Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June

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

The page was deleted because Adam Cuerden thought one section of the page was copyrighted, In reality the single section paraphrased the source and the terminology and wording was vaguely similar. The person concluded that if a few sentences were copyrighted then the entire page must be copyrighted(despite it's being several years old) so he deleted the entire page without even bothering to find other instances of copyright or discussing it on the articles talk page after having removed the suspected content. The user has been addressed here on the articles talk page [[1]] Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted the content of the article and placed the deletion review tags at the top of the text. I'm sure this can be resolved amicably. Tim Vickers 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried that a major contributor is claiming that quotes that are extremely near the original aren't copyvio - that's exceptionally worrisome. It makes my worries of copyvio elsewhere all the stronger, as Wikidudeman was such a big contributor. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a source isn't the same as copying it. If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. NONE of this justifies deleting the entire article mind you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this should never have been deleted. The concerns of Adam are being discussed on the talk page of the article and the evidence that this is a copyvio is flimsy at best and most clearly this is not a case of CSD G12. Pascal.Tesson 17:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a source isn't the same as copying it. If a source says "Performance-enhancing substances have been used in societies from time immemorial." and I write "Performance enhancing substances have been used for thousands of years by societies around the world and have included natural and traditional substances whose aims were to promote vitality and strength." then it's not a copyright. If the source says "This was described as early as 5,000 years ago by Shen Nung, Chinese emperor around 2800 BC, and venerated as the Father of Chinese Medicine." and I write "One of the earliest descriptions of performance enhancing substances dates back 5,000 years and was described by Shennong who was a Chinese emperor around 2700 BC and is often regarded as the father of Chinese medicine." it is not a copyright. I really have no idea what you're basing your assertion that it is a copyright violation to vaguely paraphrase a source on. The two versions are hardly "identical" as you claimed on the articles talk page and could easily be changed even more if you believe they are too similar and would rather be on the safe side. NONE of this justifies deleting the entire article mind you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Pascal.Tesson. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, although those re-workings of the source should really be a bit more thorough, so that the it is no longer even close to the original, I don't think this meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Moreover, rather than assuming that other text that may be copyrighted exists in the article and deleting all of the content (including some I have written myself Adam), it would be best to just highlight the items you have found on the talk page. Tim Vickers 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the speedy tags should go off, and the offending paragraphs temporarily moved to the talk page, and then have the editors discuss it. Deleting it doesn't seem right. enochlau (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Vickers and enochlau. The WORST scenario is I failed to paraphrase the source more. As Pascal.Tesson has said, the objections to it are flimsy at best and it should simply be changed a bit more so it's not as similar to the source it was taken from. As clarified above, The two versions are drastically different and hardly a cause for any concern. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that a few sentences were near, it's that the information was in the same order, and much of the phrasing was the same, and it was then attributed to a different source. However, I'll provisionally accept that no further copyvio exists, though a complete reworking'd probably be best, to move it further from problems. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Containing the same content and being in the same order and being attributed to a different source (not sure about that one) don't mean it's a copyright violation. I could of quoted an entire sentence from them and it wouldn't have been a copyright violation. I paraphrased what the source said and put it into my own words, sure it was in similar order, so what? Reworking the article isn't required, If you're concerned on specific aspects of it then I would suggest you address them as they come up, Right now you seem to only want the article gone or back to how it was a year ago. Take a look at how it was last year [[2]].

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad that was resolved so quickly. Thanks everybody. Tim Vickers 17:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can this request be removed since the problem has been solved? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted as Non-notable Advert with insufficient sources. I arugue that sources were indeed missing, but Article was not non-notable, and not an advert. Maybe should be restored along with Pullyapantsup, Australia (possibly merged) and tagged with {{Unreferenced}} Kc4 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Valid AfD. Consensus is clear when the quality of the arguments (and policy) is taken into account. Eluchil404 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse you can't argue the AfD was wrong unless you have a strong argument (like coming up with those sources). DRV is mainly concerned with whether the deleting administrator's actions were reasonable. And asking for an unreferenced article is be undeleted so you can add an unreferenced tag is scoffable. -N 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment why waste the effort of creating the article in the first place, most of the source are the lenny games themselves. Kc4 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A lack of secondary sources makes a prima facia case for non-notability. Articles on minor subjects without independent sources are routinely deleted as inappropriate for Wikipedia. That doesn't imply any particular judgment on the subject itself (I happen to really like the games in question) but rather goes to the appropriate scope of an encyclopedia and the necessity for attribution of content. Eluchil404 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closing admin this wasnt deleted as an advert that was the previous WP:CSD deletion which was under G11, that discussion in January concluded it wasnt advertising, hence the deletion wasnt appropriate, though it also indicated it was probably WP:CSD#A7(non notable). This AfD raised the issue of notability while the majority opinion was to delete, the keep opinions didnt offer anything to establish notability, the one source provided was only a game review there was nothing in the review to established it as being notable. Gnangarra 09:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Closing admin followed clear consensus; no case. DRV is not the Supreme Court. Orderinchaos 12:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User:Klingoncowboy4 suggested I come here as the closing admin. Sorry, I don't have a mop it wasn't me. My suggestion was for a merge but I can see why it would have been deleted.Garrie 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

My concern here is that the discussion was speedily closed after notability guidelines created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket were cited. However, these guidelines do not appear in Wikipedia:Notability, either as guidleines or a proposal. Instead, they are confined to the Wikiproject page, and appear to have been decided on by Wikiproject participants. Notability proposals put forward by Wikiprojects which are listed under WP:NOTE would be a different case, as then the whole community would get a chance to take part in the discussion. However, confining the discussion to a Wikiproject means most people are unaware of proposals, even though they could end up being cited in AfD. This seems to me to be something of a walled garden. I'd say that only notability/inclusion criteria that come about via discussions on Wikipedia:Notability pages should be cited as consensus decisions in AfD debates. Therefore, I propose the article be relisted in AfD Lurker 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• A speedy keep is a procedural not a substantive decision. If you think the article should be deleted, just relist it yourself. You don't have to come to DRV. Pan Dan 14:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article was created (by myself) and speedily kept by longstanding principles on WP:CRIC, and WP:SNOW respectively. Going through another AfD will, I wholeheartedly believe, produce the same outcome as before, however, if you wish to do so, feel free. Bobo. 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• To refer to a Wikipedia:Notability guideline, here is the criteria for notability of athletes: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport" First-class cricket is the highest level of the game before we get to international contests, and is the level at which the vast majority (if not all) of the world's fully professional leagues are played at. This player played one such game, hence is notable. Andrew nixon 17:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• You can argue that the Wikipedia notability guideliners should be changed, but if the current clear guideline quoted by Andrew is to be changed then it needs to be replaced by something equally clear if we are to know where we stand. In the meantime, I can see no grounds for deleting the article. If the final decision is to delete it, then there are literally hundreds of other articles that logically should go as well. JH (talk page) 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Of course not all first class cricketers were professionals. Many were amatuers. That's why you need a clear line. First class or list A seems sensible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See Amateur and professional cricketers for the rather unusual quirks that apply here. Olborne 23:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Well, if there is a real notability guideline, then I see no need for relisting it. I raised it because of the citation of a Wikiproject page as a consensus notability guideline- I didn't realise there was something in the actual notability guidelines that would allow it to be kept. Nomination withdrawn Lurker 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All first class cricketers meet the notability requirement for sportsmen that have been established for a long time. Haddiscoe 00:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted in 2005 with the following reason: '{{db-nocontext}}Dictator in algeria for 1 week'}. Provided the page content itself isn't ground for deletion I think the give reason alone is spurious. Also, two pages link to this page. meco 08:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• If it were me I'd probably just recreate this as a redirect to Islamic_Salvation_Front. As you can see from the log, the page content as simply the words "Dictator in algeria for 1 week". --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I may have misread those words as the deleting admin's rationale for deletion. I'm not sure that I should have been able to assess this correctly. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against the creation of a properly referenced stub (or even a redirect as Tony suggested). Undeleting six words is not worth the effort it would require, and there is not, and has not been, any bar to starting anew here. Xtifr _tälk 08:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I will, of course, as deleter, say that this was deleted totally in accordance with policy. :) But...There was basically *no content*... it said: "Dictator in algeria for 1 week". These sorts of deletions aren't done with any prejudice against a recreation, that actually has content (assuming it exceeds other deletability bench marks....which it should!). --Stephanie ^talk 11:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you seeing now that the article was in fact almost empty. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree: there was minimal content, but enough that the article could not be called "patent nonsense" (G1, the only speedy criteria that mentions a lack of content), and it certainly had context, so it didn't qualify as A1 either. I think the deletion was absolutely against policy, and if it had consisted of more than six words, I might actually care! :) Xtifr _tälk 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Oh come on...if he's notable, create the article. Don't waste time on DRV trying to restore a 6 word article. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You are mistaking me for an administrator with the ability to look at the content of deleted articles. __meco 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • In this case, the content is in the deletion summary that you quoted. WarpstarRider 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I can see that, now. I have re-created the article as a redirect. I intended to do that in any case, however, I was worried that the article that had been there had in fact some merit, which it didn't. __meco 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete due to infamatory and defamation of character links and irrevelance to modern history

