotcom (talk · contribs), the SPA/sock; and Horrorshowj (talk · contribs), who appears to have been reviewing the article DVD Talk rather than XCritic. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• My wording was a slightly exaggerated rebuke to those who tried dismissing every keep argument on the AFD. To make it clear: I do not think that you or anyone else considers DGG and AnonEMouse to be sockpuppets, meatpuppets or SPAs. But I do think that you ought to have looked at the AFD more carefully before dismissing each and every keep argument as having been made from such accounts. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• And again with the making incorrect assertions of what I have said. Please note that at no point have I dismissed each and every keep argument as having been made by sockpuppets, meatpuppets or SPAs. I have drawn attention to three "votes" that I dispute: Gkleinman (talk · contribs), the author and subject of the article; Scottshootsdotcom (talk · contribs), the SPA/sock; and Horrorshowj (talk · contribs), who appears to have been reviewing the article DVD Talk rather than XCritic. That list includes only one SPA. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:202.76.162.34 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I still want the old comments from this talk page back. Do you realise that the administrator who deleted the archive and all history of the old comments is one of the worst and roguest adminstrators on Wikipedia? Either bring back those comments or delete the damn page altogether! This is as much faith as I can put here! And it's not just me who thinks that adminstrator is bad. Many other people think that as well!138.217.145.45 (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Aside from not liking the admin, do you have a reason for wanting the old comments? What is necessary about them? --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They are necessary because they prove what this IP has done in the past. 138.217.145.45 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody really cares about warnings over a year old. Including them just gives the vandals recognition. Hut 8.5 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. There is no reason to restore the page, and disparaging the admin who deleted it doesn't help your cause. If it is really necessary to find out what people from this IP have done in the past, the people who really need to know can access the info. Besides, it's the IP for a school. So many people use it, it doesn't matter. It's unlikely to be the same person doing everything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, as I can't see any purpose served in restoring warnings and such for a school IP, unless it's actually the school itself making the request for their own disciplinary purposes. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse no reasoning given, besides (apparently) personal annoyance. Seems to be more an attempt to draw attention to a complaint about an admin than a good-faith deletion review request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per my comment above. Deletion review is not for crusades or personal attacks. Hut 8.5 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Like I said, this is as much faith as I can put here! What do you all have against that page anyway!!?? Either bring back those old comments, or delete the damn page! I don't want that page if it can't have the old comments! So delete it, or bring back the comments. Now make me happy and do one of those things, okay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't here to do your bidding or play your games. --Smashville^BONK! 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THAT PAGE!!! 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You haven't given any body a good reason as to why year old warnings should be reposted. --Smashville^BONK! 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have so. I want them back because how are people supposed to know what this IP did in the past? I know you can look at the contributions, but how are they supposed to know more detail about what this IP did? Could you tell me one other user talk page that this has happened to: many of its history deleted, but not the whole page deleted? This is the only page that I know this has happened to. If you can tell me one page, I will probably end this discussion. 138.217.145.45 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, you already requested this at DRV 5 days ago and it was denied 2 days ago. It was over a year ago. The template is on the page showing that the user is blocked. Please quit disrupting Wikipedia. --Smashville^BONK! 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not disrupting! I don't know why you hate that page so much! I want the old comments back. Or the page deleted altogether! I don't want a page not saying this IP's past actions like that here! I will probably "join" you guys if you could tell me one other page this has happened to!

