Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26

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

Recently I submitted an article about author and psychologist, Dr. David Gruder. This page was deleted by Adam Bishop who gave no reason and has not returned my inquiry as to why it was deleted. Now, when I search for 'David Gruder' an editor with this same name appears. I truly hope that this was not deleted merely because an editor wanted his information associated with the name. I am willing to change the page to David S. Gruder. I look forward to assistance and clarification. Thank you. Traceylott (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just notified User:Adam Bishop. Hopefully we'll see him here soon to explain why he deleted, since the logs just give a "content was <yada>" summary. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I deleted it because he was clearly just some guy, non-notable, it was spam/promotion, only one person was editing it, there were no incoming links, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, are you saying this was WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I did not see the Wikipedia article, but a Google search shows that while this person is a published author and psychologist, it would be difficult to prove he is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Any such article would be at high risk of becoming an advertisement in the future. Here are some references for him: AttractingAbundance.com, Google - 2000+ hits but the top page is devoid of anything proving notability, and of course his own sites including AskDavidGruder.com. His book Sensible Self-Help won two awards (aboutus.org) so the book may be notable even if the author is not. Unless there is significant external press that is not promotional in nature, I don't see how anyone could write an article that would survive an AfD or speedy-delete. He is not to the level of fame of a Dr. Phil or Dr. Ruth, and as far as I know he isn't famous in academia either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment continued: Just looking at "content was: 'Dr. David S. Gruder, Ph.D., D.CEP, was born in 1954. He is an Integrity Analyst, the Executive Director of Willingness Works® in Del Mar, California, the Founder and Executive Director of Integrity Revolution, LLC, and th...')" in the deletion log is enough to say this was way to spammish. Uphold deletion and start over, if it is even possible to do so while proving notability. If someone really wants to salvage the content for a new, acceptable article, then they can ask to have it temporarily userfied. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as copyvio. The text in the cache is a précised version of this article. In my view there is enough similarity for it to be copyvio. Without this, the book award would be enough of an indication of importance to avoid an A7 but possibly not enough to survive the inevitable AFD. BlueValour (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment COPYVIO = trump card. Unless the text is free-licensed it can't be kept, period. Speedy-close the review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• endorse deletion/keep deleted good catch by BlueValour. We can't accept copyrighted text. If someone wants to try to write a non-copyvio text that's a separate issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation without copyvio There was no basis whatsoever for removing this as A7, as there were unmistakable assertions of notability. (I doubt it will pass Afd, but that is not at all the same thing). Nor is it so spammy that an A11 was justified. The deleting admin needs a refresher on WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy--and also a realisation that he must give deletion reason that make sense. Some of the above discussion seems not to realise that it is not necessary to have an article that will base AfD to avoid speedy--any assertion of notability is sufficient. Furthermore the standard of notability is much much less than fame, even at Afd. But the article is too close to the website. Just rewrite it. And unless there are some really good third party references for his actual notability, we can discuss it at AfD. DGG (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hmm. I guess I can live with that, but I would strongly caution anyone attempting to re-write this to not do so unless they can do a good enough job that it will survive an AfD or even better yet avoid one altogether. This means quality references external to the subject, real notability for the person, and no advertising, buzzwords, or trademarked terms. If the entire page consisted of nothing more than "David Gruder is a psychologist and writer. He is the author of Sensible Self-Help, which won the Colliers 1997 Mental Health Book of the Year," along with a 1-paragraph personal bio, 1-paragraph professional bio, and the appropriate BLP and stub tags, that will probably do nicely. No businesses or non-profits he is involved should get more than a 1-word mention, and they shouldn't get any mention unless he was the founder, current owner, current CEO, or in the case of non-profits, if he received a notable recognition from them. The whole thing will probably fit on one screen. Any larger mentions of his enterprises will likely result in them being edited down severely or the article going down through AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