I am requesting the reconsideration of the deletion of Mark Bellinhaus' Wikipedia page. Not only are the links that are attached to his profile filled with misguided and hateful propaganda but I cannot see the relevance that this person has to the modern world. It is a waste of Wikipedia's space and a serious embarrassment to the integrity of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.50.16 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 June 2007

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. However it seems to me that an article about a charitable foundation which states that it has created and runs two schools, a hospital, and an Eye institute; that it has existed for over one hundred years; and that it is "an important spiritual destination of Northern India" at least asserts the significance of that institution. This would need sources and probably expansion to pass an AfD, but I don't think a speedy deletion is warranted. Overturn the speedy, and optionally send to AfD, to allow sources to be found if they can be. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy restore An extremely confused article--I cannot tell if it is primarily about a person, a particular Ashram, or a religious movement. But whatever it is, the importance of all 3 is asserted as clearly as importance can be asserted. non-notable does not mean "low quality article" DGG 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. While weak and unsourced there was some assertion of notability here. If no sources can be found to verify notability then an AfD would be appropriate, but it's not really a speedy candidate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion; several rather clear assertions of notability. No objections to an AfD if anyone feels it necessary. Heather 21:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse; copyvio from http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060924/society.htm. Chick Bowen 05:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [see below]

• I'm not really seeing the copyvio? The cached version at least is not a word for word copy that I can tell. Arkyan • ^(talk) 05:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Down at the bottom of the page, under heading, "Blend of Sikhism and Vedanta". Chick Bowen 05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see. The June 10 version is fine. Later versions are copyvio. Chick Bowen 05:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then after restoration, revert to a clean version, or if only part of the content is a copyvio, delete that part, and posisbly selectivly delete any copyvio revisions. No need to delete the whole thing if there is a clean version.DES ^(talk) 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the viability of the article has to be judged from the clean version. The top version can't be restored. The obvious thing to do is to restore only the June 10 version and list it on AfD. Chick Bowen 20:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, and salted to prevent recreation. The article, as it was before deletion, asserts that "Joey skates in local and national competitions and has been invited to skate at the AST Dew Tour in both 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he became the youngest skateboarder in the world to perform a 540 at the Dew tour." and "Joey skates at competitions around the United States". The article as it was written would require both cleanup and sourcing to pass an AfD, but it seems to me that those are pretty clear "claims of significance" -- sporting competition in any sport at a national level is a pretty good indication of significance, and if sourced, will normally pas WP:BIO. Therefore i don't think A7 applied. Overturn. DES ^(talk) 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I have not the least idea of the criteria for skateboarders, but since it asserts notability AfD is the place to find out. DGG 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. He was featured in a Washington Post article! Not bad for an 8 year old. In any event, not A7 and definitely should not be protected from re-creation. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and List at AFD per DGG. Not sure that the article will survive AfD, but it deserves a chance. A7 is not justified. EdJohnston 04:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who created this page. I also do his PR and his website. He has gotten massive press locally, regionally, at LAT34 (the extreme sports network news outlet), and has had interest from national TV morning shows, and even Ellen DeGeneres.

My plan was to just make an entry and later add supporting details but I never had the opportunity to do that because it was immediately deleted (within minutes).

I would be happy to do a detailed page and submit it. Is there an area to submit to for approval? This is all very new to me. Thank you!

How do we get it unprotected so I can do that? What is Afd?

Also....there are videos on YouTube from two of the stations that interviewed him, along with pro skater Bucky Lasek (also from Maryland)- WBAL TV and 98 Rock Radio

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. The article was about a stunt performer. It said "Oakley has doubled for many of today's top actors including Paul Walker, Josh Lucas, Chris Evans, and Josh Duhamel." And the IMDB lists over 30 stunt roles for Lehman, some in quite notable films such as Snakes on a Plane, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Timeline, and The Fast and the Furious. I think that working as a stunt double for multiple notable actors is at least a claim of notability. Overturn and send to AfD DES ^(talk) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - notability is asserted, passing a7. The Evil Spartan 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I think that "He shot to fame for putting down caste based riots in southern Tamil Nadu with iron hands" and "He was awarded with the 'Communal Harmony Award' by the Governor for his efforts." and "The Periyar University, Salem in Tamil Nadu has appointed him as the Honorary Visiting Faculty" are at least assertions of significance or importance. it might well be that this article would have PoV problems -- it might even be that it would be deleted at an AfD, but no one can be sure of that in advance. A good article might result. Overturn speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 20:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; copyvio from http://yousurp.com/abhash-kumar. Chick Bowen 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Not a copyvio, sorry. However, I see nothing here that is remotely verifiable; the odds of a keep at AfD are minimal. Neutral at best. Chick Bowen 05:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See This article in The Hindu newspaper, A 2nd article in The Hindu, 3rd articel from The Hindu, Thanjavur this Times of India article this rference to a New India Press article. All that is from a quick google search. DES ^(talk) 20:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Article clearly asserts notability. I tried to contest this prod, but Spartaz refused to undelete the article, stating that it was a7 - but it's not: it clearly asserts notability. A7 says nothing about sourcing anyway, though I can include some: Polish newspaper, independent South African site calling it a "top Polish band" (I can look for others, but I speak no Polish). The archived version of the page can be found here. 64.178.96.168 20:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• This would need expansion and sourcing to pass an AfD, but "The band released several CD" is a claim of significance, and if sourced might alone pass WP:MUSIC (depending on whether they are self-published or not) This was deleted as an expired prod, which is supposed to be an automatic undelete if anyone questions the matter. But ignoring that technicality, and assuming it had been speedy-delted under A7, Overturn and send to AfD so that notability or lack of it can be established by consensus discussion. DES ^(talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Appearing at the Przystanek Woodstock is no small feat for establishing notability either. The Evil Spartan 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me I'm not the deleting admin and I haven't refused to do anything. Can the nom please explain where my involvement comes from? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• As stated in the nomination, right here. You said you wouldn't restore the prod. 64.178.96.168 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I remember this now. Personally I don't see any reason why you simply don't go ahead and rewrite it with sources as the deleted article was one line and from April. Hmm I seem to be reversing myself a lot this week - but this clearly was a lousy decision. I have undeleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 London car bombs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD 1|AfD 2)

A deletion discussion was never permitted. Event happened today (29 Jan) and both of the AfD discussions were speedily closed today. First was closed with just two comments (lasted just 14 minutes since start to closure). Second with mere four comments (lasted just 13 minutes since start to closure). I feel this is a minor event that is worthy of a wikinews article but not a wikipedia article. A merge would be a fine alternative to delete. I do not see why it was speedy kept

