Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 7 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 9 >

Contents

[edit] 8 June 2008

[edit] Ulteo

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

I think that the deletetion of my new article about Ulteo was not justified

Hello - following the deletion of the original Ulteo entry on Wikipedia which was very poor, I wrote a full article to cover this Open Source project, with all the references.

My article was soon deleted for the following reason: "repost of a deleted article".

I'd like to clearly state that my article was not a repost, but a new and documented article about the Ulteo project with links to press reviews in well-known websites. Please do a diff of the two articles to understand what I mean.

Additionally, the Ulteo project has really taken off those past 5 months with the release of 4 different products and that's a very interesting project which has gained real notability, and many dedicated reviews on well-known software news sites such as CNET.com, Slashdot.org, ZDnet and many others.

So please consider undelete my work, because I think that Ulteo really deserves a page in the Wikipedia English version like it does in several other languages.

In short: I'm pretty sure that my article meets all Wikipedia requirements in terms of notability of the project and in term of references.

Getupstandup1 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, for comparison:
  • April version which was deleted after the first Afd (before an undeletion following a user request to move it to User:Avant Destiny/Ulteo for improvement)
  • June version which user Getupandstandup1 argues should be undeleted.
(Added links for admins considering undeletion for 2nd Afd.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn and list at AfD. The most recent version was substantially different from the previously deleted version (by AfD), at least enough to justify overturning the speedy. As it's a different article, the outcome should be determined by consensus. Shereth 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly: re-determine consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy undelete, based on Athaenara's comment. He She was the most recent admin to delete for content, so I think he she could just reverse himherself. DGG (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The "new" article has the same wording, the same WP:RS issues and the same WP:N issues. There may be an argument that the article is different but that is on the surface. The content of the article is the same. I would completely understand if this was overturned and brought back to AfD. I suspect that the end result will be the same.--Pmedema (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Answer to previous I disagree with the former argument about WP:RS issue: the new version as I read it in the cache provides several links to external sites that are trustworthy or I don't know who you can trust. I can see a distrowatch.com which is one of the most resespected information site on Linux systems, and several reviews from Linux.com, CNET.com, Artstechnica, CRN, sys-con and Slashdot.org which are well established and respected tech-oriented web sites for a long time. They have covered extensively the latest Ulteo releases, and talk about Ulteo features that, yes, are also explained on the Ulteo.com main website. I've checked wikipedia pages of Ulteo in various languages and they confirm at least parts of information provided in the English page that is in cache. So from my point of view, that's really what I call a reliable sources or a big part of Wikipedia should be wiped out too. Regarding the WP:RS supposed issue, I disagree for two reasons: the information newssites that cover Ulteo are not small ones, they are the biggest ones in their category, and at the time of writing Googling shows 600,000 entries for Ulteo. In my opinion, that's not hype, just a project that is catching attention and growing. As a result, my feeling is that the most recent version should be restored. Vautnavette (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC). — Vautnavette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[edit] Michael Bormann

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

Entry was all correct Bonfire34 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know who had deleted the article on Michael Bormann, but I only noticed that it was gone today when I tried to make a link from a band's article that he was in to his own entry. There is nothing in the My Talk for me about it and I had no idea there was a problem that still existed with his entry. I had provided and thought I cleared all the problems that had existed with the entry months ago. Since I had no notification, I had no chance to copy the article as a text (as it was long) just in case this would have happened and I would have asked to reinstate. So why was it deleted and why was I not informed since I was the original author? I would also like to know if it will be reinstated as all the information was provided by Michael Bormann himself, the music groups he belonged to, various web site news articles and the most recent information where he was nominated for several Grammys was directly from his management and the Grammy Acadamy. I think that is pretty much reliable sources.

  • The article was deleted under CSD A7 as not asserting the importance of its subject. Regardless, you cannot verify information from the man himself or his management, as that does not satisfy WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. You're free to recreate the article, and given what you've said above I'm sure it will not be speedied again (with reliable sources, you've given more than enough to pass WP:MUSIC). Usually this is a much faster course than having simple speedies overturned, especially when the page in question is not protected from recreation. As for the lack of notification, while it is bad form it is not enough for an overturn of a speedy all on its own. I wish you the best of luck on this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy deletion as valid. If the nominator is certain a sourced and verifiable article can be written on the subject, they are more than welcome to do so. Shereth 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; the article wasn't backed up by reliable sources, just personal information from the subject and management, from the looks of it. I'd suggest rewriting it in userspace and ensuring that it's fully backed up with good references, then ask some admins to review it before reposting it live. Note that the Grammy thing is not necessarily notable - pretty well anyone can submit to the entry lists. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse valid speedy deletion; some citations from reliable sources might convince me that it should be reversed. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inventions in the Islamic world

Inventions in the Islamic world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The closing admin makes two fundemental errors, 1. he asserts the POV problem is part of the article text and thus not deletable, it is not, it is part of the article name, i.e. the topic of the article, and thus inherent; and 2. he asserts that the Islamic World is a defined geographic location in the same way that the U.S. the country is, which is a patent nonsense; the idea that this is a defined 'country' that supercedes the established wikipedia naming convention of 'things by country' is not supportable, and is a clear violation of NPOV. The admin has failed to give any more detailed reasons for his keep other than these, despite requests, so there is no choice but Drv. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) -->