Cyril Walker (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7, which was inapplicable, as the subject of the article was a player on a fully professional football team, and might well be notable. John254 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - sometimes we have to use better discretion when 'searching' for assertion of notability. Also, it appears that the article was tagged for A1, not A7. the_undertow ^talk 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - The subject was a professional footballer for 20 years, and later was a manager at the professional level. There are few sources, true (the subject was born in 1914), but some exist. Incidentally, the article has already been undeleted, and I have added a reference and some background. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - I already did some housekeeping and notified the relevant wikiproject to spruce it up. Fulfils notability as per profesional football. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:BIO is rather clear on the notability of professional athletes such as Walker. This is part of a rather disturbing pattern of highly questionable speedy deletions from a single admin and should be carefully monitored. Given the claim of notability, WP:CSD#A7 is inapplicable, and as the deletion violated Wikipedia policy and process it should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Lake, Alberta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted citing CSD A7, which doesn't apply to geographical features. Moreover, this might well be a notable lake. John254 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn the article had context and if the lake is notable then the intro was something we'd want to use. The last sentence of the article might have been spam, but we didn't need to delete it to solve that problem. I dunno if this is a notable lake, but it probably is due to size and proximity to settlements (there also seems to be a settlement called "Ghost Lake"). At any rate that's a question for AFD... this was not a good speedy deletion.--W.marsh 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and take to AfD. We can't have entire lakes being deleted speedily. the_undertow ^talk 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD. Significant geographic features are generally kept if verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and don't bother listing at AfD - it's clearly a real lake, and long-standing precedent is that such geographical features do not get deleted. --Stormie (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn named geographical features are almost never deleted at AfD, and should absolutely never be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn geographical features are not covered by A7. Hut 8.5 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn it is a real place. It is far more convenient to assume that something notable occurred to create the geographical feature or that something notable has happened as a result of its existance or that something notable has been found there or happened there, then it would be to prove otherwise. Precedent is for geographical features and places to be kept. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

North Central Victoria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a good faith closure by the closing administrator but it results from a fundamental misunderstanding about what delete and rewrite means. A delete and rewrite does not mean delete and rewrite immediately, it means this article is patently unsuitable for Wikipedia but there is no prejudice against a rewrite should someone care to do so in the future. See User talk:Jerry#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Central Victoria for earlier discussion. Mattinbgn\^talk 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• (as closer) I appreciate the assumption of good faith. However, my understanding of the deletion policy is that WP:AFD is the wrong process for content improvement, the correct process for that being WP:EDIT. There is no need to delete the page history to change the content of the page, unless it is a WP:BLP or WP:CV violation. Any editor may use the edit button without an AFD to improve the article. If the subject was notable enough for a rewritten article, then it is notable, and therefore not a candidate for deletion. Several of the !votes in the AFD in question stated that the subject was notable, but the article had quality issues, such as sourcing, etc. So those !votes, you see, were seen by me as self-contradictory, and therefore ignored. The balance of the comments demonstrated clear concensus that the subject was notable, and therefore a default action of keep seemed warranted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I !voted to keep the article on the basis that the article subject was notable but I did see problems with the content, but not that it was patently unsuitable - it needs referencing, more encyclopaedic tone, all sorts of improvements ... - but the geography is not for example wrong. The debate itself uncovered many sources potentially to be used as references. As User:Jerry suggests AfD is not a substitute for clean up and deletion by AfD to me means do not recreate - ie delete and rewrite does not make sense. This article could be edited to a stub quite easily and I am sure has the potential to become a good article at the very least with some effort (which I cannot provide at present) just as other articles on Australian regions, such as Riverina have been developed. Definitions of the Riverina region were for example hard to initially settle on but once thorough research had been done the article started to come together. That is what this article needs too. I suport the closing admin's decision based on how I read the debate (ie a couple of people said delete and rewrite which does not make sense and AfD does not = clean up) as well as of course my own prejudices per my !vote. --Matilda ^talk 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The cleanup in the last half an hour has produced a meaningful stub with references - congrats to Euralyus!