-- Cat ^chi? 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure if you want a merge why do you want an AFD? Just discuss on the article talk page. At any rate it's impossible to assess how important this will be in the long run at this point... if people want to generate a verifiable article here for now, that's fine. --W.marsh 20:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  I withdrew merger suggestion. It isn't worth a merger. -- Cat ^chi? 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy - it's worth having a discussion, and falls under no categories of WP:CSK. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Let me clarify: as long as it's on the front page, I agree with Tariq's reasoning. It's ugly, and it will probably be keep, so we should keep the deletion notice off the front page. The Evil Spartan 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Changed my mind. Endorse speedy for now clearly appears to be a notable event. The Evil Spartan 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by one of the closing admins Although this does not nicely fit one of the points under WP:CSK, WP:CSK "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This is an example of "common sense" and "occasional exception", as there was overwhelming support for keeping the article and the event is still unfolding (thereby making its notability impossible to assess). Besides, the rationale behind this deletion request was almost entirely a "What about article X?" rationale. -- tariqabjotu 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep - Attempting to open a debate to delete an article related to top-headline news event just seems extremely premature. The nominator should have considered that not only the information on the event but also the significance of the event story is in flux. He should have waited a few days to see if the story would achieve the notability level that is justified for a Wikipedia article. (While Wikipedia is not a news source, Wikipedia can be used to record recent events as described in news sources.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by other closing admin: I fully agree with Tariqabjotu. It's entirely too early to tell if this will be notable or not. If in a week or so we decide it's not, AfD it then. What's the rush? Why this has to be deleted now is what I truly fail to grasp. ^demon 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep This sails over the notability bar. Haddiscoe 13:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close. For now this is useful. In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is acknowledged in the international press as a very competent chronicler of events as they happen. In due course we may want to merge it and trim, perhaps into an article about post-2001 terrorist bombings in London. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keeps there's a line where deletionism goes too far, and that line was crossed sadly by requesting the article to be deleted. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep according to WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". It is definitely clear this sentence turns out to be true in the case. --Angelo 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep, current events that is well-covered by international press (particularly the BBC), comparable to 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. As a thumb of rule we do not nominate Main Page material that has passed vetting for deletion. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep Notability completely obvious Johnbod 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. This event has been the subject of days of non-stop international coverage and the article cites dozens of sources. Notability is proven. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep This comment on the second AfD says it all: Airplanes collide with structures in New York on a regular basis. That doesn't stop us from having articles on all of them. Mathmo ^Talk 06:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious keep and why are we still debating this? per the above and WP:SNOW - let's see there are about 30 footnotes with such reliable sources as Reuters, BBC, SkyNews, etc. At moment 1 questions as to notability may have properly been raised, but is anyone still contending it's not notable now? Let's just endorse the keep and if someone really wants to delete it send it to AfD to see how that proposal would fare. Carlossuarez46 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I do not believe the closing admin followed policy in deleting this image. His closing comments indicated that he deleted the image based not on the consensus of the people who commented below, but on his own opinion that the image violated WP:NFCC #8. In the discussion below, 3 Wikipedians (Abu, Howcheng, and Ilse) stated that they believed the image to violate NFCC #8, while 8 Wikipedians (me, Pageant, nadav, Mecu, Angelo, Videmus Omnia, TCC, and Andrew c) stated that they believed the image passed NFCC #8. (In addition, Knulclunk voted to keep the image, but did not say why, and Iamunknown thought the image should be deleted, but gave no opinion of whether the image passed NFCC #8 or not, since his argument was based on other criteria.) I can't see any way to interpret 3 to 8 against as being consensus for deletion based on NFCC #8. In the instructions for administrators page, it says "Before deleting an image, make sure. . . No objections to its deletion have been raised, or a consensus to delete has been reached." This was not followed. There were disagreements as to whether this image passed both NFCC #2 and NFCC #8, but I can't see how anyone could in good faith come to the conclusion that there was consensus to delete. I informed the closing admin of this, but he does not appear willing to revisit his decision. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted the image because the arguments that the image didn't meet WP:FUC, particularly #8 and #2, were particularly compelling, and the arguments that it did not were not. WP:IFD's standard that Quadell is quoting are for typical editorial actions, not fair-use issues. Fair-use issues are, broadly: do not allow an image unless and until an image can just justified as fair-use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: If an image clearly violates policy, we can't keep it, even if a lot of people vote "Keep" just because they like it. In this case, however, the contention that the image violates NFCC#8 (that it doesn't "contribute significantly to an article") is a matter for the community to decide. A closing admin should follow consensus, not his own personal opinion on how important an image is. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If a lot of people contend an image is useful, but that isn't a standard that meets WP:FUC #8, then the force of their numbers counts for nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It sounds to me like you're saying that your interpretation of how NFCC#8 applies to this image is a valid view, but that the views of other people (some of whom are admins, some of whom have been working with non-free images longer than you have, some of whom know a great deal about the nature of beauty pageants) are not valid and should not be considered when determining consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I evaluated the arguments and the standards advanced on the IFD, not my own preconcieved decision. I am personally ambivalent on the image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn consensus was not followed. PageantUpdater 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Disclaimer - the vote above was from the image's uploader. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  Disclaimer - the disclaimer above was from the image's deletion nominator. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn I am a bit shocked of how the clear, reasonable consensus in keeping the image was not followed at all. A discussion was made on if the image would violate NFCC #8, and a wide consensus was found in support of the fact that this picture is significant for the beauty pageant article, probably even the only one to be really significant in it. --Angelo 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. One admin should not decide that an image fails #8. The fact that many more people disagreed with him in that did not matter, it seems. Have a legitimate discussion about it instead of simply wiping the image based on your opinion and nothing else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• There seems to be some sort of misconception that I decided this by myself and ignored the arguments. Rather, I examined the arguments, looked for what arguments weren't refuted and which were, and decided based on that. Since when are copyright issues decided with a nose count? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  They're not decided with a nose-count, but they are decided with consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  It's being claimed, here, that I just forced my own opinion through. Instead, I examined a discussion and derived its conclusion. That's what closing admins are supposed to be doing when they determine consensus, no matter what the context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Detailed discussion, administrator discretion in interpreting the weight of the arguments -- and the "Keep" arguments didn't hold much water -- not the unilateral and arbitrary decision some people above seem to be trying to imply. Calton | Talk 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Policy trumps snoutcounting, especially our policies in the realm of how Wikipedia interacts with copyright. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• I am of the opinion, as can be seen in the original discussion, that the image is simply not a fair use. It is a recently (as in, this year) photograph that I argue is still marketable. Wikipedia, as a top-ten website, can seriously affect the market of non-free images. Our use of every non-free image must be with discretion, not simply by seeing a non-free image and saying, "Oh, that image is not free ... well, then, its fair use!" I am also of the opinion that the "keep" comments were not particularly weighty. That said, I did make several assumptions in my own argument, and it could be said that my own argument was flimsy. I wish we had had more time to discuss. If this decision to delete this image is overturned, our use of the image will need to be discussed, on the image talk page / article or at another IFD (but please, no procedural listings, that's simply a waste of time and it drags the drama out longer). --Iamunknown 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of your views on this image, do you think consensus was followed in its deletion? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I offer no comment, for there is, or so I observe, a disparity between the popular concept of "consensus" and the marginalized concept of "reasonable interpretation of law", and I do not wish at this time to become embroiled in it. My previous post was more of a rambling about copyright issues, which unfortunately were not well addressed in the original deletion discussion because of (what I consider to be) a premature closure. (I do not begrudge the closing administrator; IFDs are, generally, promptly closed after five days, barring backlogs. I do wish, however, that we had more time to discuss.) --Iamunknown 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The IFD was closed after more then ten days, although it might have been wise for the closing admnin to wait until discussion had stalled. I agree with Quadell's comment here, your opinion on the matter is not the issue, what is the issue is whether consensus was followed. PageantUpdater 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, thanks to both of you for regarding my opinion as irrelelvant. How we can actually engage in a productive discussion while summarily considering another's opinion as irrelevant is beyond me. I think you are both asking the wrong question; copyright is not consensual. Our interpretation of what is a "fair use" is, to some extent, consensual, and it should be informed at least by the fair use factors and relevant case law, at most by our mission to be a free encyclopedia. Relevant case law is all about marketability. [3] [4] That wasn't even addressed in the IFD prior to my comment. Most of what was talked about was the significance of the image to the article (though these type of discussions are necessary in order to reconcile our mission to be a free encyclopedia with our use of non-free content). There was, however, no consensus to be followed concerning the marketability (i.e. what really matters as determined by recent cases in actual courts), because no one talked about it. --Iamunknown 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Consider an overturn if use of the image is reworked The original reason for nomination for deletion was correct and I believe the closing admin acted properly. The image was being used solely to illustrate the information that she was crowned. However, the image itself is unique and presents an emotional response that cannot be conveyed in words. If the image was used properly in the article, I believe it would meet NFCC #8. This means providing commentary on the image and what the image conveys. The website the image came from specifically states that images are provided at no charge so I don't see a conflict with NFCC #2. Beyond Wikipedia policies, I believe the image would also pass muster for a claim of fair use under U.S. Copyright law. -Nv8200p talk 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  About the re-work... any discussion about "the emotional response" this image conveys should be properly sourced, to avoid original research. I.e., Wikipedia can't be the first publication to talk about the "emotional response" of these kind of images.

  About the image being provided "at no charge"... the whole conditions from the source website says that the images are to be used solely by "news publications", and "for a period of sixty (60) days following your download of the photographs". We would need a strong fair use defense to use these images, since the copyright holder explicitly opposes to our use. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Two good points to consider. -Nv8200p talk 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fields (1970s band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Should not have been deleted because it passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC due to Andy McCulloch's membership in the band. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and expand. Speedy was valid, as the article didn't mention the involvement of anyone notable. A decent article should be possible for this notable (but extremely short-lived) prog band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete/expand. Did you talk to the deleting admin on this? Seems likes that could have avoided a DRV. --W.marsh 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• undelete per nomination. JoshuaZ 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment yeah I mentioned this deletion review on the admin's talk page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The AMG's entry is short and contains an inaccuracy (Alan Barry was never in King Crimson). The other two band members do not have articles on WP and as such may not be notable. But this is still a clear undelete per the WP:MUSIC guideline criterion 6.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC says, "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This sounds like an ideal place to apply that principle—the AMG entry says, "The group lasted about a blink of an eye". I tend to doubt that any expansion of the article would be necessary or possible. Xtifr _tälk 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Process error. This category was deleted on 25 June following a deletion discussion in which only the nominator himself had commented. This was probably because few people knew about it, as there was no notice on the main article UMIST of the category, as suggested in Wikipedia guidelines for category deletions [5]. I was one of the main contributors to the deleted category, and I only found out about the proposed deletion a few hours after it had taken place. Previously suggestions regarding articles and categories related to UMIST or Manchester University have always attracted vigorous and knowledgable debate on the appropriate talk pages. I therefore request that the category deletion is reversed and relisted, with notification on the UMIST article page so that others can join the discussion. Although I'm asking for a relisting on the grounds of process, I would be equally happy with the categrory deletion simply being overturned, as I feel there is no prospect of reaching a consensus on this deletion. I myself strongly oppose the deletion of this category and there are solid reasons for retaining it. (The nominator has been kind enough to chat with me about those reasons on my user talk page - See [6] ) Dodo64 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19#University_of_Manchester. Chick Bowen 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist These were names of the 2 precursor institutions to U.Manchester, and there are major relationship problems between the UMIST & the merged university; this is presumably a desire to keep their alumni separate. On the principle, the guideline for notifying people about XfDs other than CfDs is rarely observed, & even resisted. I think it's essential that they be notified, These are obscure processes to most WP editors, as it usually doesn't pay to keep checking them just in case something relevant is on the list. On the fundamental issue of fairness, this needs a wider discussion. Invoking IAR for the sake of elementary fairness is one of the best places to use it. I would propose a policy change, but requiring notice at XfDs has in the past been rejected. DGG 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - This probably deserves comments from more than one person. Dr. Submillimeter 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• relist per Dodo and DGG. JoshuaZ 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• As the closing admin, I have no objections against relisting. Conscious 14:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• relist Lack of awareness of CfD's is a perennial problem. Really what is needed is a bot placing at least talk pages notices on all articles in the categories affected. Johnbod 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support a bot that notifies WikiProjects that tag the talk pages of relevant categories or that adds a notice to an article listed in a catmore template, but leaving notices at all categorized articles seems too much like Wikispamming. Dr. Submillimeter 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I nominated this category for deletion, and believe that it warrents further discussion. Mike Peel 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Since the original discussion attracted little notice, having a second CfD debate seems harmless. Although the relisting has a slight WP:IAR flavor, none of those involved on either side seem to mind. EdJohnston 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