  • Closing admin: I am not asserting my own opinion; I believe that I have interpreted the consensus accurately. The arguments for keep were stronger than those for delete. At the very least, it is a "no consensus," but definitely not "delete." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Close accurately reflects the consensus of the AfD. The delete rationales were mostly based on content issues, not deletion ones. Editing and possibly moving the page should take care of all the problems with it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorswe, at worst this might have been a no-consensus keep, but I have to agree with the closer in his determination of consensus here. There was certainly insufficient will to delete. Shereth 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. When looking only at the second nomination, you could make an argument that this should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than a straight "keep". When considered in light of the additional comments from the prior AFD, a closure as "keep" is well within normal admin discretion. I can find no interpretation of the discussion that would have closed as a "delete" decision.
    That's not to say that the article must stay in its current form, title or even remain as an independent article. Decisions to modify, move, prune or redirect the page should continue to be worked out on the respective article Talk pages. Disagreements over those decisions should be worked out in accordance with WP:DR (not WP:DRV). Rossami (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Rossami covers well each of the points that I'd have raised (and more cogently than would have I, to be sure). Joe 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse proper closure - the delete comments were all related to the pov of the article, pov is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Move the page, perhaps? Narrow its inclusion criteria? Perhaps split it into two smaller articles, and there's already a discussion going on about that. I also fail to see what's indiscriminate about this list; it only lists things verifiably invented by Muslims. Granted, reading through there seem to be some subtle jabs at Europe, but I'm pretty sure everything can be taken care of through normal editing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't list things invented by Muslims, there is a difference, there are Muslims all over the world. It is as indiscriminate as if you listed all ships constructed in the Muslim world, defineable (ignoring the vague nature and borders of 'Muslim World'), but not a notable intersection. Not one person in this entire debate has attempted to address the POV violating assertion that an invention made in the Muslim world is separable over and above inventions by country/person/defined civilisation (e.g. Roman, Byzantine etc), which is the standard practice on wikipedia. As said above, the closer even makes the incorrect assertion that saying 'Muslim World' is the same as saying the 'United States', a blatant POV violation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's probably a flaw in the title and lede, then. Looks like that's what it is listing, anyways. There are ways of fixing these problems other than deleting the article. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse closure -- As others have said there was a strong tradition of real science in the Islamic world when Christian Europe was crippled by superstition. As others have said deletion decisions should be based on whether the topic itself merits coverage, not based upon whether a current version of an article has POV problems. Further, how is it meaningful to call this an "indiscriminate list" when the criteria for inclusion are so plainly stated? Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You've just justified the topic itself using an extremely non-neutral statement. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And List of country and western singers with blue eyes would also have very clear "criteria for inclusion", it would still be an indiscriminate list. And Muslim world is hardly a specific definition either, compared to an actual country (the standard method of listing things in Wikipedia), which again just marches this topic directly into POV-land by default, before you even examine the indiscriminate information it contains. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse keep, both by looking at the AfD and by looking at the topic. I find Mick's nomination nonsensical. Islamic world is a well-understood term. It is not a well-defined geographic location - so what? Neither is Germany, or the US, for that. Was Tecumseh an "US military leader"? Sam Houston? The current article may suck (although it is not that bad), but the topic is notable and has oodles of sources. Even WP:AGFing, it looks like quite some of the (few) deletes are motivated by anti-islamic prejudice, and not by a neutral evaluation of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, closer interpreted the debate correctly. This is not a place to further discuss the article or its merits. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:SlimVirgin

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.


User talk:SlimVirgin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I ask that SlimVirgin's talk page history be undeleted (see deletion log). I want every revision, without exception, restored in such away that non-admins can find it in coherent page histories and in user contribution logs.

I collected evidence to support this request at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/SlimVirgin arbitration evidence/SlimVirgin's talk page. Briefly:

Precedent prohibits active users from deleting their talk pages.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted his talk page history many times, but other administrators undeleted it. User:Animum explained: "please do not delete your own talk page. If you have left, please email me and tell me so." User:The wub explained: "page histories should be kept intact (barring exceptional circumstances) especially if you are still using your admin tools."

Many users questioned the deletion of User talk:SlimVirgin.
  1. On June 19, 2007, User:Piperdown questioned the deletion on the Administrators' noticeboard. [1]
  2. On July 23, 2007, User:NathanLee asked User:Crum375, the administrator who deleted User talk:SlimVirgin, to undelete it. ElinorD and Crum375 responded. [2]
  3. On August 2, 2007, User:Kelly Martin wrote on her blog: "it's likely that my response [to SlimVirgin] is currently a deleted revision which I, being a lowly non-admin peon, am not permitted to see. (This bothers me somewhat.)" [3]
  4. On August 10, 2007, User:Night Gyr asked SlimVirgin why her talk page had been deleted. [4] ElinorD replied. One day later, ElinorD undeleted some history, but the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted.
  5. On August 12, 2007, User:Derktar wrote on Wikipedia Review: "It still amazes me how much information can be wiped off the face of Wikipedia to the average user or casual observer, and without much fuss to boot. ... my comment on Slim's talk page was removed after due course, having no place in the history of her talk page though the evidence of the run-in is still present." [5]
The reasons for deleting User talk:SlimVirgin are invalid.

The reasons given by SlimVirgin, Crum375 and ElinorD to support the deletion are:

  1. Individual revisions contained information that harassed SlimVirgin by trying to expose her real-world identity.
  2. In order to remove these revisions, it was necessary to delete the entire page history, then undelete all revisions except for those containing harassment. However, isolating individual revisions to keep deleted requires substantial effort.
  3. Undeleting thousands of revisions would disrupt the performance of the website, so all of the revisions stay deleted.

These reasons are not valid because:

  1. In June 2007, when Crum375 deleted SlimVirgin's talk page, SlimVirgin's real-world identity was not known. In late July 2007, Daniel Brandt published his opinion regarding SlimVirgin's real-world identity on Wikipedia Review, and his opinion was reported elsewhere. Regardless of whether it is true, the speculation is readily accessible from a Google search for "SlimVirgin," so keeping prior speculation hidden from page history serves no useful purpose.
  2. Oversight should have been used to remove individual revisions. On the thread Piperdown started (linked above), User:Cla68 wrote: "I would suggest that anyone, admins or "regular" editors, who desire "outing" or personal attack edits removed from a page in the project ask an oversighter to do it instead of an admin clumsily using the page deletion function. The page deletion function obviously doesn't work well for surgically removing offending edits and it appears that this is what the oversight function was created for."
  3. Instead of undeleting thousands of revisions simultaneously to one page, smaller numbers of revisions could be undeleted to separate archive pages if this will improve website performance.