This page was originally redirected to the main IRC channels page because people felt it did not merit its own page. There is still the concern that there isn't enough transparency with the admins IRC channel so I have created a new page which documents the new channel guidelines, the people that have access to the channels, a list of operators and a section at the bottom for users who have concerns to post to bring them to the attention of the operators and wider community. My new proposed page can be found at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. I'm hoping that this page will open up the admins IRC channel to the community and allow everyone to clearly know who has access and what is expected of people that use the channel. The page will also allow non users of the channel see exactly who they should contact should they have any problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - looks good. Do try and make sure there isn't too much expansion of the role or function of the channel, though. The key thing is to keep Wikipedia central to what the channel does, and not to let it drift and become something else. You might also want to say in an edit summary in the history of that page where the text came from, rather than just "start" - GFDL and all that. Or did you write that all yourself? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I did mean I've thrown it together from other parts - I haven't created it all myself! Wasn't too sure about the GFDL with this sort of thing, I don't think it's really important with a wikipedia space page like this, but I'll throw in an edit summary. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• This looks pretty good, actually, and seems to address the main concerns people have with the IRC admins channel. Move over redirect. Do nothing pending the outcome of the discussion on WP:RFAR. --Coredesat 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a discussion concerning the #admins channel going on now on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration page, which may affect the need for information concerning this channel to be re-created in project space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like a good case for a separate page, and it's project space not mainspace. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with Coredesat, do nothing until the discussion at WP:RFAR reaches its conclusion. Risker (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I realise a large majority of the editors who took part in the AfD discussion thought the article should be kept however I don’t think that the fundamental issue – that there are currently no reliable sources to verify the information about this living person – was really addressed. The type of sources currently used in the article aren’t generally considered reliable and definitely shouldn’t be used as the sole reference material for an article on a living person. They are comprised of:

• A tabloid know for scandals and sensationalism [1]
• A trivial mention in a blog [2]
• A user generated answer at Yahoo Answers [3]
• A celebrity gossip website restating the tabloid article [4]
• Another blog restating the tabloid story [5]
• A youtube video of an audience appearance on short lived talk show Vanessa's Real Lives (the show doesn’t have an article) [6]
• A trivial mention in a question to an agony aunt [7]