--Matilda ^talk 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this listing as per Matilda above. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was unilaterally deleted on 07:03, 1 January 2008 citing unarticulated WP:BLP concerns, none of which, in any event, couldn't be remedied editorially and/or via full page protection to prevent editing in violation of WP:BLP. In addition to being involved in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, Rachel Marsden is notable as a TV personality, a columnist, and an aide to a politician. Though the deleting administrator asserts that the "article is totally out of proportion to her current importance", notability is not temporary. This deletion is completely unjustified. John254 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Eh nearly all of our articles on civil war figures and any number of other dead historic people are "totally out of proportion to [their] current importance"... I seriously hope this isn't the new standard for deletion. --W.marsh 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I agree with what W.marsh said above regarding the most recent deletion. I doubt highly that every revision of the article has had WP:BLP problems, so the protection was probably out of order per the arbcom ruling cited. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, of course, per nom; it is quite clear that whatever problems that may have existed (there were, IMHO, very few) might be dealt with in a more narrowly tailored fashion. Joe 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I have watched this article on and off for 2 years. It has been the subject of 2 Arbitration cases, and been deleted or stubbed for BLP problems about 7 times that I can count. In all those versions I have never read anything positive about this person. The most recent version covered the end of her two most recent jobs. (Quoting her on her blog saying "Much has been made of my being escorted by FOX security to gather my belongings from the Red Eye office...this is standard procedure...Any other inferences of any kind are totally baseless and inappropriate" is merely a backdoor way of making that selfsame baseless inference that you can't get in the front door.) The article never said what about her made her interesting enough to get hired in the first place. Even the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy is terribly unbalanced because it focuses almost entirely on her case and barely mentions that the University president resigned and the University was forced to rewrite its policies for dealing with sexual harassment allegations and overturn 11 other cases--this context was completely missing from this article as if the only thing that happened was one student made one false allegation. When an article needs to be deleted or stubbed 7 times in two years it means that the people interested in writing negative things about this person are much more interested in her than anyone else; as an ex-low level aide to a politician, an ex-columnist and an ex-TV commentator, I'm not convinced her importance outweighs the repeated concerns over content that keep happening. Thatcher 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, here's why she was hired in the first place. From the New York Times:

Asked what brought her in, Mr. Gutfeld said: “I think they just thought she would be a good kind of lightning rod. We did one or two rehearsals, and I know for a fact that people liked her legs.”

So how would you incorporate this into the article? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, mainly per Thatcher above. This article stank. No matter what was done to it (numerous stubbings, several tear-it-up-and-start-again deletions, 2 ArbCom judgements, pages and pages of AN and ANI postings) it continued to stink. All of this for a woman who wasn't very notable to start with and now, having had the trappings of celebrity fall away from her, isn't notable at all. The encyclopedia will not be poorer in any way for not having this article around. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*Endorse People who obsess about this woman, who has simply been a freelance columnist and a short-term late-night pundit might want to put some effort into the bios of truly notable journalists.64.230.106.232 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Struck post from banned user. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. "Her article causes drama on Wikipedia" is not a Wikipedia:Speedy deletion reason. If you think you can convince people that she's not notable any more, take it to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Declare my conflict of interest - well, simply because a friend of mine has contacted the individual (not Wikipedia-related BTW), so it's presumably a COI. Recreation could happen, but it would have to keep to the very letter of WP:BLP. However, the arbitration rulings may make this a hard article for editors to work on, due to the delete-and-recreate, 2 ArbCom cases, and numerous postings at WP:AN. I can't really say much more than this for now... --Solumeiras ^talk 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse The deleted article was a hatchet job and if we dcan't do any better after 2 years then BLP allows us to do without. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Horrendous mess, BLP issues and undue weight for a figure of highly marginal notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Rachel Marsden's behaviour changed the way Canadian Universities operate. This is not a small issue, and her (a)history and her (b)role in propagating mistrust at SFU need to be described in conjunction with each other. Rachel Marsden's further exploits in the media, her faking of portions of her CV, and her harassment conviction are all part of the explanation of this damaged individual. Her accomplishments are not notable, but that's not the issue. _She_ is notable. The fact that her bio is getting so much attention indicates that it is a matter of interest - and what defines wikipedia's entries is that they should be "of interest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.100.172 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Then this deserves a small mention in the relevant articles about Canadian universities not a biased hatchet job of a bio based on original research, synthisis and dorect reporting of first hand sources. The article was a disgrace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The way I look at it, Patricia O'Hagan and President Stubbs changed the way Canadian Universities operated by using and endorsing a flawed process in multiple cases, and Donnelly was the respondent who managed to fight back the best. Why not focus on them instead of RM? Marsden was one complaintant; O'Hagan and Stubbs were responsible for mishandling 11 other cases. If not Marsden, it would have eventually been some other case. Marsden's role is documented in Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy and that is all that is needed. Thatcher 06:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thatcher makes good points. Myself and at least one other person have suggested that the article on the harassment controversy be refocused on the institutional impact of the case. Unfortunately the Arbcom remedies and general toxicity surrounding the article are a clear deterrent to good editors spending time rewriting it. As for why the media and public focus was on this particular case and on Marsden, some of the later sources do address this question (BTW when a major university gets unsolicited advice from other institutions about how to handle the press, something notable has happened). It would be good to explore that angle in the articles. Note that the answers are not heavy on the idea that the publicity was due to leftists trying to dig up dirt on a conservative to make conservatives look bad -- pretty much the only people who believe that are Wikipedians. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thatcher's argument amounts to "If Max Schmeling hadn't knocked down Joe Louis, someone else would have, so we shouldn't have an article that focuses on Schmeling" which is of course complete crap. We summarize the sources as they are, not as we want them to be. This is the crux of the whole vendetta by the BLP radicals against the editors of the Marsden article. Quite obviously none of them has ever looked at the source material in full, or even requested to. Instead we get proof by assertion arguments, continuous moving of goalposts, rampant bad faith insinuations, and censorship with the instrumentality of glad thoughts. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:BLP has been successively misinterpreted and abused to mean that any article with any information that could be interpreted to be negative can be deleted by any admin regardless of sourcing, notability or the possibility of removal and discussion of the supposed BLP issues. This is a perfect example of this abuse. That there are so many who will tolerate these disruptive practices only undermines Wikipedia's credibility. As there are clear claims of notability, as the content in question is properly sourced and as there are remedies for any imagined WP:BLP issues well short of deletion, Wikipedia process and policy has been violated and the article in question should be restored. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is an encyclopedia. We don't pander to people's personal whims - we write factually accurate and verifiable information that does the subject no harm because the information is readily available already. The Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley cases have been worrying in this respect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I preface my comment by pointing out, in the spirit of openness, that I have contributed to this article in the past, began the discussion when it ran into trouble last month, and later voiced my objection when it was reduced to a stub. I agree with much of what has been written above by both users who have endorsed the deletion and those who have called for an overturn. That said, respectfully, I cannot agree that Rachel Marsden "wasn't very notable to start with and now... isn't notable at all". This runs counter to notability guidelines. I add that just two days ago she was featured in a Toronto Star new story. That the article has a troubled history cannot be argued. For the most part, this has had to do with the participation of numerous socks and single purpose accounts. I note that this very review features two single purpose accounts, one of which, 64.230.106.232 (talk · contribs), was blocked three hours after commenting on this page (in the interests of openness, two of the user's acts of vandalism were directed at myself). Wikipedia has methods which deal with such abuse. For an article to be deleted due the disruptive practices of a few individuals leads one to question the future of any article and the viability and the credibility of this grand project.Victoriagirl (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, WP:BLP mess. --Coredesat 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. BLP issues? {{sofixit}}. Neıl ☎ 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, list at AfD WP:CSD is unambiguous on this: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." This is nothing but an ongoing attempt to disenfranchise the community and game the system by circumventing AfD, where the article has been speedily kept on three separate occasions and the notability of the subject has been established by strong consensus. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131. Please note that the article must not be undeleted without an actual consensus to do so. east.718 at 15:04, January 8, 2008