VFD_question Was poking through my watchlist to clean it out a bit, and remembered this article: Danny Sveinson, which was deleted back in 2005. I submit that the subject is notable, for reasons that I state in the original incarnation, but which were later removed in the version of the article presented in its VFD. Furthermore, it appears that the old version of this article was never examined for the purposes of the VFD. It's worth noting that I'm not really heavily invested in this article anymore, but I'm curious to find out if that version of the article would provide notability. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was just about to copy it to your talk page, but it looks like I was beaten to it. By the looks of things this would have, shall we say, an uphill battle to pass an AfD to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think the several television appearances and especially the CBC would be enough? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

SENSIBLE_NEW_ARTICLE -->I am Adam Long from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and I'd like to write a new article about myself. I know that it's not the done thing, but it looks like people have written a lot of rubbish under 'Adam Long' and I'd like to write a short piece detailing my work with Reduced Shakespeare and post-Reduced Shakespeare (Raindance award winning film, comedy for Lucasfilm, radio work for BBC Radio Four). Best, ajaxsemaphor Ajaxsemaphor 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Whether with good intentions or otherwise, autobiographies aren't acceptable. Please see WP:COI for detals. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse salting for now. I'm technically the deleting admin, but only because I did a mass migration of Salted pages from old salting to Title Protection salting a few days ago, and thus I had to delete the old salt page. I did not delete/salt the article originally. That said, looking through the history, we have a page that has indeed had a lot of "rubbish" in the past. Student vanity pages, etc. But the idea of un-salting this just so that another potential vanity page can be written, with no idea of whether the new page will be of any worth, is not appealing. My suggestion is that the nominator withdraw this DRV request, and first build out their intended article in theri User space, maybe at User:Ajaxsemaphor/Adam Long for instance. Then, once they actually are able to show that the intended article meets the various project policies (WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc.) a new DRV could be submitted and the situation could actually be effectively evaluated. As it is, the proposed new article is just too big of a question mark in my mind to support the unsalting of the page title. - TexasAndroid 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the suggestion of salting. I'd be happy to work with Adam to compile a decent biography. My early research suggests that Adam is not only an early member of the Reduced Shakespeare Company which had a pretty heavy West End presence at one time, long a fixture at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly, but also The Barn, the screenplay of which he cowrote with fellow Reduced Shakespeare alumnus Jake Broder, won a Raindance award at British Independent Film Awards in 2004. More recently he contributed the script to "Star Wars: Shortened!", a Sky Movies-commissioned movie which does to George Lucas' magnum opus what the Reduced company earlier did to Shakespeare's oeuvre. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

With Tony personally mentoring the page creation, I would consider unsalting to be acceptable under that circumstance. - TexasAndroid 13:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unprotect and undelete if there's anything salvageable. WP:COI says If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. - well they won't write anything if it's salted. In addition, autobiography is discouraged but not outright forbidden and since Tony S is offering to help out we shouldn't have any worries at all. CIreland 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not much to be salvaged. Of the three previously deleted versions, two were for different, totally NN Adam Longs, and the third, which was for the same Adam Long, read, in total: "Adam Long is a hilarious member of the Reduced Shakespeare company. He, along with his fellow members, has become a role model for many people out in the world who find Shakespeare dull." - TexasAndroid 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt, conditional on Tony S's mentoring of the page creation. (Changing my opinion) - TexasAndroid 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: maybe Tony and Adam can work in userspace, and bring the result here when they're done? I have no objection to unsalting if Tony is involved, but a userspace version would really help resolve any lingering doubts anyone might have. Xtifr _tälk 09:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• unsalt there is always afd if the result is unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've asked Adam to start in user space. He's confirmed that he's going to write a piece and submit it to me for review. Thanks for the vote of confidence. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• No thanks. Reduced Shakespeare Company may well be notable but autobiographies of members is not what we want. A redirect would be OK though. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt. Let him give it a shot, and if you like, put me down as someone willing to watch over the article for problems, too. --Calton | Talk 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt per above Catchpole 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt and let Tony or Calton give it a look. As Spartaz says, there is always AfD. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Just want to make this a redirect to ScrewAttack Buc 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why not? In case, the redirect should be protected. Tizio 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. --- RockMFR 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with the request (provided the redirect is protected).-Wafulz 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

G.ho.st (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are plenty of worthy articles on internet. G.ho.st has been reviewed in Red Herring, PC Magazine, Info world and thousands of Blogs. G.ho.st notability now is very high it returns nearly 120,000 Google results. Rami Abdulhadi 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Eight deletions, three protections; given G4, it would be difficult to claim that process was not followed here, although I can't see it ever having gone through XfD. One of the deleting admins did suggest DRV, but wouldn't AfD make more sense here? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Township of Asstree, Alabama. Heather 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• allow creation of new article if the sources are used. The last few deleted versions look like blatant advertisements with no salvageable content. JoshuaZ 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to undelete and go to the 5 Feb version per below. JoshuaZ 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please remember that G4 is never appropriate unless there is an AfD (or other XfD for non-articels) soemwhere in the history -- it is not for things previously Speedy deleted. The original delete was a speedy under A7 -- which doesn't apply to articles about software anyway. All others cited G4 (repost). The most recent few versions are spammy, and if they were they only versions i would say this could bdeleted as blantent advertising under G11, and forget that an incorrect criterion might have been listed in the log. But IMO the version of 5 February 2007 by User:Adel.Hazboun is not spammy. The text of that version reads "G.ho.st is a hosted OS or WebOS developed by Ghost Inc. It is an acronym of Global Hosted Operating SysTem. It provides, over the web, a working environment that is similar to the classic desktop provided by personal computer operating systems. As a web based service users are able to create, save and return to a working environment from anywhere over the Internet. G.ho.st software is currently in alpha stage." (plus an info box, a list of features, and various links). Overturn as improperly speedy deleted (because G4 doesn't apply, and there is celarly enough of an assertion of notability to avoid A7 -- which doesn't apply anyway) and revert to the version of 5 Feb, or the best spam-free prior version. After which, cleanup and source, or face an AfD. DES ^(talk) 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a good point, I didn't notice the lack of AfD (however all of my G4 cited deletions also read hugely like spam to me). I am happy to abstain provided a neutral and non-spam article can be written (lacking, as I said in one of my email conversations with an owner, original research) but prepare for an AfD otherwise. (5th Feb version looks like a good base article to me.) Ian¹³/t 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I try to make a point of including a link to the afd in the deletion log when I do a G4 -- If I can't find one, a warning flag is up. But I can see how a recreation of a spammy article doesn't tempt one to double check the history fully. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is certainly a point worth noting for the future. Thanks. Ian¹³/t 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, nothing new here. Congratulations to the requester on finding deletion review wiht his very first edit, though. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please overturn deletion This is Zvi from G.ho.st. I truly apologize if our initial article was premature (before notability) or appeared biased in any way - we have absolutely no intent to reduce the quality of Wikipedia's wonderful content in any way. I believe that Notability is very clear now after multiple articles in major magazines and thousands of blogs and a major award from InfoWorld. I promise that our future article, if allowed, will be brief, factual, and based on externally validated data only.
• Overturn and restore A prima facie case has been made for notability. Obviously notability may have been acquired recently, so the previous deletions carry little weight. Haddiscoe 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I don't think that a governmental agency fits under "people, groups, companies and web content" to which A7 is supposed to be limited. I don't know if this would survive an AfD or not, but IMO a speedy delete is not the best route for articles such as this. Clear evidence of notability might emerge at an AfD. Furthermore, from a very brief google search, it appears that the Commission was involved in a major class action suit over how cable television companies could or could not charge late fees, an action that influenced subsequent state-wide legislation. A scholarly account of the case is at this rand corp site, and a report on the legislation that refers to the Commission is at this state senate site. The site of the [http://www.secctv.org/downloads/about_SECC.pdf Sacramento Educational Cable Consortium] referred to the Commission, and this Multichannel news story discusses action by the commission on possible content restriction. of cable programming. In all I think the likelihood of a valid and useful article resulting is high. Overturn and expand. The deleting admin was requested to consider undeleting this -- no response has been made so far. DES ^(talk) 03:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have undeleted it.
  • At 20:59, 24 June 2007 User:Int21h created it.
  • At 21:22, 24 June 2007 User:Erechtheus speedy-delete-tagged it.
  • At 21:45, 24 June 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard deleted it.