With non-administrators such as Cla68 and myself reviewing SlimVirgin's history of activity for a current arbitration case, the need for a full, open archive acquires an added relevance. However, even if there were no arbitration case, SlimVirgin's talk page archives need to be preserved for public accessibility for the same reason that we preserve the talk page archives of Jeffrey O. Gustafson and all other active users. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support undeletion. The horse is long out of the barn on the "outing" stuff, and the mass deletion conceals possible evidence of use to an ongoing case. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete for transparency and accountability, especially considering the current ArbCom case. As Shalom says, Oversight should be used for revisions that include harassment, outing and threats – not page deletion. EJF (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete All contributions are GFDL, this is not how you deal with privacy/harassment concerns. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, please. There are many thousands of edits to the page, which ElinorD is very kindly in the process of undeleting and moving to individual archives to make them easier to manage. The reason the page was deleted at all was that someone posted some abuse, which was deleted, and then the whole page was undeleted by mistake, which also undeleted a lot of previously deleted posts, something that often happens in error when admins delete and undelete. Some of it was very provocative sexual abuse. Therefore, the whole page was deleted again, at which point ElinorD suggested breaking it into archives to make it easier to handle in future, and that's what she's currently doing. Anyone with a genuine reason to find a post can look at Daniel Brandt's website; I believe he has posted copies of all my archives there. Alternatively, any admin wanting to check posts by individual contributors can look at the deleted edits. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - as per above, archives minus abuse is being put together by ElinorD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep deleted I see no compelling reason to undelete if Elinor is going through the ok material. MickMac's comment about the GFDL is in error; nothing in the GFDL requires us to continue to make this content available. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Per above. Garion96 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Slim's reasoning makes sense. IronDuke 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted for now, please. Shalom is incorrect in saying that the history between March 2006 and August 2007 is still deleted. A week ago, I did another big spurt of undeletion, and brought it up to the middle of February 2007. This is a very complicated process, as there are many abusive versions in the history, which is why the admin who deleted the page last summer was afraid to restore the whole thing, since he was unable to work out which versions were harassment free. The restored history is in separate archives and can be seen here. The history is most certainly not being suppressed in order to conceal records of SlimVirgin's "misbehaviour". SlimVirgin was happy and grateful for me to do this: while the idea of restoring bit by bit in separate archives came from me, I did not have to force her or "persuade" her, as I read somewhere. She has on more than one occasion offered to help, or to take over, but it's the kind of job that can be much more easily finished by the person who started, and who knows what they're doing. My recent contributions will show that I have done almost nothing else on Wikipedia recently. I am recovering from surgery and am not, at present, comfortable spending long hours in front of a computer screen. I do not want some admin who is unaware of the need to check individual versions to restore the whole history indiscriminately (as happened before when Crum375 had deleted it); that would completely ruin the careful work I have been doing. (I can quickly judge which versions don't need to be checked; an admin closing this DRV might not be able to.) I restored several thousand versions in the last week, and would appreciate not being pressurized into changing my pace. And by the way, would it not have been courteous to have notified SlimVirgin of this discussion? ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
ElinorD, could you please provide a copy of everything I ever said (ie labeled WAS 4.250; there may be some editing from IP 4.250.* that I label "(WAS 4.250)") at SlimVirgin's user page? She attacked me on the talk page of Animal Testing for being against her so I mentioned that I had said some nice things to her but she insisted that I did not. Place it anywhere you choose; a subpage of my user talk page would be fine with me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Elinor, but I have a hard time with this. Certainly I can't pressure you to change your pace if it is something you are not in a position to do; however, as far as I can see, the parts that are missing are from approximately February until August of 2007. Is this not something SV can do herself? I'm not sure I understand the risk of undoing your work when those reversions have already been trasnferred to separate archives. As with WAS, there is at least one post where I pointed out the many articles to which SV had followed me, while she was falsely accusing me of "stalking" her in part of a long series of attacks that she leveled against me from December 2006 through March of 2007. She has recently made this accusation again in attempting to have false and damaging accusations retained in my block log, while my comments to her have remained unavailable. The period from February to August 2007 is also from my knowledge the most relevant in terms of the current arbitration case. It seems to me that if you are unable, some other way of returning this on a schedule should be found. Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To ElinorD: I prepared this DRV request about two weeks ago, but I had second thoughts about posting it because I knew it would cause drama. (You can confirm this by looking at the page history of my draft page, which I linked in the second paragraph of the request above.) I decided to post it on Sunday. When I wrote that you had not performed any administrative actions on that page since last August, I was working with information as of two weeks ago. It did not occur to me to double-check the deletion log before I posted the DRV because the deletion log had not been changed in the last six months. I apologize for that mistake. I notified you and Crum375 and not SlimVirgin because you and Crum375 were the deleting admins, and the rules say the requester of the DRV should notify the deleting admin. Perhaps it should have been obvious that I should notify SlimVirgin also, but I thought one of the two of you would notify her anyway (as indeed occurred). If I was remiss in failing to leave a message for her, I apologize. Regarding the substance of the matter, if you are continuing to restore bits of page history and you expect to finish the job in a couple of weeks, that is an acceptable compromise to me. At the time I drafted the DRV, no action had been taken in several months, the deleting admins had declined a talk-page request for reconsideration, and I was frustrated by my inability to see diffs on SlimVirgin's talk page, such as the one where she called Piperdown a "sockpuppet" and the one where Derktar posted to her talk page something related to BADSITES. The first is definitely relevant to the ArbCom case. The second may not be, but when I saw it I lost patience and said, "Enough is enough. This needs a formal review." So here we've come. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted ElinorD is willing to tediously work through so many revisions to weed out the abusive threats and vandalism, threats to reveal real life identity. It's not at all easy to go through several thousand edits and she is , being familiar with it, best suited to do that instead of a complete restoration by an admin who may not be familiar with it. Yes, it would have been courteous to notify SlimVirgin of this discussion.— Ѕandahl 04:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Allegedly this restoration project has been going for quite some time. I support the notion in principle of keeping nasty revisions deleted, but this page seems material to a current arbcom case. As it stands now, admins can see most of the edits (but not all, some were oversighted, so I don't agree with Shalom about "every" revision) which is not at all optimal, but will have to do I guess, but I would ask ElinorD (who should be commended for taking on a big job) how long she would project it will take to finish if things go about as could be expected? ++Lar: t/c 11:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing on my talk page that is relevant to an ArbCom case. That claim is being made by the usual suspects in an effort to stir up more drama. You can look at the deleted revisions yourself, Lar, so why don't you do that instead of insinuating there might be something untoward there? SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I insinuated nothing. Oddly, when I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin there are no deleted revisions visible to me at all! ... there is no "page history" section there. If I instead go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/User_talk:Lar, I can see (in "page history") the one deleted revision that I know I deleted, and review it... It is possible that I am lacking in clue here, or alternatively, possible that something odd has happened somewhere, or possible that there just aren't any deleted revisions, nary a one... either there never were, or they've been moved somewhere... I'm not sure which is the case. But I'm also not sure that if they've been moved somewhere that it's quite as easy as you say to validate that there is nothing relevant... since I've introduced evidence that references edits you made to other people's talk pages, perhaps there is relevant material on your talk page as well. Who can say for sure? I don't think that's insinuation, it's just puzzlement. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From Elinor's project; the deleted revisions are at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. Deleted revisions there are primarily 16 February 2007 to 4 August 2007, with 6 from 4 June 2006. (There were 949 revisions left deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin, which were restored underneath the active talk page on 26 May 2007.) The logs for the temp page show that Elinor did Slim's archives 1-26 in August-September 2007, then did nothing for a long while, and did archives 27-37 on 1 June 2008. Archive 27 begins with 18 April 2006 and archive 37 ends with 16 February 2007. The number of revisions restored and remaining deleted suggest to me that if ElinorD devoted one more work session of similar length to that she did on 1 June 2008 she could probably finish the project. I haven't checked all 37 archive pages, but the ones I sampled had no log activity to indicate that any deletions or moves had occurred once edits reached the archive pages. GRBerry 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up, GRBerry. SlimVirgin's answer is thus technically correct in that there is a place to look, but not very helpful since it doesn't say where the place is. I confess I didn't trawl every single place I might have looked trying to find deleted revisions. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I am willing to allow users a certain amount of extra leeway in terms of deleting/restoring information on their own userpage and talk pages, and if said user wants a part of their history to be effectively "gone", then so be it. If some of that information is pertinent and relevant to an ongoing arbitration case, I could certainly understand the utility of selective restorations of material deemed pertinent to the case. Asking for a wholesale restoration of the entire history is not necessarily called for. Much of the discussion seems moot at this point, as it is clear that ElinorD is already in the process of restoring material as needed. Shereth 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - I would not be opposed to elinor finishing her review project if it can be completed in the very near term (soon enough to be reviewed in the current arb com case), if that is not possible, I would rather it all be undeleted into a subpage somwhere for folks to review. This whole deletion thing smacks of simple trying to avoid accountability for less than optimal behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete. This is an issue of transparency. SlimVirgin had that page deleted in a bad faith attempt to hide her misdeeds from her critics. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, it is time that all of SlimVirgin's history be exposed to full sunshine, both clean and dirty. No more secrets, no more hiding behind WP:HARASS, it is time to face the music for your actions, SlimVirgin. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There are no "misdeeds" that I need to "face the music for," and certainly nothing on my talk page that would allow even someone like you to twist into such a thing; and if there is, there are 1,500 or so admins who can read the deleted edits. You're making these claims about me everywhere at the moment, along the lines of "say something often enough and people start to believe it." Please give it a rest. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you might consider placing the "There are no 'misdeeds' that I need to 'face the music for'" comment here [6] in the space reserved just for comments such as that one. Cla68 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted for now per above. --Kbdank71 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. If specific diffs are relevant, then maybe they could be restored. However, I consider Dragon695's arguments to be unconvincing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me just point out there is an ongoing arbitration case in which SV accuses a long term editor with 23 featured articles of "harassment of his targets, wikistalking, constant niggling, exaggeration, sarcasm, efforts to humiliate them, and misleading descriptions of their actions."[7] This is said without any evidence, while the most relevant periods of her talk page are deleted, and where as a non-admin he can't access them. I'm not sure this is the venue to resolve this, but if people are going to comment they could please keep this in mind. Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I get the impression that if someone wants to find something in particular that may be needed for the case, there are admins who can find it. Is someone saying that information vitally needed for the case is in there? I haven't heard that. It seems to me SV has reason for not wanting this undeleted all at once. I haven't heard of any reason to undelete which would override that. This situation is different from the preivous cases. And thanks for the work you're doing, ElinorD. Noroton (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is vitally needed for the case, which was taken primarily to look at Cla68's actions in creating an RfC (and presumably whether this was reasonable or necessary). As far as Brandt's site, it's worth clarifying that it appears only to include posts that were archived, and not those that were immediately blanked, which would be the much more relevant issue. Unfortunately most of this isn't the kind of issue where you can ask for specific examples or expect people to see it on a glance themselves. I agree it shouldn't be undeleted all at once, but there should also be a way to make the six months available with necessary edits excluded before the case is over. Mackan79 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Completely pointless drama. User page histories are not for trawling. If there are particularly egregious examples of misbehavior, it should be possible to clearly point them out and have them restored individually (but then the question is why they were not acted on at that time). Small stuff will just clog up the ArbCom case further for no good reason - and it already is burdened down to a level that I will be surprised if it comes to any substantial result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, trawling for drama for no good reason. --Stormie (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The page is not deleted, so this is not the right place for it. Should be on MFD. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I endorse deletion or oversight of all edits that contain information that constitutes may contribute to an undue invasion of privacy. Because of the high total volume of edits, deletion of the entire talk page is a valid temporary measure. As to whether the bulk of the talk page should be deleted permanently or not, I am neutral. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Pointless drama combined with the usual egregious bad faith and conspiracy-mongering. Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Absolutely agree there is the appearance of bad faith and conspiracy mongering, all right. However, we just may have to disagree about who is giving that appearance and who isn't. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oversight what really needs to be deleted, undelete whatever is left. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Crum375 should have done it immediately after mistakenly deleting the whole thing. The oversight function was created to take care of outing vandalism. Why wasn't it used in this situation? Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete Per Cla68. It should be completely undeleted, and any nasty revisions should be oversighted. There's no reason this should be kept deleted. Al Tally talk 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - anything necessary for arbitration evidence can be handled via email without violating SlimVirgin's privacy. Besides, I cannot imagine that the probative value of SlimVirgin's talk page from a year ago would be significant. --B (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted, but Allow selective restoration. There are enough adminstrators arguing to undelete that it should be trivial for them to go through the archives, and restore revisions which do not contain policy violating information. Admins who restore versions should be aware that they are likley to be abusing their tools of they restore versions that do contain policy violating information. As an additional note, I was the recipient of an off-wiki canvasing message in a public forum, that is likley to be read by a large group of people. I believe the sender of the neutrally worded canvasing message believed the group of people was likley to support undeletion, and note that the sender of the canvasing message has !voted undelete above. I decline to link to the message. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recently asked Requests for Oversight an edit that alleged SlimVirgin's real life identity. The response from an ex-ArbCom member was that the information is already out there so oversight was not going to happen. This should be borne in mind if recommending the use of oversight; users with the oversight permission have now started to refuse to oversight diffs relating to SlimVirgin. I would suggest allowing ElinorD to continue to undelete the pages selectively, although I think she is working very slowly on this - does she need any help? Neıl 龱 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete. If there's something in there that really does need to be taken care of, let an admin who isn't affiliated with SV deal with it, because the way it has been handled so far is terrible. Everyking (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Undelete - oversight exists for a purpose. Why do we have someone spending what will be, by their own admission, most likely a MONTH worth of work selectively hand-rebuilding talk page to remove a couple of instances of abuse? Why are they not being restored wholesale and having the appropriate content deleted or oversight as appropriate, if appropriate? Achromatic (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derelict (Alien)