  • That would only apply "if every previous version of it significantly violated any aspect of the BLP policy" - I don't believe that was the case. Your own last version ([2] - admins only, sadly) would make the BDJ ruling null and void, ignoring the other 1,637 versions. Neıl ☎ 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The consensus to keep has already been established three times. The current speedy deletion is a clear challenge to the community consensus and should only be upheld if there is consensus to do so. East718's reading of the ruling is clearly in violation of the 5 pillars. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD A speedy deletion was inappropriate, this requires a wider community view. RMHED (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if an article has to be stubbified twice within ten days for BLP issues, there's something seriously wrong with the article. Will ^(talk) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, Will was one of the editors who stubbed the article. Furthermore, the fact that it was stubbed twice in 10 days does not imply that such action was necessary. John254 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept that "there's something seriously wrong with the article", sometimes WP:BLP problems need to be resolved editorially and/or via page protection -- deletion isn't an acceptable cure for everything that ails Wikipedia articles. John254 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I stubbed it. I also think resolving editorally has been tried and failed too many times. If problems occur even after an request for arbitration, you know the article's more trouble than it's worth. Will ^(talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The problems occurred when the article wasn't fully protected. If it were fully protected indefinitely to avoid WP:BLP violations, it is highly probable that they wouldn't recur. John254 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave the beauracracy of {{editprotected}}s to Cary and Mike. Will ^(talk) 17:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As this article has a major history of conflict, and a serious potential for WP:BLP problems, it might be better for the article to be written by administrators, with scrupulous attention to the policy. While this is hardly an ideal state in which to place a Wikipedia article, I would assert that full protection is better than destroying the article completely. John254 17:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for full protection. I add that one of the two stubs mentioned came about when a flurry of edits made by a puppetmaster and two socks were reverted by other users. The puppetmaster objected to the insertion of information garnered from then current news stories in The Toronto Star and National Post. This is the very issue I address in my comments above. Are we to allow for deletion or reduction of an article to a stub due to the disruptive actions of - in this case - a single individual? With all due respect, I shudder at the thought that any article is more trouble than it's worth. Will other articles, like Brian Mulroney (currently protected) and John F. Kennedy assassination (which has just come off a seven month protection), follow? Yes, the Marsden article appears rather trivial when compared to these two examples, but the subject more than meets notability guidelines. I see nothing in Wikipedia to indicate that "more trouble than it's worth" is a valid reason for stubbing or deletion. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's something very wrong with an encyclopedia that everybody can edit when people want to recreate an article and then lock it from further editing. If nothing else, this builds future edit-warring, sallow complaints, wrong-versionitis and a whole host of drama and dysfunction directly into the process. That can't be good for anybody: bewildering new editors, making admins axiomatic wrongdoers, defying the spirit of the 'pedia. This is either very poor judgement or process-wonkery taken to extremes. Fie, I say. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the current status of Rachel Marsden already infringes upon Wikipedia's status as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" because it is protected against recreation. I strongly disagree with the assertion that it's better to delete articles completely than to protect them. John254 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, do we not effectively impair our status as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" when we delete large numbers of good edits for the sole purpose of preventing future bad editing? What use is the privilege of anyone to edit if those edits will be deleted without a compelling reason? John254 20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten who our audience (customers, if you will) are. Are they editors? Nope. They're the readers, who vastly outnumber the number of editors we have. They can be converted into editors, but only by them being able to click [edit this page] and for something to happen. Recreating an article that stinks for such absurd process-wonkery reasons as "we've heard of this woman, so we must have this article, and then we can permanently protect whichever disputed version we choose!" and then permanently protecting it is a nonsense. It's also an oxymoron in an editable encyclopedia: why create something that has been and will be continually disputed in order to protect it forever from editing? The question as to why this should be done, for whom and what it would solve are being ignored on the basis of absurd inclusionism. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see that anyone has put forward the argument "we've heard of this woman, so we must have this article, and then we can permanently protect whichever disputed version we choose!" The fact is that people come to Wikipedia in search of information. As Rachel Marsden is a person of note, a reader would expect to find an article. Again, with respect, I don't follow the logic in the statement that readers "can be converted into editors, but only by them being able to click [edit this page] and for something to happen". After all, as it currently stands, this same possible convert, noting no article on Rachel Marsden and seeking to create one, is prevented from doing so. Should full protection be permanent? I would argue not. If it weren't for recent vandalism (some of which I've mentioned above), I would propose semi-protection (a not at all uncommon status for articles on public figures). No one is denying that it would be best if every user, whether new or seasoned, anonymous or not, was permitted to edit all entries. Unfortunately, as evidenced by this article, there are those who seek to disrupt. Wikipedia has the means with which to deal with these abuses - and it is for this very reason that full protection, semi-protection and other methods of discouraging vandalism exist. Finally, an obvious but important point: articles under full protection can be edited by administrators; they are not set in stone. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) With sincere respect to those advocating the idea, I think having a fully protected article that we consider open to editing by administrators is the worst possible outcome. If admin tools are required to edit the article, edits unfavourable to the subject are likely to be met with threats of desysopping. The article will become out of date if new source material arises and nobody in the small pool of administrators bothers to incorporate it (note that not only a small fraction of source material is free). If we go this route there should be a prominent notice that the article is under special editing conventions; a little gold padlock will not do. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• overturn Marsden is obviously notable. There's no good reason to delete here. BLP requires us to be careful not to throw out articles about notable people. Gothnic (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Óverturn and AfD. Sure, Speedy deletion is the way to handle BLPs, but if they still need community input, so it should have immediately been sent to AfD. Viridae^Talk 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Like many others, I have watched this article periodically, and except for its periodic stubbings, it has always been a hatchet job. Concur with Thatcher's reasoning. The recent articles in The Toronto Star and The National Post relate more to a local bias on reporting any and all cases that relate to domestic violence (note that Marsden wasn't charged), and not to Marsden's personal notability. Absolutely do not bring it back and lock it with only admins editing it; if any article of such minor notability requires that level of protection simply to exist, then it shouldn't exist. Risker (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The recent articles you mention do not relate to domestic violence at all. Just pointing this out before a rumour takes off that RM has been involved in a domestic violence controversy. She has not. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You have just proven my point unintentionally. In the Southern Ontario region, all "relationship violence" is consistently reported as being a domestic dispute, whether it is "Man said to have hit wife" or "Woman allegedly stalked ex-boyfriend." In most areas, neither of these cases would even make it to the newspaper, but in Southern Ontario it is always Big News due to several very brutal murders and murder-suicides extensively publicised and discussed in recent years. Knowledge of the local lexicon puts this otherwise relatively trivial court appearance (remember, the Crown did not proceed with the charges) into perspective. Risker (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • How best to respond? We have a charge of local bias leveled against a national paper for printing a story that was also covered by United Press International. We have a story headlined “Ontario anti-terror officer investigated on leak allegations” likened to “Man said to have hit wife" or "Woman allegedly stalked ex-boyfriend." We have the terms “domestic violence” and "relationship violence" raised, though they were not used in any news story associated with this discussion, are absent from the discussion itself, and were not included in the Rachel Marsden article. In the interests of fairness to all concerned - most of all Rachel Marsden herself - let’s please be careful. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that just shows the media bias in reporting trivial events about famous people. I can assure you that if I allegedly stalked my ex-girlfriend, it wouldn't be in the local papers, let alone the national ones. Unless, of course, my ex-girlfriend was someone well-known like Rachel Marsden. I'm not saying the we should include that episode in our article, should we chose to have one, but it just screams out that Marsden is very notable in Canada. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Fix any BLP issues, there is no way in heck that she doesn't meet notability requirements. SirFozzie (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The BLP claims are tenuous, and most 'Keep Deleted' responses seem to be of the "well, it's had a lot of controversy so far". So, I don't see anyone moving to delete abortion or Middle East pages on that grounds, why is it sufficient grounds for this article (yes, I am aware that there is a relevant importance difference, but I can't see how in any way that those principles trump anything else)? Don't even start me on the 'fully protected, admin-only editing indefinitely' proposal. A quick look at the history revealed a whole slew of administrative messes. Achromatic (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. I researched her a while ago and was pleased to see that we had a reasonable article on her. People who see BLP as an excuse to delete articles on living controversial people understand neither BLP nor NPOV. But articles like this do need more than normal levels of protection, by one means or another. Restore a good version and protect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore a prior version that does not suffer from the BLP problems. Catchpole (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I am seeing a lot of arguments above that the article is a stinking horrendous mess, but all that boils down to proof by assertion reasoning. We need to look at it dispassionately: If the