All this seems to indicate is that there was one tabloid article that a few blogs picked up on – it does not necessarily follow through that reliable sources will have also reported on the subject and no one who took part in the Afd could provide any additional sources. I realise that different sources are suitable for different subjects but a tabloid wouldn’t be an appropriate source to use for someone like Tony Blair and the absence of a better source shouldn’t change the status of an unsuitable one. In this instance the lack of any alternative coverage probably makes it more likely that “liberties” have been taken – with nothing to compare the work to who’s going to know? The fact that it is claimed she holds a Guinness world record was brought up as an assertion of notability in the AfD discussion, but with no reliable source to verify the information it doesn’t seem relevant. Most record holders are notable because such records receive coverage from reliable sources, as shown above this does not seem to be the case in this instance. Having said that I see the issue of notability as pretty secondary since without any reliable sources it is impossible to verify any of the information in the article - however well the subject might meet the general or specific notability guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As closing admin, I have no particular thoughts on whether or not the article should have been deleted. It was my reading of the discussion's consensus that it favoured keeping it, so I closed it accordingly. As for the issue of reliable sources, I'm inclined to think that if there's one subject that tabloids are going to cover reliably, it's breast size. Even if the sources aren't reliable, though, in light of the AFD discussion I'd favour stubbing rather than deleting. That said, I have no particular investment in this discussion, and I suppose my first overturned AFD closing will have to come at some point Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've removed the assertion sourced to Yahoo answers, and also removed the link to the YouTube video as a copyvio. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep article per WP:HOTTIE. Seriously, though, it looks like it was closed properly, although sourcing could be much better (as always). At least a couple, *ahem* assertions of notability exist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Can't seem to find anything on the Guinness site that this happened, but it looks pretty incomplete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I have corrected a boob in the article which stated the breast size as 32k whereas the source states 32JJ (and no, I've no idea whether this is a distinction with a difference) :-). With regard to why we are here, we are not here to second guess the editors who commented on the AfD but to determine whether the AfD was properly closed; and in my view it was. I have sympathy with the nominator's concern over the lack of reliable sources. However, that should be addressed, more properly, at another AfD. A small point; the losing admin makes some good comments here but it would have been desirable to have a fuller closing comment rather than a bald 'keep'. BlueValour (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you meant "closing admin" rather than "losing admin", but either way your point is well-taken. I leave detailed comments in about half of the AFDs I close. In this case, I thought the consensus was clear enough that none were necessary, but lesson learned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! :-) BlueValour (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say I'm not questioning that there was a consensus to keep in the AfD, I just think that the participants disregarded several well established policies formed by the wider consensus of the community (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP). Guest9999 (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse rational close, the sources were appropriate for the material. There may have been arguments otherwise, but it is the community who determines the balance of policy considerations, not the closing administrator.DGG (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the main source provided is an article in a tabloid, all of the other sources (blogs, user generated content, etc.) seem to be based off that article. Tabloids generally aren't considered as reliable sources - especially when it come to verifying information about living people. In this instance the tablid source is being used as it is the only one available, given the nature of the subject and the source would it really be at all suprising if every "fact" in the article was massaged - or completely fabricated - in order to make the story more appealing to its intended audience? Guest9999 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If a place in Guiness is her claim to notability, she doesn't have it. Bigger British breasts have been found: Chloe Rogers measures 34KK. [8]. Aldana's breasts, meanwhile, have grown to 32K. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.167.16 (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as reasonable per existing policy, even tho in my opinion a big bust model alleged to be a one-time regional record holder should not be considered notable. Re-list AFD if reliable sources cannot be produced. The "flurry of media coverage" is probably more notable than the record itself. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to Overturn, delete. Nomination was on notability, and this subject is not "notable" by reasonable standards (letter of the law notwithstanding). Extremely poor sourcing, mentioned in the nomination and by itself sufficient grounds for deletion, only demonstrates this. The 1965 big bust record holder in Portugal would (if lacking any other notability) similarly not deserve a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete. This is a WP:BLP (or rather: a notional biography of a living person, actually it's an article about her tits, not her). None of the sources qualifies as an independent reliable biographical source. The best of them is probably the Sunday People, and that paper is, as any British reader will know, a rag of highly dubious quality. Most of the purported sources are really blogs. There's no reason the encyclopaedic content can't be covered under another article, probably breast, in a discussion of the issues raised by unusually large breasts, since that is what the few sources we have are actually about. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've asked on Talk:Rachel Aldana if this could be merged into another article. It would be nice if this could go away with overturning the AFD decision, which appears to be reasonably within the letter of existing policy. While the cited sources are inadequate, it is possible they can be improved since this person seems to exist; this record claim, however trivial and dubious, seems to have been made; and there has been some minor media attention. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn & delete Guy has it right. Large mammary endowment is not grounds for passing WP:BIO, no matter how lax we let our standards slip. This should not have been kept by any sane reading of policy. Eusebeus (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think policy allows this Keep. The problem should be addressed by changing the policy, not by ignoring it. Standards can be raised. There is obviously much initiative to create articles on extremely trivial subjects such as this one, and if AFD will not exercise reasonable discretion in throwing these things out, guidelines should encourage deleting them. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete as a blatant WP:BLP1E violation. This is not a proper biographical article about the person, it's an exposé on her breasts. This basically says the only thing we know about this woman is her breasts, which falls afoul of BLP. There's not even anything notable enough here to merge into another article. -- Kesh (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been largely silent in this debate, in part because I wouldn't object to a closure of overturn and delete. However, I'd rather see it done on the bases of insufficient notability or insufficiently reliability of sources than on the basis of WP:BLP1E, which I don't believe is applicable in this case. Ms. Aldana is not notable for just one event, she is notable (if at all) for one characteristic. The mantra "Cover the event, not the person," does not apply here, because there is no event to cover (unless somebody's going to suggest that BLP concerns would be addressed by the creation of Rachel Aldana's breasts, which seems unlikely). Again, I'm fine with deletion of the article on grounds of WP:V, WP:N or WP:RS (and the portions of WP:BLP that mirror/emphasize these), but I don't see this as a BLP1E issue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Event" vs. "characteristic" is a semantic debate that skirts the issue: she is only notable for one thing, and that one thing does not constitute enough information to satisfy WP:BLP. That's it. We don't have enough information for a biographical article, which is the heart of what WP:BLP (and accordingly WP:BLP1E) are all about. -- Kesh (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