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

Close seems to ignore rationales provided by three respectable editors. Given the respectability of these three editors, the nominator seems to be using too much policy in his or her arguments, which the close also seems to ignore. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse as deleting admin; see my conversation with Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2008/May#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien). Also, have I read this correctly: I'm being reproached for favouring the application of policy over the opinion of three editors? And the nominator is being reproached for citing that policy and not anticipating that these three editors might disagree with it? That's certainly one of the most ... original DRV requests that I've ever come across.  Sandstein  14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "most original DRV requests..." Well, thank you. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Endorse - correctly closed - the consensus is to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. No good reason provided by nom to overturn, and consensus properly read. I'd also like to note that the article can and should be userfied if an editor would like to merge any non-OR parts of it. I also believe that the OR concerns can be removed by finding some sources for things like the origins of the ship; possibilities were suggested by Le Grand Roi in the AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Seriously, editors who really think about the difference between guidelines such as wikipedia policy and law such as the U.S. constitution will see the irony and incorrectness in these Endorse rationales. For wikipedia policy itself would not take itself this seriously, especially in light of the strength of the reasons for keep in the original AfD. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any good reason to overturn. And while the keep arguements were strong, the delete ones had policy and were also strong. I especially see a consensus that the content doesn't really belong in its own article, hence why I suggest something can be done to merge the non-OR parts of the article; delete, while more tenuous, is still a reasonable closure of the AfD. I'd be happy to allow you do make such a merger if you request it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrongly closed Closed as OR, but only one rather small part of the discussion was OR--the speculation of the origins of the ship. admittedly, that was indeed OR, and is not covered by the permitted use of primary sources for such articles--a rule with which the nominator agreed. We dont delete articles because one part of them are bad, we just edit them. Alternatively, the article can of course be recreated without such content, or, even better, with the speculation sourced as GRC promised to do. He actually does sources such things from time to time. It could equally have been sourced by one of the many fans in the first place; it is time to take a more serious approach to writing this sort of article.
I point out that there are two theories about what the closing admin is supposed to do--to simply report the consensus after throwing out the nonsense arguments, and to actually balance the relative merit of the reasonable arguments. Those in favor of supporting deletes here pick whichever one they choose that fits the case. These different bases for closing cannot both be correct. DGG (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion The article was almost 100% unsourced, and as the nominator and majority of delete opiners realized consisted nearly 100% of original research. GRBerry 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The initiator of this DRV (Firefly322) and I are having a disagreement over a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination). Given the convenient timing of this DRV concerning a related article which I nominated, I suspect that this may be a form of retaliation. Firefly322 has repeatedly accused me in that AfD of "wiki-lawyering" because my rationales "contain too much policy" and because I seem to hold rather high standards towards articles (though I should note that these are not new articles...the Derelict article had been around for quite some time with multiple maintenance tags before I nominated it; the timeline article is now in its second AfD, neither of which I nominated). He has also claimed that "experienced editors don't waste time with wiki-policy", which I feel is pretty self-explanatory of his motivations. He clearly does not value policies, precedent, or consensus when they do not support his own opinions, and also clearly gives more weight to the opinions of other editors who do agree with his point of view, as the opening of this DRV indicates. People who agree with him are apparently "respectable", while I, with a dissenting opinion, obviously am not. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there. Let's stick to discussing just the AfD, okay? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, since the reason Firefly322 gave in his/her opening statement for initiating this DRV was the "respectability" of 3 editors who opposed deletion, and the AfD nominator (me) "using too much policy in his or her arguments", I thought it pertinent to provide an explanation and rebuttal. As to the article itself, I endorse the deletion per my original arguments that it consisted almost entirely of original research and did not satisfy notability standards. All of its salveagable content was already present in Alien (film) and Aliens (film) with much better referencing and third-party sources. A separate article on the ship itself did not add any encyclopedic content beyond what these articles already had, merely unreferenced speculation and fan fiction. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, closer validly interpreted consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse close was fine. Eusebeus (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion and restore article per clearly no valid reason for deletion or any consensus to do so either. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Except, as the deleting admin points out, there were several valid reasons for deletion as well as an apparent consensus. Could you be more specific? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drill 'n bass

Drill 'n bass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The original delete reason was that only one source was provided: at least one other source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/vb3n/ can be found, and we can tag the article {{onesource}} 68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Drill n bass is an underground fan word describing jungle music released by rephlex and warp records. It's not a genre of music, it's a fancruft word. That source shows that a guy on rephlex records got described as drill n bass in a review. That's cool, but nowt to base an article on. Go to the Bogdan Raczynski page and use the word "drill n bass" in a paragraph to describe him, just like that source did, if you please. For your knowledge, Bogdan Raczynski called one of his albums drum and bass classics, so obviously he is drum and bass, it's just that you are one of those online fans trying to make your fan name famous. It's not that notable a term, it's not officially used by the artists and labels which make the music, and there's not enough material to make an article, that's why it got deleted, sorry Mansour Said (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Advice: Try getting the term listed at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page first. Their inclusion criteria are less than ours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Closure was correct with the only possible reading of consensus. If you'd like to recreate it, I'd suggest first working on it as a subpage of your userpage (User:Mansour Said/Drill 'n bass or something) then have another DRV when you're finished. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Wiley

Susan Wiley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|RfD)