contents of the article can be reliably sourced, then there is no BLP violation, and calling it one is dangerous because it undermines the acceptance of the policy. If keeping all facets of the article in compliance with BLP means cutting it down to "stub" or "start" quality, then do so, but don't exaggerate by deleting the entire article, and protecting it to prevent an article from ever being created. Furthermore, "not currently notable" is outside the notability guidelines on permanency for notability, and the article was previously kept on an AFD. I concur with the reasons given by WAS 4.250, HisSpaceResearch, and AnonEMouse for overturning this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• 'Overturn and edit by consensus. Any BLP concerns in the deleted version were minor. Impatience with the editing process is not a reason for deletion. An incorrect use of BLP, which should serve as a warning to us about its possible undue extension. Other reasons given are not reason for deletion let alone unilateral action. DGG (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
• Endorse deletion of the article as it existed, though there's nothing wrong with carefully recreating the article in compliance with any BLP concerns. krimpet✽ 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have to say that I appreciate Thatcher's vigilance for BLP concerns. I know that s/he's tried very hard to keep the article in line for a long time now. I share those concerns but I have to wonder if there is not an intermediate solution. I'm not exactly an inclusionist per se but I think that Marsden is notable generally. I'd hate to delete articles that become difficult because that could happen to any article. Like it says at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the community is "a means to that end". In my opinion, writing articles is not more important than having articles. I'd rather see a permanently protected stub than a protected non-article. I do hope that there is a solution short of that. Hopefully some Tutnums know of something that this apprentice does not. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I have only been recently aware of the drama with regard to this article. The main complaint with regard to this article was the fact that it was overly negative. The article was well sourced and used The Toronto Star and The National Post. Two very reliable sources. If the article is overly negative, add positive information if it exists. If it doesn't exist, then the article stays put as is. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is absurd. I do see that this lady is hardly the most notable of individuals, and am sympathetic to the theory that this article is more trouble than its worth, but I strongly object to the deletion reason that since she no longer has a notable job, she is no longer notable. That is not how notability works. Simply put, this should never have been deleted; all BLP issues can be fixed like all other BLP issues are. Nothing makes this special. Relata refero (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read Kla'Quot below, re-read the ArbCom case, and gone through some of the hundreds of Lexis results on her name. I'm sorry, but this person is clearly notable. If we cannot write an article about her, let the article be stubbed and protected with an OTRS notice, rather than wikilawyering hypocritically about 'temporary notability'. Relata refero (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I weakly endorse the status quo, without endorsing how we got here. I also weakly support sending this to AfD. Hundreds of reliable sources exist on the subject, originating in at least eight of the past ten years. The sources are from a variety of writers and publishers distributed across the political spectrum and are from many (if not all) Canadian provinces plus a few other countries. They include pieces written by highly respected journalists and by academics, in publications of high international repute. The reliable sources that are independent of the subject do not disagree with each other very much. The problem that we have is that the reliable sources tell a story that is not allowed to be told on Wikipedia. This article has been completely rewritten (as opposed to merely being stubbed and reverted) at least three times by three completely different sets of editors. One version was written by user:Jreferee, an experienced and trusted writer of biographies who later passed RfA. His version lasted a few minutes before being speedied. The article keeps acquiring the same so-called-problems as before for the obvious reason that various writers read the same policy page on reliable sourcing and conclude that the same sources meet those criteria.

There is a plausible argument that the reason the story is so unfortunate is that the sources, despite being numerous, are not well-rounded enough to support a biographical article. I believe that the sources are sufficient to write a Wikipedia article, although it should not read like a biography.

Ever since this matter was taken to Arbitration (if not before), contributors have been told that the story told by the article is too harsh and that they are supposed to go find some information that would make the story dfiferent. The story can be made different, but I do not think it can be made substantially different and still be faithful to the sources. We have never had a mediation or content RfC to actually look at what the sources say and discuss due weight with respect to sources. What we've basically had is a parade of senior administrators raising their eyebrows and murmuring "she can't be that bad", and blaming other Wikipedia editors for what's in the sources. The Arbitration Committee of 2006 did what the committee tells the community every day that it doesn't do: It made decisions on what constitutes due weight and what sources (that would normally be considered reliable) were too biased to be worthy. We had Fred Bauder telling us, in contradiction to all the reliable sources, how to interpret nuances of Canadian law. For more details, see my blog.