Anthony Appleyard 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. DES ^(talk) 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added some of the sources cited above to the article. DES ^(talk) 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BYU 100 Hour Board (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ([[S
pecial:Undelete/BYU 100 Hour Board|restore]]|cache|AfD)

Like many other articles, this was subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and protected from recreation. The first version of the article was deleted for the same reason, but the second article provided ample evidence of notability, scope, and significance. The admin appears to have interpreted the 100 Hour Board to be a cork notice board rather than an online service similar to Google Answers. The Board is cited in multiple print media sources and websites, including Wikipedia itself. This open letter to Wikipedia details more articles in print media and online citations. Overturn as improper speedy deletion, or alternatively, list on AfD for proper discussion. - Peter 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why on earth would we want to have an article on a student website? What an utter waste of time and server resources. I guess that if you had edited slightly more widely you may not be quite so keen on an article on a student website, even if it can trace its history right back to an actual noticeboard. It's still not clear what the assertion of notability is supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Criticizing Peter solely on the basis of his editing history is a cheap ad hominem shot. It's illustrative of the high emotions running on both sides of this issue, and that's why we would like a more thorough review of the article's merit by people who might be able to look at the situation a little more dispassionately. -- Soren.harward 03:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Are all those print media from BYU newspaper itself? If so, that presents an obvious problem in independent media covering it. Why does this deserve a separate article? It should work just fine as a redirect, or a sentence in the BYU article at best.-Wafulz 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• comment I advise editors commenting here to read the open letter, which says, in part:

The 100 Hour Board has regularly appeared as the focus of news articles since 1999, most frequently in BYU's daily newspaper, the Daily Universe. In 2006, the Daily Universe began to publish a periodic column in its print and online publication with select questions and answers from the 100 Hour Board. A list of articles mentioning the 100 Hour Board is available here. The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT

The 100 Hour Board is frequently cited by third party sources on the Internet. Due to its affiliation with Brigham Young University, the 100 Hour Board often fields questions about the practices and beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the university's sponsoring institution, which are not found in other easily-accessible sources. Some sites that refer to the 100 Hour Board include Boxxet.com, QDnow, and ProvoPulse. Wikipedia itself cites the 100 Hour Board as a source in multiple articles related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 100 Hour Board has an established reputation as a unique source for difficult-to-find information on any subject, not just BYU- and LDS-related topics. This makes the inclusion of the 100 Hour Board article on Wikipedia crucial for users who find information from the 100 Hour Board and want to analyze the source of that information.

• • I'm not sure if this is enough to pass an AfD, but i think that perhaps it takes this out of the A7 speedy delete zone. There is more relevant info in the rest of the letter. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The process wonk in me wants this taken to AfD, but that seems like unnecessary processcruft, given the current consensus to either delete articles on student groups or merge them into the articles on the schools with which they are affiliated. If student groups with decades of history don't merit their own articles, I can't imagine a noticeboard (physical or electronic) surviving at AfD, even if it does have (non-independent) sources. No objections to a line or two in the article on the school. Heather 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Notye that fully indpendant sources, both print and online, are claimed above, although not actually cited. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • References are in the original open letter, but weren't transferred when the text was blockquoted above. -- Soren.harward 12:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Restore This article has significant content about a censorship controversy with BYU; as there have been a number of such, and BYU is one of the universities which continues to claim such rights. Discussing university censorship of student opinion is significant. In the latest version, this is unsourced, and it needs to be sourced to show the significance of the controversy.

  the administration of BYUSA began to take issue with some of the content on the Board. They had received a complaint about an answer regarding a faculty member and wanted to moderate all content on the Board. ... a 100 Hour Board writer posted a controversial response regarding homosexuality without approval from the editors. When BYUSA administrators investigated the initial complaint, they discovered the unapproved answer and other content to which they objected. In response, BYUSA had a network administrator take down the whole site.

Agreed, most student organization websites are not significant, but the few that are should have articles. DGG 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG above about removing the local-interest only content, and sourcing the material on the censorship controversy. I also agree that being a student-run organization does not, in and of itself, mean that a separate article is superfluous. In particular, a site that receives over 70% of its visits (see the open letter) from outside its university's state clearly has a much wider audience than its own students. Disclosure: I am a current writer for the 100 Hour Board. Peppergrower 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD as per DGG. AfD should make sure that proper sourcing is added and verified to establish clear notability, or else opt for deletion. I urge that if this goes to AfD it not be closed early, to allow time for sources to be inserted. Alternatively, don't send to afd and check in two weeks or so -- afd then if not clearly notable based on sources. DES ^(talk) 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• If a deletion is likely to be controversial, it should not be speedy deleted, but rather sent to AfD. I vote that the speedy delete be overturned and that the article be sent to AfD—the speedy deletion is clearly controversial. The Jade Knight 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• I quote (from WP:SD):
  • "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum."
• And under deletion #7 for articles:
  • "If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead. "
• According to Wikipedia policy, the Speedy Deletion is clearly inappropriate, and the article belongs at AfD. The Jade Knight 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• "Fuck process". It's a student website, coverage is only in student newspapers (which is not a claim to notability). And doubly fuck process in the face of blatant offsite solicitation (by the editor who created the article and has almost no other contributions to the project, of course) plus total lack of independence of the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If I had said "fuck process" in my RfA, it wouldn't have succeeded, and rightly so. DGG 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually it is untrue that "coverage is only in student newspapers": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU, and not student run. DES ^(talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - There comes a point where process and rules become nothing but a hindrance. So what if it's sent to AfD? It'll be deleted, and we'll be right back where we are now, but seven days later. Sean William @ 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per JzG and Sean. The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper. Without more there is no way this would pass AfD. Citation in Wikipedia itself does not establish notability. There may be room for coverage of this in WP, just not in its own article. The "we" who "would like a more thorough review of the article's merit" should, after carefully reviewing WP:COI, may want to pursue this alternative course per WP:GETONWITHIT. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually it is untrue that "The only news reports in the open letter are from the BYU student newspaper": while I haven't verified it, the open letter also cites news reports in the Provo, UT Daily Herald, which is not a student newspaper. The online sources it cites are also independent of BYU. DES ^(talk) 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  I assume you are refering to this: The Board has also been mentioned in the Daily Herald, the local newspaper of Provo, UT. A single mention in a local newspaper still does not come close to notability. Student newspapers are usually independent of the universities at which they are based and usually cover the organizations on campus. AfDs have not considered such coverage as establishing the notability of the organizations, however.

  But guess what? Even if the "mention" in the Daily Herald is actually several sentences of coverage and even if a second source can somehow be found that the message board members themselves did not know about, and even if, based on these sources, a stub article can be created, it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU. Rather than burning hours on processwankery, it seems better simply to get on with writing that material. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  "mentioned" might mean a single trivial reference, or it might mean multiple, non-trivial stories. I don't know, and it appears from your comment, neither do you. The language of the letter is not precise enough to easily find the citations, if they are there. If this went to an AfD, those supporting it would be able to find such citations and add them to the article, if they exist. Then it would be possible to intelligently discuss if the Board is notable enough for a separate article. You say that "it would still, undoubtedly, be a better editorial decision to merge such a short article into a longer, meatier article about BYU" You may well be right. I have often favored fewer, larger articles over more, smaller ones (note my merge of Aubrey-Maturin series several years ago, which some now want to undo). But that isn't always the best course, and i don't think we can say that it "undoubtedly" is best in this case without the opportunity for all editors to see the articles in question, and to work on them, adding properly sourced content and challenging improper or unforced content. A merge could be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and a consensus formed. Obviously some of those who comment here do doubt that such a merge is the proper course. And "hours" would not be burned on this DRV if those supporting the speedy deletion of this page had simply allowed it to be recreated and put to the test at an AfD, possibly after it had a little time to develop. You assume that such an article could never be anything beyond a stub, but I see no foundation for such an assumption. it might not be, in which case a merge would probably be a good idea, but how can you know in advance. Speedy deletes are supposed to be for uncontroversial cases where it is virtually sure that not even a valid stub will result. They are not supposed to be AfD in advance, with the admin guessing what will or won't happen at an afd that s/he doesn't permit to be held. Neither is DRV supposed to be AfD in advance, with people guessing what might be found and added to an article at a later point, while no one can actually edit the article, and non-admins can't even see what it used to look like. DES ^(talk) 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  The open letter was puffing the board as much as possible. If it had truly been the subject of multiple stories in the Herald, it certainly would have mentioned this. The letter's co-signers included two people who are both members of the board and Wikipedia editors and are thus in a good position to know both the sources that cover the organization and the notability guidelines. Yet even they cannot seem to produce any independent sources on this board. The main reason why this article cannot be more than a stub (or even less) currently is the lack of sources. If the Daily Herald mentioned the board, it did not do so by name. Various Google News archive searches only show reprinted stories from the campus newspaper. When the conclusion is this bleeding obvious, I see no reason to waste hours at an AfD that looks likely to turn into puppet theater. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• List on AfD I read the article a few times, and I may have saw some notability. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. "Fuck process" has no validity once someone objects to the action. Admins are not infallible and their judgment is not beyond question. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Notable Station Seddonism 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In the original deletion discussion , that I was not aware of at the time, the main argument for deletion seemed to be based on the error that the station started in 2001, when it is actually one of the oldest in the country, and that a user believed that no student radio station merited inclusion, and on assumptions by users. While broadcasting on LPFM, this is to a significant geographical area (not the several metres mentioned), as well as online, and on regular citywide broadcasts to a potential audience of a large City. Membership of the station alone is in the region of 50-ish people each year made up of the current students. Many alumni (which include, apparently, Thom Yorke) have gone on to work in media professions (this could be an area for expansion). This NME student guide to Exeter University gives massive prominance to Xpression FM, which reflects its standing as a significant part of campus life. A 360 degree photo of Studio 1 was recently carried out, which should help show this isn't an operation run out of a bedroom. On this Wikipedia entry this is a group of some of the many student radio stations that have not been deleted. I am not arguing that they should - rather that this station seems to have been singled out. In addition there are pages for apparently hundreds of campus radio stations worldwide. Perhaps the article could be tiedied up - but this can't be done if it is deleted. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to work as a useful resource - not every article is going to be of interest to every person.