This band has four full-length albums, a live DVD, and has toured internationally [10], easily meeting the requirements set forth at WP:BAND. Ultima Thule Records is not "non-notable", as claimed in the AfD, being one of the leading labels in the Vikingarock genre. This band has articles on the Swedish Wikipedia [11], the Dutch Wikipedia [12], the Polish Wikipedia [13], and the German Wikipedia [14], the latter of which has much higher standards for inclusion than the English Wikipedia, being notoriously intolerant of pop culture articles. I'm among the first to !vote to delete non-notable bands and cruft, but I feel that this band easily meets our requirements for inclusion. Heather (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• As closing admin, I would have preferred to come to some sort of agreement before DRV on a talkpage, but que sera. I do appreciate that you took the time to at least notify me. The debate at AfD was admittedly small, the article had very minimal sourcing, and the AfD participants were unanimous towards deletion, citing policy. I wouldn't have a problem with restoring the article for User:Heather and userfying to bring to the WP:MUSIC standards. The sources here at DRV were not brought up in AfD. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but allow recreation Closure was correct as Keeper has said - consensus at AFD was for deletion based on the article and what was mentioned at the AFD. However new evidence raised by Heather suggests an article which meets WP:MUSIC can be written. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and allow recreation per above. The sources provided look more than adequate. For the record, recreating articles deleted through AfD doesn't have to be done through here unless the new one gets deleted by WP:CSD#G4 (assuming that it doesn't actually make G4). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  and as a "gentle jab" to the DRV opener, I would have userfied this if you had come to my talkpage before, instead of after, opening this DRV. Had you written that paragraph above on my talkpage, you'd have the article by now. :-) For next time! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  I mostly opened this because I really feel that the closure was incorrect, given that all three !votes hinged on an incorrect claim that this band failed to meet WP:MUSIC. I would really like to see the article restored, but, if you would prefer that I recreate it, could I please have the content from it to work with? Thanks in advance. Heather (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have userfied the article as requested to User:Heather/Hel (band). Just make the necessary improvements with the sources you have identified above and then move it back to the mainspace. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks greatly! Can this be closed, then? And I really do apologise if I bothered anyone by coming here--I honestly did think that it was the appropriate action in this situation (I had missed that G4 only applied to the exact same content being restored by a non-admin). Heather (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and allow recreation. Another instance where pragmatism would have indicated a dialogue with the closing admin which would have prevented a measure of Wikidrama. In all these cases it is better to request an admin to userfy and then come here for a recreation when the rewritten page is ready. BlueValour (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This page currently redirects to the Daily Mail and General Trust Wikipedia entry. I had written an entry for Primelocation (a property portal in the UK) that was deemed by an admin to read too much like an advertisement, so he redirected to the DMGT page. However, there's actually no reference to Primelocation on the DMGT page, so this is really a poorly explained (or rather, completely unexplained) redirect. Anyone searching for Primelocation who doesn't realise that it's owned by DMGT would be confused as to why they'd been redirected to the DMGT page. At the admin's advice, I've rewritten the entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmtownsend/Primelocation) and would like this redirect to be reviewed. Please let me know if there's anything I can add to (or delete from) the entry that will make it more suitable. There was a lot more content in the original entry, so it can be fleshed out if necessary.Jmtownsend (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The section that it redirects to has been removed, but it mentioned that it is owned by DMGT. Restoring that content should fix the problem, if the proposed version doesn't work out. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not struck with the userpage version. For example the sentence "Primelocation is a trading style of Fastcrop plc." is presumably dated? There seems to be two ways forward. First of all the nominator could simply add content to the DMGT page - that is a normal editorial action and no referral here is required. Alternatively a sourced version of the Primelocation page could be made with a request that it be recreated. There seems plenty of sources available but the present userpage version doesn't cut it. BlueValour (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Call me an evil bastard, but I always endorse deletion of articles on commercial entities by single purpose accounts whose sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be "documenting" (i.e. promoting) those commercial entities. So: endorse until such time as a Wikipedian with a history in other areas comes and asks. This is, after all, how we deal with requests for removal from spam blacklists by website owners. See Jmtownsend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Primelocation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Primelocation.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Guy (Help!) 11:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is redundant and... less than informative. The Multiple birth article covers all of the info in the Fraternal triplet page so there shouldn't be a merge issue. 'Fraternal triplet' might also be considered for a redirect to the multiple birth page. --Thaddius (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

consider nominating it for deletion, according to the procedure at WP:AFD. This is not the placeDGG (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just redirect it to Multiple birth, so people searching for "fraternal triplet" will be taken to the right place. No need for afd. 152.3.116.193 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Big O and Dukes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