The situation we have right now is that the Rachel Marsden page consists of a salt notice that probably makes sense to about 50 people in the world, not including myself. It basically announces that Wikipedia is unable to produce an article on the subject. Given the circumstances I have described above, I find this actually quite fitting. The only alternative that BLP hardliners are currently prepared to accept would be a permanently whitewashed article, and I currently believe that a nonsensical salt notice is better than a permanently whitewashed article. I am sympathetic to the complaint that this deletion is an attempt to disenfranchise the community, however the community was already disenfranchised in November 2006. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT. I find this very disturbing especially the article on your blog. If it is an accurate portrayal of what went on in wikipedia with regard to this article then I think a second arbcom case on this matter is in order. It's not unheard of to have two arbcom cases about the similar things. For example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. I am specifically concerned about the allegations that Canadian Law was interpretted incorrectly and it also seems like WP:BLP is being twisted to give the wikipedia bureaucracy the license to enforce how much positive and negative content should be in an article. Just wait until all the subjects in category:Canadian far-right figures demand the same (not an implication that Marsden belongs in that category). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Quote from SALON feature article - "it is one thing to have a private past in which you behaved badly or got into youthful scrapes. It's another thing altogether when your misadventures result in institutional upheaval and someone getting fired and rehired, and when the scrapes culminate in harassment charges well into your adulthood. And it's another thing again, knowing that these shenanigans have been documented by the press and the courts, to pursue fame by becoming a conservative noisemaker. Fair enough to leave someone's past alone, if they want to be left alone. But when you make it clear that you are dying to be noticed and now make a living attacking the kinds of ideological groups and institutions that were once your defenders: Well, that's downright impossible to ignore."[3] - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that that's relevant here? Relata refero (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. The subject of the article is unemployed and has left no footprints like a best-selling book. The paragraph above hardly shows Salon to be objective. In fact, it calls into question the use of the Salon article as a source. It is far too negative POV. 132.205.148.69 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• overturn Oh for crying out loud, are we still arguing over this? As Clayoquot observes, we have literally hundreds of reliable sources about this person, and as Was observes Marsden voluntarily went into politics after the initial incident had already been a multi-year press saga. The bottom line is that we have a situation where we need to have an article about someone because that person is very notable, and that article won't be pretty. In that regard, it is somewhat similar to Kent Hovind. We aren't going to delete the article on Kent Hovind simply because almost all reliably sourced statements about the man are negative, and this one shouldn't be any different. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn as per JoshuaZ above. With the range of references available in major media both Canadian and U.S., Marsden is obviously notable and an article can and should be included about her that meets BLP. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Being neutral doesn't mean neutralizing negative statements in reliable sources. The article is neutral in reflecting those negative statements. The notability of the subject isn't ambiguous, as it needs to be, for BLP concerns to weight so much. If she has been a major part of multiple incidents wherein she has received negative attention, we can't make it sound like that's not the case and undue weight doesn't really apply anymore. What we can do is make sure all the claims are sourced, and insert 'positive' claims where possible, like the quote by Kla’quot above. –Pomte 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted = Thatcher said it all.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I just translated (and a little summerazed ) from ja.wikipedia.org. Original article is also short. While I was looking for several tags, it was deleted. Reason for dispute follows: This term is often used in Japan, and often is believed to be English. So, I think it is good for non-Japanese wiki has this entry. By definition, it is a "Japanese word" and not commonly used in English speaking world. It may result in confusion during conversation. AIEA (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The entry doesn't appear to exist in the Japanese Wikipedia, at least at the title "match pump" -- see [4]. Is the article located at a different title? John254 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it appears that the Japanese article is located at "マッチポンプ" -- see [5]. John254 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The article was deleted by WP:CSD#A1, which given the nomination might have been inapropriate. However, it's easier to just write a new version of the article than it is to bring a single speedy here to DRV, so I am endorsing the deletion in order to discourage this sort of nomination here. That said, since it was just a single speedy there shouldn't be any problem if you recreate the article. The japanese version appears long enough to make a decent article. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse as procedural default; DELREV is unnecessary to create a new article under these circumstances.JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)