• Comment. Whether or not other articles are deleted isn't relevant- you can't expect a group of editors to find them all and immediately list them all for deletion.-Wafulz 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close discussion, no arguments presented for overturn. Corvus cornix 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, My arguument is that the basis for deleting this page was on incorrect assumptions (station broadcasts only within a few metres, is was only founded in 2001), and seems to have been singled out for deletion by someone with no knowledge of the subject, on the basis that as a student radio station it can't be important, when there are apparently hundreds of other, probably less notable, student radio stations with their own pages.

Seddonism 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close, no problems with process asserted. Consensus is that student radio stations (like other student groups) do not merit their own articles. Heather 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong--about that statement: The standard was and is that student organizations and radio stations are usually NN; some few will be, but the article has to demonstrate it. There is no overall class of object about which it can be safely said that none of them can possibly be notable.

Right--about the article. But they did not show significance in the article, saying only that it was now on the regular broadcast MWBand., so

• Endorse close, but not speedy--once a discussion has started, it should continue according to the rules & to avoid further arguments after the fact.DGG 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In principal DGG is right. But the smart-aleck in me reacts bady to absolutes, like "There is no overall class of object about which it can be safely said that none of them can possibly be notable." I defy anyone to suggest how an article about a particular shoelace (not sheelaces as a class) could ever be notable. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hoped for a challenge. Good choice, let me think. If I can come up with something, it'll be on your talk page. DGG 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. You're right, of course; I should have said that "Consensus is that student radio stations (like other student groups) do not merit their own articles unless independantly notable"--which this has no indication of being. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Radio for similar discussion. Heather 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see not a single !vote in the AfD for keep. You can't complain that the staton was "singled out" when not a single person who discussed it at the AfD felt it was notable. Corvus cornix 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse No one seems to be plausibly defending actual notability in this case. However, allow recreation if someone later finds evidence indicating specific individual notability of this particular station. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notability

• The station is one of the oldest campus stations in the UK, celebtating it's 30th birthday in 2006. Unfortunately much of that history is in pre web days so i can't bombard you with links.
• Local station Gemini FM has such high regard for Xpression that they give some of their own air time for Xpression produced programmes.
• They are partnered by prestigious station, XFM
• Xpression have in the past produced segments for Radio 1, the UKs biggest radio station for young people.
• They have one numerous awards, including Guardian Media awards.
• Alumni Include Radiohead's Thom Yorke, Formula 1 cmommentator Ted Kravitz, BBC presenter Daniel Lawrence, Radio 1 presenter Emma B , Metro Radio's Tony Horne just off the top of my head.

Correction to the above: "now on the regular broadcast MWBand" - this is how it started out, but is now on permanent LPFM.

In my opinion there seemed to be only a couple of informed comments in the original AFD, such as from "tdg1986", the rest were mostly blanket statement against student radio, or errors about how old it is, how far it broadcasts etc etc.

Anyway, I can't see myself winning you over - if anyone can provide me with the text from the page before it was deleted then that would be appreciated.

(Seddonism 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

• Endorse closure I'll move the content to User:Seddonism/Xpression FM to be worked on... — Scientizzle 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It doesn't really matter what any admin thinks or where it is, T1 does not apply to userspace. End of argument. It just doesn't. Also nominating:

• User:Blast san/userboxes/User Anti-Zionist
• User:Willy turner/Userboxes/Islamic misogeny -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The argument that T1 is for template space and not user space when dealing with items that are very clearly templates is applying far too legalistic an interpretation of "template space". ^demon elaborates on this in the closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willy turner/Userboxes/dislikes U.S foreign policy and I agree 100%. Userboxes are templates, used as templates, and should be subjected to the same scrutiny as templates in template space. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That speedy closure was utterly inappropriate, as there was not likely to be consensus on the issue. In addition, the consensus built around WP:UBM as well as what Jimbo has said implies that yes, a template in user space is actually quite different to an "officially sanctioned" template in template space, and WP:USER, not T1, applies. —Ashley Y 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think you are applying double standards here - Templatespace templates are intended to be used in Wikipedia and Article mainspace - thus they have to be NPOV and all that. Userboxes in userspace are solely intended to be used in userspace and rules there are much more relaxed. Basically you are applying the hard non-userspace rules on userspace, which is quite counter-intuitive, so say the least. 84.145.213.91 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at MfD Speedying an userspace userbox once again with T1, even though that one is already listed at MfD. No, that's not how the thing works. Let the MfD run and see what the community says. If they agree it should be deleted, ok, if not, then don't delete it. Last time I saw something very interesting on the top of the page for WP:CSD: "...In particular, don't propose a CSD in order to overrule keep votes that might otherwise occur in AfD..." I think attempting to extend T1 to userspace is just that. And the community does not agree - see the results of the attempted widening of T1, the failed U4, and the DRVs which again and again overturn those speedy deletions. On a personal note, I find this usage of T1 on userspace distruptive. 84.145.213.91 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — 84.145.213.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• It's hard to tell if it was truely divisive and inflammatory without acutally seeing the template. --Android Mouse 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Try clicking on the cache. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, in that case, I think it should be restored. I don't think stating one's opinion is inflammatory. Assuming good faith, the burning flag was probably added as a political statement, not necessarily an insult. --Android Mouse 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Classic T1. Endorse deletion. It even has a little picture of a flag on fire. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn T1 by its terms applies to tmeplate space only, and Jimbo has endorsed thsi restriction on it. This is soemwhat legalistic, but IMO any restriction on the use of T1 is a Good Thing. (Abolishing T1 would be better.) Recent discussion at WT:CSD show strong opposition to extending T1 to userspace, or anyhting like T1. DES ^(talk) 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Templates in user space still have to conform to template standards, and the title alone is divisive & has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. -- Kesh 07:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Same could really be said with most all userboxes. --Android Mouse 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't shed a tear if those were deleted too. I used to enjoy them, but after working here I while I've found there's no point to 90% of userboxes and deleted most of them from my page. --- Kesh 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - clearly divisive and inflammatory. If it looks like a template and functions like a template then it is a template. Polemic doesn't belong in an encyclopedia that strives for neutrality. MER-C 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions, divisive, inflammatory, and polemic. These are essentially templates even though they are not in the template space. Just because something is in userspace doesn't mean it can ignore policies and guidelines. --Coredesat 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. To quote IronGargoyle's closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Selfworm/Userboxes/NotCatholic (2nd nomination), "Expansions of CSD T1 to include userspace transclusions have, however, been clearly rejected by the community and I must take this into account when considering the arguments for speedy deletion per CSD T1." See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/Zionist. —Ashley Y 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

User:Kurykh closed AfD2 as delete, but I believe there was no consensus and that every delete argument was sufficiently refuted. The closing statement implies that the main thrust of the delete comments is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. However, as I pointed out WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE does not forbid this article, and does not mean what some of those editors may think it means (there are concurrent discussions about this confusion at WT:NOT). It's therefore important to explain exactly why the article does not belong in Wikipedia. Most of the delete arguments amount to personal ideals or IDONTLIKETRIVIA, but no policy rejects trivia, as well as there being no working definition of trivia. The keep arguments are not generally impressive either, so I interpret the entire discussion as being based on personal judgment calls, resulting in a genuine disagreement about the interpretation of policy and guidelines. More people holding one opinion in this case is not indicative of consensus; consider that AfD2 is merely an extended rehash of AfD1 (no consensus) with a different sample of editors.

Kurykh told me that some of the keep arguments border on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was referring to a fundamental property common among all encyclopedia articles, and I used as basic examples lists that are not even in popular culture articles. If there's any legitimate application of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is it. See my final paragraph below for an illegitimate application.

The article certainly looks like a laundry list, but the format of the article is not an inherent fault: it can be converted to prose, and any "trivial" mentions can easily be removed. Throughout the debate, I repeatedly encouraged other editors who take issue with this to remove any unsourced items, which should take one minute at most (I did not do so because I was continually working to source those items, and removing them myself then adding them back later would defeat any chance of collaboration). No one did remove the "junk", but still a brief glance will allow anyone to see that a decently-sized portion of text would remain even if they are removed, a good size for an article that has no need for merging.

Some editors advocated such a selective merge, which would require a redirect and does not constitute a bolded delete. The closing statement also implies that a merge is possible. However, as pointed out in the AfD, merging to either or both the novel and film articles does not make sense: merging to either would be arbitrary given many of the references do not specify which, and merging to both would unnecessarily replicate large sections of content. The split accords with WP:SUMMARY.