Del as BLP when it does not in-fact fail BLP Wjhonson (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie "the Wild Child" or feral child was identified as "Susan Wiley" in dozens of newspaper articles, across the U.S. (perhaps even in Britain) at the time she was found in 1970, both by the AP and UP/UPI. Thus her name was "widely disseminated" at the time. Our policy for privacy-of-names only covers names which were not widely disseminated. This redirect was del without courtesy notifications, quickly, by a non-admin, and since has been speedied without relevant comment allowed. All very out-of-process. Wjhonson (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Relist I'd like to see further discussion about this. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was already wide consensus on the Genie talk page that has been going on for months. Wjhonson has been the only person advocating the inclusion of Genie's real name and it should be noted that he has just gotten blocked for his disruptive edits and pov pushing. For An Angel (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Administrators and editors are enjoined to act swiftly in BLP cases, in this case the inclusion of the Genie's real name in the article per Privacy of Names. As For An Angel as pointed out there is and has been a long discussion and widespread consensus on the talkpage against the inclusion of the name, and also based on two separate listings on the BLP noticeboard [8] [9], as well as independent editors who joined the three RFD discussions [10][11][12] . My calculation suggests the count is 20 to 3 for excluding the full name. Despite this, Wjhonson continues to add the name to WP, including recreating this redirect multiple times and as recently as today adding to the name to a DAB page [13]. He has recently been blocked for disruption for these continuing actions.[14]. BTW, Wjhonson was notified of an RFD discussion [15] but subsequently blanked it from the talkpage.[16]. And the closers of the RFDs, User:JLaTondre and User:Rossami are of course both admins. Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As per Talk:Genie (feral child) and RfD, remove this name from Wikipedia. The full story can be told without the name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As stated above, her story can be told without the name. Wjhonson misses the point when he says that her full name was widely disseminated. At the time that she was discovered, yes, the media did report her name when reporting on the case of child abuse and the charges against her father. But if that were all, she'd be long forgotten by now. There's no way there would be an article about her. What's special in this case is that psychologists were interested in her as a case study, to see if there was a cut-off age after which a child could no longer successfully learn their native language. That's why she's famous now. That's why there's an article about her - because psychologists write about her. And the psychologists changed the name to Genie to protect her privacy. As an abused child, she'd be long forgotten now, and wouldn't have an article. As a guinea pig for experiments in language acquisition, she is notable as Genie. The fact that her real name was reported more than thirty years ago is beside the point. There's nothing in those reports to indicate that this is Genie. The consensus is and has been to keep her real name out of it, and Wjhonson has been constantly battling against this consensus. Ashton1983 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The redirect for discussion was very much per process (although I see that the original creator, User:DasBub, was not notified. This isn't required, but is a good courtesy. Perhaps it was omitted because all evidence suggested he was no longer active on Wikipedia when it was nominated for RfD in April of this year.) Consensus was clearly established in RfD that the redirect was a violation of BLP. In response to other points: of course, a non-admin could not have deleted it, as non-admins don't have that ability. JLaTondre has been an administrator since July of 2006. And speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4, as a recreation of material deleted following a deletion discussion, does not require the allowance of comment. Though it might reasonably be recreated if consensus regarding the use of this name changes, evidence is clearly to the contrary (see also this.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's true, I didn't notify DasBub when I nominated the redirect for the first time in April because I didn't see the point. He had made only a couple edits in the last 8 months or so and didn't seem likely to be around for the debate. But I did check. For An Angel (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I did not evaluate the BLP situation at either of the times that I deleted the page. My speedy-deletion of the redirect was based upon the recreated content criterion. (I did evaluate the original discussion enough to determine that there were no obvious process problems.) Rossami (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse and courtesy blank or even oversight this DRV. I personally advocate limiting the use of "do no harm" to the most obvious of cases, but this is one of the most obvious of cases that can be imagined. I urge a rapid close to this. I would have done so had I not participated in the original discussion. DGG (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oversighting won't work, since DRV uses daily logs; the entire day would need to be oversighted. This discussion can be courtesy blanked, and the closing admin can prepare for that by closing it under a header akin to "a redirect to Genie (feral child)" rather than using the current header. Or that can be done by the courtesy blanker. GRBerry 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse and courtesy blank this DRV. Once again, the magnificence of policies such as WP:BLP is demonstrated ("regard for the subject's privacy", "do no harm", etc). When the subject of this article is no longer alive, those who need to know every tiny detail can raise the issue of Genie's real name again. Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of those who have commented want the matter dropped. Genie is not a politician or other public figure. The right of an anonymous contributor to publicise the misfortune of a living person on Wikipedia is less than the right of a living person to be treated decently. --Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Though I agree with the overall sentiment, Wjhonson is in fact open about his real life identity on his userpage.--Slp1 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse per discussion on Talk:Genie (feral child). Garion96 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Genie (feral child) part 2 discussion also. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • very weak overturn/list on RfD To be clear; I am in favor of not having this redirect. This is one of the very few cases where there could be actual BLP harm. DGG summarizes this issue very well. All of that said, we really should have a proper RfD to do this to properly determine consensus. (This is only a weak request for relisting since I think this is the correct result and also since it seems like the consensus would more likely than not go to deletion). If such a relisting occurs the redirect should not be undeleted while that discussion occurs. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — Let's be clear that nothing in BLP addresses the issue head-on of a case widely disseminated, that has *since* been forgotten. I have commented several times already that if people want to have this case addressed in BLP they should address it there and modify policy to cover it. Stating that BLP covers it when it does not in-fact or spirit cover it, is misdirection. I would WELCOME comments on the BLP policy talk page that actually address a case like this where a widely disseminated name later is forgotten. So far that has not occurred in any fashion that has led to changes in policy. Wjhonson (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's an argument for an RfD more than anything else. Moreover, this seems like a highly reasonable interpretation of BLP. In any event, policy is descriptive not proscriptive, so if the community consensus is that this sort of thing should be deleted then it isn't that relevant whether or not a strict literal reading of BLP necessitates it. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - So your point is basically, let's crush any source-based research on living people if the source is not part of the internet but actually has to be reviewed in a library. That has been the essential problem in this case and it would be imho a terrible precedent to set for the viability of our project. Wjhonson (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you are getting the idea that I want to "any source-based research on living people if the source is not part of the internet but actually has to be reviewed in a library." Not easily obtainable sources are more likely to cause harm. If one used paper sources for a general living individual, and not one where there was a specific, serious type of privacy concern that would be different. But this case deals with someone where scholars have made a deliberate decision to not widely disseminate the name and the connection is very difficult to make unless one already knows the name. In any event, I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment above has anything to do with the comment directly above it which focused on policy interpretation and not the sourcing matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and recommend salt - three discussions about this in less than two months are two such discussions too many. The speedy deletion of a an RfD-deleted redirect was appropriate. Salting seems to be the only way to deter regenerating the redirect when consensus is overwhelming against its recreation. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • All three RfDs were closed speedily. There has not been a full RfD. So calling this the speedy deletion of an RfD-deleted redirect is inaccurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you JoshuaZ for pointing out the inappropriate speedy closing. I was not courtesy notified of any of the prior discussions, which is very inappropriate imho. But that aside, I would point out that my research shows that one scholar decided to make that decision, not all. In fact, I've now posted *yet another* article where the main lead on the case names her directly in a newspaper article two years after she was found. It's fairly clear that her name being used was not an issue at the time. So to say that "scholars" made that decision isn't accurate. Rather one or two did, and some did not and the newspapers certainly did not. And when her mother sued, the whole case was rewriten yet again in the newspaper, using their names. As far as whether someone can now undo what's already been done, that's the crux of the matter isn't it? The policy itself should be addressed and clarified, instead of trying to do it via one article at a time. If the policy is so unclear, that it needs to be fixed doesn't it? This case does not fit the requirement that a name not be widely disseminated, because this one was. Wjhonson (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Look, you keep saying that her name was published at the time, and you always leave out the fact that if someone finds an old newspaper archive that reports on the case, they'll just be reading about one of thousands of child abuse cases, and will not know that they are reading about Genie. If this were just a child abuse case, like this one, there would not be a Wikipedia article about her. What's the difference between them? Lauren's name was reported. She was abused as horrifically as Genie. As months go by, people gradually became less interested in her. And she's definitely not a subject for a Wikipedia article. The difference with Genie was that she was used for testing a theory about language acquisition. And the people who did that, and wrote about her, changed her name to Genie, for her