not sure if this is the right place to pursue this, but this Afd was closed by a non-admin, closed before any consensus was reached, and then results were added in the wrong place, could an admin take a look at this? Rtphokie (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Revert close and relist I don't see a consensus to keep, and I don't see any good sources in the article either. Reopen & try to obtain consensus. DGG (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. One actual !vote isn't enough to make a snowball keep for non-admins, WP:NAC suggests at least six. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Do I need open a new AFD or will this be done automatically as a part of this review?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• The old one'll be reopened, if this closes that way. Reopening works best, since it keeps the old comments and !votes in the main AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Take back to AfD - to see if a consensus can be formed. Guest9999 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Revert and relist Improper premature closure by non-admin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't Copy That Floppy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Really not a very encyclopedic article; cruft. Nominated for deletion before and passed, but that probably says something about the people who edit wikipedia more than its merits. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sustain Keep Very clear consensus to keep, based on adequate arguments. The appeal above says basically that it should be deleted because our standards are too low. But the AfD did reflect our standards, which is what it's supposed to do. DGG (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per DGG. The closure of the AfD was just fine, and DRV isn't AfD round 2. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep as AFD nominator per DGG. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - deletion review, as far as I know, is not the place to reiterate the same concerns as the AfD, only to object to procedural problems, inappropriate closures, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep No real reason has been provided for thinking the closure was incorrect as per above. If you still believe it should be deleted then it should be nominated at AFD again, but based on the sources found in the first AFD see little chance that it will be deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - as I say often enough we are here to ensure that AFDs are properly closed not to substitute our judgement for that of the AFD participants. I should like to see the additional sources found in the AFD incorporated into the page but that is an editorial matter and not for here. BlueValour (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article is about an Indian Entrepreneur, and I would like to add more references to the article to prove its credibility.
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail1535.html
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/etel2007/view/e_spkr/2519
http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/broadband-mobile/articles/21458-equals-adds-voice-social-networking.htm
PuneetaArora (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete I speedied this as pure spam/vanity, with unsourced puffy claims and plugs for the company eg thought leader and key contributor to the domain of digital identity; Equals platform, which adds new dimensions of choice, privacy and control to social networking.; with a vision to solve non-routine problems using innovative solutions, helping to put India on the map for high-end IT solutions. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Though I cannot see the deleted versions, I trust that User:Jimfbleak acted in good faith and made the right choice. Not sure enough to !vote endorse, though. Note that nom apparently hasn't made any edits except on and regarding this page, though doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad single purpose account. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Restore and list at AfD The references cited above are enough to make a weak claim for notability. If it is, the article as entered can easily be rewritten to eliminate the spam quoted. There's another paragraph there describing the work and the patents. DGG (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I see nothing in the sources provided above which anybody could write a biography on, and that's the point of having an article on the person, right? No evidence that his only claim of notability, Equals, is notable. Is it? Who knows? We don't have an article on it. There are only 128 ghits for the term "equals platform", and nothing at Google news. There are only 75 ghits for "Ajay_Madhok" and only one at Google news. I'm not saying that there should never be an article on this person, but as of yet, I don't see notability. Corvus cornix_talk 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - as with lifebaka I have no access to the deleted version so I can't comment on the closure. However, in principle, I am not keen on recreations on the hope that a satisfactory page can be produced. I much prefer a good userspace version be produced then a request is brought here for recreation. BlueValour (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do acknowledge the fact that i need to edit the article the remove language that suggests marketing of any kind. I've put up an edited version on my sandbox, which i would use to restore the page. I'm citing a few other references for Ajay and Equals-

• An article that was published in a business magazine in 1998 and again in 2001 that mentions Ajay's entrepreneurial success.

http://www.outlookmoney.com/scripts/IIH021C1.asp?sectionid=10&categoryid=48&articleid=902
http://www1.iinvestor.com/scripts/IIH021C1.asp?sectionid=10&categoryid=48&articleid=1953

• Alec Saunders from Iotum talks about services to be offered by Equals

http://saunderslog.com/2006/01/page/2/

• Phil windley talks about Equals

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3634

• Fox Business covers the launch of Equals in Feb '08

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/equals-launches-public-beta-party-line_491768_1.html