Note: The following paragraph is obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not using it to argue for restoration, merely pointing out a relevant practical consequence.
If consensus here is to endorse closure, I urge there to be a community decision on whether to delete most if not all of the hundreds upon hundreds of in popular culture articles, because most if not all of them (including the featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc) take a format similar to this article. While previous attempts have been shot down, it's seriously inefficient and creepy to systematically an AfD on each and everyone of them, as the same arguments are repeated each time with no regard for the specifics of each article. This will also prevent people from nominating an article until it gets deleted. For instance, there's no essential difference between the nomination statements of AfD1 and AfD2 by the same user. –Pomte 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse of this closure, but I agree with Pomte in saying that there wasn't much consensus and there is need for a broader solution on this issue. X in popular culture articles, or variants thereof, have been populating AfD quite heavily for some time now and every time virtually the same arguments get recycled. Efforts to come up with a broader solution may have failed in the past but it might be time to approach the issue again and seek a more definitive answer on how to deal with these kinds of articles. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse closure - as nominator. Closing admin correctly interpreted the arguments in favor of deletion, which enjoyed a more than 2-1 margin over the keeps (and yes I know AFD is not a vote, thanks) as being superior to the arguments for keeping. Pomte assumes that anyone citing NOT#IINFO is misinterpreting it, which frankly I find a little insulting. IINFO is a policy subject to consensus just like any other, and if the consensus is that it applies to "...in popular culture" articles as it has been applied for any number of AFDs over the last several months then Pomte, with all due respect, needs to find a way to live with that. But, even if we assume that everyone who's argued IINFO is wrong, neither the AFD nor this DRV overcome the NOT#DIR objections raised to the article as well. The community seems to be speaking pertty clearly in saying that articles that consist in whole or in large measure of lists of every time a subject is mentioned or every time a line from the subject is quoted or parodied or every time something reminds any random editor of the subject constitute a repository of loosely associated items and are not encyclopedic. Otto4711 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I argued against the NOT#DIR claim in the AfD, and won't repeat it here. But IINFO has been deeply misinterpreted and there is current consensus on this fact at WT:NOT. The first phrase of your nomination has nothing to do with IINFO, and yet you linked it to strengthen your point. The comments that only say "Delete per IINFO" should be discredited unless the person comes back to explain why the article violates IINFO. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsourced popular culture articles, the community feels that not all articles of this nature should be deleted. If you believe there is community consensus that in popular culture articles can never be encyclopedic, then don't waste everyone's time with these AfDs and push for mass deletion at village pump (proposals) or somewhere appropriate. Also, please focus on issues specific to this article; it does not contain instances of "every time something reminds any random editor of the subject". –Pomte 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• First, the mass AFD nom you linked to hardly says what you claim it does. Many of the keep !votes were based on the mass nature of the nomination and many others were based on fallacious arguments like WP:USEFUL. Given that a number of the articles nominated there have now been deleted, I don't know that I'd be pointing to it to support your hypothesis. Second, I never said that "...in popular culture" articles can never under any circumstances be encyclopedic so I have no particular interest in pushing for a mass deletion. Finally, one of the items on this deleted list was an episode of Ugly Betty, included because one character said "I want you to hit me as hard as you can" and a completely different character dated someone named "Marla." Yeah, I'd put that under the "reminds any random editor" column. Otto4711 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Only 2 articles in the mass AfD have been deleted so far, so I don't know what that supports other than that they will continue to be nominated while voting trends arbitrarily favor deletion. The majority of comments there note that at least some of the articles are worthy and just require cleanup; their rationale is not in any way solely against the mass nature of the AfD.
• I had not noticed that Ugly Betty item, and the fault is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because you made no attempt to remove such material, which implies you would support deletion even if the article contained no such content.
• Perhaps you'd like to divulge in what circumstances can an in popular culture article be encyclopedic, and whether the current ones need to be deleted without even attempting to achieve this ideal. What is so fundamentally wrong with this one that it cannot be rectified? Does it have anything to do with Fight Club as works, or merely the style or format of the article? It cannot be the former, because there were no arguments specific to Fight Club; you could replace "Fight Club" with the name of any other equally notable work, and the argument would sound equally convincing. So it must be the latter, but the style or formatting of the article can always be improved, so make suggestions.
• You said on my talk page that there may be an article on real world fight clubs. Well, what you could have easily done was remove everything down from "General references in popular culture works". Then optionally do a move, and that's the article right there.
• Again, if I may emphasize because I don't see how this is hard to understand: If it is a content issue, eliminate that content. If it is a style issue, propose a new style. –Pomte 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Other articles from that mass nom are on their way out and at least one has been redirected to its source article because the standalone was filled with crap but people thought that someone might search for the in pop culture article. Regardless, the fact that dozens of pop culture articles that consisted of nothing more than "I spotted it" trivial references have been deleted indicates that the community is not in favor of "spot the reference" crap articles. The point still stands that this article, which is the only article directly under discussion, was correctly deleted following the outcome of the AFD and what you're doing here is trying to take a second bite at the apple. I am not going to be drawn any further into a philosophical debate on the general merit of IPC articles because any such debate is irrelevant to whether this article was properly deleted. The AFD for this article was correctly interpreted and implemented by the closing admin and nothing that you've offered up here, either specifically about the article in question or about the broader aspects of the article class in general, demonstrate that this AFD was improperly closed. Otto4711 01:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and either selective merge or keep and edit down. While the laundry list of trivial, passing references in popular culture certainly isn't encyclopedia worthy, the larger cultural influnces are and are not found in as much detail on any other Fight Club page. I think this would clearly include the real world events/fight clubs, but also the few artists who were significantly influenced by the film, such as Taking Back Sunday. (Sorry that I don't know enough to quote the Wikipedia cannon to back this up btw.) Thepopularloser 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus has moved towards getting rid of these egregious violations of WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Corvus cornix 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per clear consensus against such articles and a correctly closed AfD; WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR both apply, and I'll also cite WP:HTRIV, which says that trivia articles should be avoided. Heather 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:TRIVIA is about presentation, not inclusion. What are the WP:OR violations, and are they unsalvageable? There is no need to add your own argument here: whether this is a trivia article is up to debate, and whether WP:HTRIV is a valid essay is up to debate (no one in AfD2 cited HTRIV that I can see). –Pomte 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Zero sources = OR. Corvus cornix 02:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorese deletion there was a visible consensus on the AfD & I see nothing wrong with the close. — Scientizzle 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion because there is a trend to get rid of lists of topics loosely associated by a brief mention of the topic. Even if there is prose written about a certain entity in popular culture, this does not warrant a list of editors' own examples to back this, especially when the mentions are only in passing. The article failed notability standards by not presenting any independent, secondary sources that had significant coverage about Fight Club's impact in popular culture -- films, TV shows, et cetera. We don't need to synthesize an argument toward the prominence of that topic by personally listing firsthand observations of Fight Club mentioned in passing. This is also not comparable to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc because you cannot culturally depict Fight Club beyond a passing mention, as it is copyrighted and still fairly recent compared to entities long in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion "In popular culture" is just not a type of article that we should have because they will hardly ever be of an encyclopedic quality, and unlike good article types they have a tendency to get worse over time, as people toss in more and more trivia. Haddiscoe 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