own protection and privacy. It's not a problem saying that the abuse victim whose name was reported in newspapers as Lauren was called Lauren. Anyone who reads an old article about her case will probably figure that out, but interest in her is not being kept alive by psychology experiments which are written about in scholarly books and journals. What you are trying to do is to announce to the whole world, via Wikipedia, that the girl we can read about with her real name in some hard-to-find archive of some newspaper is the girl that is known now as "Genie". It's irrelevant that a newspaper from 1970 gives her name. That newspaper does NOT tell us that this is the girl who is going to become known and written about as Genie, so there's no connection there. Her interest today lies in the fact that she was a case study for psychologists, and is written about by them under the pseudonym Genie, as she has been for over thirty years. The article needs more information about the mission to teach her to speak. It does not need her real name. The scholars who have written about her for over thirty years have not been in any way "incomplete" by their decision to omit it. Ashton1983 (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a very complete statement of the method to be followed in these cases. DGG (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No Ashton because the newspaper article I've now transcribed in full in my article at countryhistorian, names specifically her associate linguist as Susan Curtiss. I think anyone familiar with this case, or who reads our article here or watches any of the video interviews linked in this case, knows who Susan Curtiss was in this case. Not only that Ashton, but the Finding Aid for "Genie" lists her mother as Irene Wiley and includes the autopsy of her father Clark Wiley. Very specific and direct. No masking at all. And as has been pointed out, other papers which mention the case, as derivative of Susan Curtiss' work, they are not independent witness to a mass cover-up of her name.Wjhonson (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Additional comment the last two deletions were speedy deletions as recreation of material deleted as a result of a RfD discussion (meeting the conditions of WP:CSD#G4), namely two redirects, within six weeks of an RfD that was closed when it became evident that the community consensus was against keeping the redirect. It's simple as that. What was discussed at DRV after the initial deletion? Nothing as far as I can remember. So the last two deletions were in-process regarding the deletion of recreated material...Endorse speedy deletions; salt well to minimize the prolonged beating of dead horses. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - And yet the original was also a speedy discussion with no courtsy notification. Sounds out-of-process doesn't it?Wjhonson (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- This discussion raises some questions for me.
    • If this individual were to die BLP would be a moot issue -- because BLP only applies to living people, correct?
    • How, exactly, is the publishing of her name damaging to her? After reading the Genie (feral child) article it seems to me that well-intentioned attempts to protect her privacy, together with attempts of officials to CYA, combined to have a very detrimental effect on her care. She had survived truly extraordinary abuse, which required a truly extraordinary level of after-care. She received that level of after-care, for a few years, but since then well-intentioned, but poorly-advised attempts to protect her privacy has allowed her to receive inadequate care. It sounds like her anonymity is allowing her to receive inadequate care now.
    • Realistically, if she has a vocabulary of only a handful of phrases, she is going to lack the necessary cognitive skills to be embarrassed by having her history published. The effects of publishing her name are going to be on her caregivers, and those responsible for providing oversight over her caregivers.
    • So, isn't it likely that publishing her name might result in greater efforts to deal humanely with her unique needs? Isn't it unlikely that publishing her name will result in a negative impact. WP:NOT -- we are not a social service agency, or an advocacy agency. Our articles should not be used to lobby for individuals like this woman. But when our well-intentioned policies are likely to have a negative impact on particular individuals, I think we should consider make exceptions to those policies.
    • She survived horrifying abuse. Readers are understandably disturbed. I suggest that the real target of our anger should not be the wikipedian who has challenged this deletion, but her parents and subsequent inadequate caregivers.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is certainly a different way of looking at things, and the kindest reason to reveal her name to date, though it seems based on a misunderstanding. In fact the most recent information we have, here [17], here [18] and here [19], suggests that Genie is doing well and is happy in a small, well-run facility. Even if she weren't, Wikipedia does not attempt to right wrongs in this way.
But I think we are drifting away from the point of this discussion, which is not to discuss the issue of including the name, but to determine if the RFDs were closed appropriately. I have just noticed that neither deleting admin JLaTondre and Rossami were informed of this discussion per this [20](which is somewhat ironic since failure to provide appropriate notification was one of Wjhonson's complaints.) Rossami has noticed independently and I have now informed JLT. At the first RFD [21] five editors quickly commented with strongly worded recommendations that the redirect be deleted due to BLP concerns. Three of the five (DGG, 147.70.242.40 and Lenticel) were uninvolved editors who had never before commented on the subject. There was also at the time a strong consensus on the talkpage that the name was inappropriate,[22] a consensus that has grown stronger. The first RFD, though closed quickly (as is often appropriate in an BLP situation) reflected a strong consensus and unsurprisingly perhaps, I believe the closure and deletion was appropriate, as were the subsequent deletions as G4s, for which there were actually unrequired discussion in which another uninvolved editor agreed with deletion.[23][24]Slp1 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, no matter how strongly we feel about an individual's situation, we should still strictly comply with the neutral point of view policy.
  • I note that while the ABC articles you referenced refer to her as "Genie", it names her brother, John Wiley, and her parents, Irene Wiley and Clark Wiley by their identifiable full names.
  • The ABC article about John Wiley devotes two sentences to Genie's current situation. But the ABC article about her goes into more detail, on its final page. Sorry, I don't agree that these references you offered document that she is receiving adequate care. It states:
Today, none of the people who spoke openly to ABCNEWS.com know what happened to Genie.
"I have spent the last 20 years looking for her," said Curtiss. "I can get as far as the social worker in charge of her case, but I can't get any farther."
But one person who has researched Genie's life told ABCNEWS.com that he had located her through a private detective about eight years ago. That person, who wishes to remain anonymous, said that at that time, around the year 2000, Genie was living in a privately run facility for six to eight mentally underdeveloped adults.
"I got ahold of the accounts of her expenditures -- things like a bathing suit, a towel, a hula hoop or a Walkman," he said. "It was a little pathetic. But she was happy."
I think the justification for obfuscating her name is very weak. I would support overturning the obfuscation for that reason.
This article quotes a British student, who traced the story for her disseration
"I truly believe that all the doctors who worked with Genie did the best they possibly could. But it was charged with emotion. In the end, they were crucified for it. But they would have been crucified, whatever they did."
The UK student is absolutely correct about how emotionally charged her case has been. And the discussion of her case and the obfuscation of her name has been here on the wikipedia have been emotionally charged, and I can't escape the feeling that those who originally suggested her name does not need to be obfuscated have become an inappropriate target of those emotions. I see nothing here that justifies a breach of civility. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I see disagreements; I don't see breaches of civility.
As for her name, let's finish the quote that was given by the UK student: In her meticulous research, Weedon learned Genie's real name and, "without too much more investigation" could find her -- but has decided against it. "It wouldn't be fair," she said. "It would be too invasive, and she isn't the same little girl when the stories were written about her. I wouldn't do it -- for her sake and her memory.
-- JLaTondre (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Since it seems pretty clear that this is going to end with an "Endorse deletion" can we assume that when it does, that this will settle once and for all the question of whether or not we should mention her real name in her article? For An Angel (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as original deleting admin. Our BLP policy is pretty explicit. Under the "Privacy of names" section it states "...has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". That fits this case exactly. While newspapers at the time may have reported her name, current practice by researchers is to omit it and use her pseudonym. Privacy concerns have increased since this case originally occurred and it should be judged by today's standards. Wikipedia should not be second guessing the professional psychologists whose practice is to no longer refer to her by name. The process concerns are invalid as BLPs are allowed to be deleted speedily and consensus for deletion (between the RFD and the article's talk page prior to the RFD) had been shown prior to the closure. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Correction. One single scholar decided to suppress her name, and since she, Susan Curtiss, is the only scholar involved who to date has ever published, all other's follow, cite and quote her work in theirs. They are not independent witnesses, agreeing to suppress her name. Rather they are derivative and rely on her work to express their own work. Quite a different situation isn't it? Since the subject's name was widely disseminated at the time of the event and years afterwards as I've shown, and since the suppression of the subject's name was by a single individual, not all involved parties (note the lawsuit years later which appeared in the LA Times using all the real names), it does not fit the category of "intentionally concealed such as in certain court cases" and should never have been speedied. The only person who concealed the name was Susan Curtiss. All of this is laid out in my article on her at countryhistorian.com Continuous refusal to face the situation as it actually occurred doesn't excuse any actions taken here. The speedy deletion should have never happened. That's the point. Wjhonson (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction to the correction. The first scholarly articles about this case were written by Victoria Fromkin, Stephen Krashen, Susan Curtiss, David Rigler and Marilyn Rigler in Brain and Language and Language, in 1974 (see article talkpage for detailed citations}. In 1993 Russ Rymer wrote a book about the case that was highly critical of Genie's rehab. To all she was "Genie". The name was not "suppressed by a single individual" but by multiple academics and authors.Slp1 (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Wjohnson, where is your proof that Susan Curtiss was the only person to conceal Genie's real name? For An Angel (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - no reason to invade privacy. Querulous Q (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid (closed)