• Facebook app from Equals

http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=24334230464

• Ajay's published patents at USPTO

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=IN%2F%28ajay+and+Madhok%29&d=PG01 PuneetaArora (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not sure why I've been asked to comment again, but the sandboxed version is still spammy, subjects's name as a heading, talking about his vision and lots of links to the company. It's still basically a vanity page. I note that the refs above are mainly for the company - Is this article about him or his business/ Jimfbleak (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted echoing the above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The reason I'd like to request undeletion of this page is because the DSL MUD is a very old MUD which is still one of the most popular MUDs on the internet which is both ROM based and Dragonlance based. As MUDs have been shrinking over the years, it would be nice to keep any large, popular MUD around. I think some of the arguments could be countered, for example the Google argument, the string "Dark and Shattered Lands" was used, but "Dark & Shattered Lands" should have also been used. This turns up more Google hits than, for example, "TorilMUD", which also has a Wikipedia entry. DSL also has a larger and more active playerbase than TorilMUD and is also a very old MUD like TorilMUD, but with a different theme and a codebase which has evolved separately to become very different in its own right. I think that MUDs like this should be preserved, since people will want to know what kind of MUDs are out there when they Wikipedia MUDs, ROM, Dragonlance, etc. Not everybody knows about DSL, but not everybody knows about Toril, or it's old sister mud Duris, or many other MUDs or even what a MUD is, but I think they warrant Wikipedia pages and I believe that DSL does too since individually they may all not be very notable save the original Diku, but collectively they do make up a long and interesting history of Internet gaming and have some ties into RPGs, MMORPGs, online interactive games, etc. Also, as an example of an active, live, and larger MUD today, DSL would give a user a good experience, in the sense that it would give somebody an idea of what a MUD is like. In particular DSL is a very well-rounded MUD, so one could either "clan" and PK (Player Kill) or "kingdom" and RP (Roleplay). It has normal hack-and-slash, and a large number of classes, races and skill. Basically, I also think DSL is a good example of a MUD for a curious person to play, whereas other MUDs are rapidly declining today.

There are online resources that do refer to DSL: http://www.mudconnect.com http://www.topmudsite.com http://www.mudmagic.com http://www.zuggsoft.com/zmud/msplist.htm http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Literature/Genres/Fantasy/Series/Dragonlance/Online_Games/ and zMUD and the new CMUD which are the most popular MUD clients used has DSL as an entry in its list of MUDs, so somebody searching on the internet could possibly actually Wiki this MUD. There are also usenet references to DSL, which can be found via Google Groups.

So, in short, I think there is actually some merit in keeping the Dark_and_Shattered_Lands Wikipedia entry around. Rahennig (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The AfD apparently was quite some time ago, but the article was deleted out of notability concerns. And none of the five links above seem to be reliable independent sources as per current guidelines, so I don't think re-creation should be permitted. Of course, what you say is all true, and personally I think the game should have an article somewhere - just not on Wikipedia, where we have this kind of guidelines. --Minimaki (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The AfD was closed just fine, given the input in it. If you want to recreate the page, you may do so, but be aware that, if it is too similar to the previously AfD's version, it will be deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation but as Lifebaka says, it will need to be different: the previous one did contain some encyclopedic content, but most of it consisted of an absurdly detailed plot summary of the backstory, that would not possibly meet any reasonable standard. DGG (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question. What about WP:ORG? DSL would fit longevity criteria. As a part of a greater whole, the MUDding community in general, which is quite large, although hard to count, a way to document the MUDding community at large is to document the individual MUDs, which have always been a bit like fiefdoms, never achieving very large size, or getting great search engine hits, or getting news coverage. Also, if it is allowable to recreate the page, could it be restored so that there is some content to work with, to make the process easier? --Rahennig (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recreate it. If you've got sources then just go; we can't stop you or tell you that it won't be deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the new one, I deleted it via G4 as not sufficiently different. It is still mainly a list of characters. Still no visible sources, DGG (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It has just been re-created yet again, this time without the list of characters. I'll let someone else judge if another G4 is warranted.DGG (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

its now been tagged by someone else with a G11, and then a hangon was added. Just fyi--I'm staying out of it.DGG (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah hell. This isn't going to help your case, just so you know. Looking at the version that's currently up, you still need reliable sources in third-party publications to establish notability. Now, you shouldn't recreate the page unless you already have some of these prepared, since it will most likely just be speedied again. If there's a third deletion within 24 hours of this, I suggest temporarily salting the page and userfying a version to be worked on. My suggestion that you recreate it isn't any sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been added in the last hour or so. Suggest close if the article if the G11 tag on the page gets declined. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just declined the speedy about fifteen minutes ago--although I haven't looked at the deleted revisions, the article as it stands looks all right to me. --jonny-mt 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)