[edit] List of environmental websites

List of environmental websites (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Voting mainly occurred prior to clean-up of the page; non-valid reasons

See the page before deletion: List of environmental websites (AFD). This article was listed at AfD concurrently with list of environmental periodicals (AfD). They are essentially the same, yet the latter list received all keeps and the former 4 deletes (3 keeps, including creator Wavelength). The first 3 deletes on list of environmental websites happened before the list was annotated. Plus, the reasons were generally vague "unencylopedic" "NOTDIR". This is clearly not a directory -- it has all blue links. It's a list of notable websites. Plus, the whole argument of redundancy contradicts WP:LISTS, which states that "redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic". The nominator has said that he will not oppose its recreation. This entire line of argument (strangely common) that lists are automatically synonymous with directories, and that lists are redundant, is not in line with consensus guidelines. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Overturn to keep. The delete !votes use a few faulty and vague reasons (for instance, categories and lists do not preclude each other). The comments made near the bottom of the discussion clearly swing the overall consensus towards keep. I'd also like to point out, however, that the list doesn't define its inclusion criteria very well. I'd suggest fixing this if it is restored. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This article exists only to be a list of websites. That's textbook WP:NOTLINK. WP is not DMOZ, WP is not Yahoo. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As I noted in the AfD, websites can be, and increasingly will be, more notable than periodicals. So why have a list of periodicals? ImpIn | (t - c) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I never said they weren't notable. I'm saying that lists of websites are explicitly outside of WP's purview as a matter of policy. If you want to create a list of useful websites, become an editor over at the ODP. eaolson (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Note that this 'policy' that you have believe in exists nowhere in the policy guidelines. WP:NOTLINK says we shouldn't have indiscriminate collections; this is obviously an annotated, discriminate list, similar to all the other lists. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

This isn't a place to rehash the arguements at the AfD. All we do here is figure out of the close of the AfD reflected the consensus therein. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn. No consensus to delete apparent at AfD. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't apply here. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. Categories and Lists co-exist just fine, and improve accessibility. We need more navigation aids, not less. Reasons for deletion not compelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I see what both sides are saying. Upon viewing it, I felt the category was doing the job just as well as the list. Granted, the way the article is being rewritten would satisfy any accusations of a directory and the like. Don't really have an opinion as the closer, whatever happens happens. Wizardman 15:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn clearly meets all the requirements for a list in its latest form--the material is limited to those with articles in Wikipedia, and description is added. DGG (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Wikipedia is not a link farm. An "article" which consists of nothing but links to outside sources is not an encyclopedia article. Deletion was quite right as per policy. A list of bluelinked articles which discuss those websites, and which provide evidence of the notability of those websites, is a different animal. Corvus cornixtalk 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This was the latter animal. —Cryptic 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. This person apparently did not look at the list either. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Not according to what I see in the cache above. This was a list of links to external sites, not a list of Wikipedia articles. Corvus cornixtalk 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You apparently did not look at the list either. The external sites were all directory links; it was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know what is going on, but when I looked at the cache before, it was to external links, now it's to articles. I'm confused. I'm stepping out of this discussion. Corvus cornixtalk 16:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Per the title I can fully imagine what kind of POV linkfarm this was before deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You apparently did not look at the list, which is in the first sentence. This was a list of Wikipedia articles. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll point out that this article is a list of Wikipedia article that describe external websites, so it's not entirely straightforward. eaolson (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn I agree with SmokeyJoe, and moreover there seems to have been some confusion about whether the deleted page was a list of articles or a directory of websites. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It straightforward enough. We have articles that describe websites (and we have criteria for which ones we describe). Certainly we can list the articles on this topic, just like we could on any other topic. If they're notable enough for an individual article, then why shouldn't we list them? The opposite of OR. the opposite of indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)