^demon deleted it on June 25 because he/she thought it was unused, apparently unaware of the fact the image was being used on Lemony Snicket since June 21st. CyberGhostface 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete per nom, does appear that this image was being used and thus not an I5 candidate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Belew Trio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 "Biographical article that does not assert significance". But the article (as it was when deleted) says that the group has twice "toured throughout the East, South, & Western United States". if sourced, that alone is enough to pass WP:MUSIC, and even if not sourced should be enough of an "assertion of significance" to avoid an A7 speedy delete. Overturn and list on AfD for a proper assesment of notability by consensus. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• overturn per nom. JoshuaZ 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn Adrian Belew is notable, so the Trio meets MUSIC 6. I'd like to see Julie and Eric Slick merged into this article and then deleted. Hoof Hearted 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and redirect/merge Julie and Eric Slick to here. Haha, I'm just trying to get King Crimson to featured article status and I encounter this when considering the possible deletion review of Fields (1970s band).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn & redirect Julie Slick (now deleted?!) and Eric Slick to Adrian Belew Trio. AfD is a valid course if no sources are provided, but there's no reason this should have been speedied. — Scientizzle 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom; clearly notable. Anything connected to Belew isn't close to A7. Chubbles 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn one of a set of similarly incorrect AfDs. Could have been simply undeleted by another admin if the original one didn't respond.DGG 14:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't know just how notable Below was -- popular music is not a field I know much about. And the last time I tried that (see The Lying Game also now on DRV) I got some significant negative feedback. So if there is and possible grounds for debate, i tend to bring things to DRV rather than simply undelete on my own authority. Perhaps that is a mistake. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, although a merger to the article about Belew might be an appropriate final outcome. Belew himself is obviously very notable (and a personal favorite of mine), but I'm not sure how notable this particular band is (I hadn't heard of it, which should say something). Xtifr _tälk 10:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Was not eligible for speedy deletion. Haddiscoe 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. While IMO this article would need improvement and better sourcing to pass an AfD, i think that "He anchors Eyewitness News at 5, 6 and 11 p.m., the top-rated newscast in Indainapolis" is at least a claim of significance. Overturn as an improper speedy, and optionally list on AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn for the reasons given, and tag " unreferenced" or "prod." DGG 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• List on AfD not a clear cut A7, but could use the debate. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Extremely useful and significant website Sm8900 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Was deleted with the note that it did not assert significance. However, there was an onoing discussion at the talk page, where I indicated I would provide more material. I did indicate that the deletion was contested. clearly, there is reason to include it. it is very significant and unique among websites of thst type. with more time, more facts and soruces can be added, as I indicated at the article talk page. i feel this deletion was very unwarranted. thanks. --Sm8900 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Gather the facts and materials first, then recreate it. Note that it may still be listed for deletion at Articles for deletion if it doesn't meet notability criteria for web content.-Wafulz 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article was already useful and informative, and well-presented, in the form it was originnally written. --Sm8900 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. The only assertion it made was "It is highly significant and unique, in that it is the first blog-driven website to integrate networking, tags, blogs and groups". It doesn't provide any external sources or state why this is important. It was five sentences long and sounded like an "About Us" section of a website. If you'd like, I can move the content to your userspace for you to work on it until it meets notability criteria. However, in its current form, it will be deleted again and again by other administrators.-Wafulz 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn "First... to combine" is an assertion of importance. It doesn't have to use the word "impotant" or "notable". It may not be a sufficient degree of importance , but that's for AfD. DGG 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have to respectfully disagree. I can create a product that is the first to combine nuts and gum, or the first band to combine Mozart with gangster rap with The Beatles, but that's not a claim of importance in and of itself.-Wafulz 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed; as far as I know, I am the first human to combine my particular DNA sequence into a living being, but that doesn't make me notable. Or does it? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is the very definition of indiscriminate inclusion. You will need something more, like combining 3 or 4 specific relevant technologies, and similarly for some of the proposed products. DGG 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Sm8900 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Four Reigns was deleted with the logged reason "see WP:OR". But Original research is not one of the speedy deletion criteria. I agree that this would need sourcing and cleanup to remain for long, it appears that parts of it, at least, are OR. Parts appear to be a factual description of a book. While the book might not be notable, a google search on "Four Reigns" Kukrit Pramoj gets several hundred hits. Also, as the author Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand, he is clearly notable and his novels are likely to be so. This is the sort of thing that can be discovered more easily if possibly non-notable articles are not speedy deleted (when they do not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria) but are given a little bit of time, Rather than having new speedy criteria made up to get them deleted quickly. Such speedy deletions prevent debate and the prime virtue of wikipedia: "More eyes". Overturn and cleanup. The deleting admin has been requested to undelete, but has not chosen to respond. DES ^(talk) 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed I might add the mere fact that a novel first published in 1981, originally written in a non-english language, is still widely on sale in english translation alone sugggests a degree of notability, although that alone does not prove notability. DES ^(talk) 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Undelete OR is not a criterion for speedy, and that is the end of that. I ask for a Speedy Undelete. As for the article itself, although this isn't strictly relevant to the undelete, it needs an outside reference or two-- including reviews--but if the subject is notable it might well survive AfD. DGG 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm with DGG on this one - WP:OR is not and should not be a criterion for speedy deletion. Just because one person believes it is irreparable does not mean that sources do not exist and the article can be written to standards, and discretionary closures without any discussion are a bad precedent when they don't meet any of the CSD criteria. Put it on an AfD if it seems unworthy, if the results there start looking like a snowball, then delete it. Unilaterally deciding to do so ahead of time is not good. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• óverturn per nom, DGG and Arkyan. JoshuaZ 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:SNOW. Since when has OR been a CSD? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Myg0t (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has been deleted before for being composed of OR and being non-notable. As of this writing, this group is now notable and verifiable. It has been featured in Rolling Stone Magazine, PC Format Magazine, PC Zone Magazine, and Computer Games Magazine. Please keep a clear mind, don't let your opinion of this group or the number of times it has been deleted cloud your thoughts on this. Android Mouse 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to the last discussion on this? What I had read, it was closed because of OR and being non-notable, neither of these are applicable now, so I'm wondering what I've missed. --Android Mouse 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd DR seems to have been a year ago, May 2006. Closed mainly on the basis of the DRV vote count, 17 to 14. [7] The previous history is complicated--a DR one month earlier had ended up by keeping the article, and there seems to have been a string of less-than-obvious decisions in various directions. I think rapid closing in these circumstances might perhaps be reconsidered, or is the proper course to bring another DRV. There has to be some way to get a hearing. DGG 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The presentation of new sourcing seems to be worth it, and consensus can change in a year. If no one objects, I'm going to reopen the DRV. JoshuaZ 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like we've been a year since this last had a full hearing, and if there's new sources we may change our conclusion. It worked for Jeffree Star Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the evidence / sources advanced are any different from that seen in July, August and September last year or March 7, March 25, April 25 of this year. I believe some other requests were speedily reverted before the {{drt}} template came into use. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the sources provided are much more than many other articles here would ever hope to obtain. If all other articles were put to this rigor, I'd estimate Wikipedia would have less than a fifth of the articles we have now. I don't see the harm in having a small stub about this group, since they are definately notable in the field of game raging. I also think it is a double standard that other DRs get by with much less evidence of notability. --Android Mouse 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I have new information regarding this AfD process.

1. The Wikipedia article was linked to from Something Awful, complete with the AfD tag, on the day that the page was nominated for deletion. This likely caused a large influx of SA readers interested in the topic. Since Something Awful coined the term Wikigroaning, this created a imbalance in contributions to the discussion, weighted heavily towards editors would be sympathetic to Keep votes. While I think we can assume good faith on the part of the Something Awful editors, this action amounts to inadvertent votestacking. This was not addressed during the discussion.
2. The AfD discussion was directly linked to in the Something Awful forums, as well. This was not addressed during the discussion.
3. User:Night Gyr, the administrator who closed the debate, is a longtime and active member of the Something Awful forums, who apparently (based on the linked forum post) has a vested interest in this topic. Again, while I believe NightGyr acted in good faith, there is a conflict of interest here that possibly tainted his interpretation of the results.
   

Overturn and merge with Criticism of Wikipedia. - Chardish 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse close The AfD seems perfectly in order. Sources in multiple independant major media outlets were cited. Another AfD can be tried in a few months if anyone wishes, when linking will not be an issue, and ther will be more evidence one way or the other on notability. As to the merge, that should be setteld on the relevant talk pages, not here. The AfD neither mandated not precluded a merge, but it looks to me as if the consensus of those commenting on the AfD was opposed to a merge, which makes doign one promptly rather problamatical IMO. DES ^(talk) 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The only arguments given for deletion were claims of being a non-notable neologism, which were countered by the sources in the article, and even the nominator proposed a merge rather than a deletion. AfD is the place to take things when you want them deleted, not merged, and there was clearly no consensus for a merge within the afd, so I referred it to the talk page for more discussion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If "merge" can't be the result of an AfD discussion, then someone better talk to all of these administrators: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] ...and that's just closures from the past few days. Furthermore, this DRV is about the fact that the process that was possibly compromised through imbalanced influence by Something Awful members. - Chardish 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't say a merge result was impossible, I said consensus was in favor of retaining the content, and if it ought to be merged, that could be worked out on the talk page. Stop fighting over this with revert wars on the article and work it out on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I reverted once, I fail to see how that constitutes a "revert war." If you wish to address something only to me, please use my talk page. Thanks. - Chardish 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close and try to merge the article so that it won't matter anyway. I voted delete, but if I had to step back and evaluate the discussion, it looked like there were half-decent arguments to keep. I'm not willing to overturn based on the COI because I think the result would probably have been the same without the COI. Shalom ^Hello 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ludicrous - if process says keep unencyclopedic self-referential nonsense, then process is hopelessly broken. --BigDT 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not heartening to see one with the mop speak so lightly of community consensus. Unless of course you mean the !vote was tainted with single purpose accounts or whatever, in which case your wording is poor. -N 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - not a dictionary, etc. --Android Mouse 06:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I will endorse close, with some reluctance, since there was no consensus for deletion, although I don't know why people considered a remarkably new term which has just popped up on some internet sites notable. As an editorial decision, I fully support merging this in with criticism of Wikipedia however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with criticism of Wikipedia. Pretty much, this term just highlights a problem we always had of systemic bias on articles. In this case, it is about articles getting shafted due to age, fictional importance or for one reason or another. I don't find the term notable enough to make this article stand out by itself, but it would be useful at criticism of Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, delete. "Wikigroaning is a term brought to public attention in June 2007"... WP:NEO, WP:ASR and pretty much WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• This doesn't seem a wildly unreasonable close. There were some problems with this afd: apparently advertised on Something Awful, and looking at the huge number of editors commenting, and the relatively high number of new, inexperienced and unacculturated editors it's evident that the discussion was heavily skewed. Having said that I would probably have closed this one as keep myself. Criticism of Wikipedia does look like a suitable merge target, but that (as Night Gyr rightly says) is a decision for the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close as reasonable. There are obviously sharp divisions on how to deal with these articles, and a discussion on a possible merge would seem a reasonable next step. DGG 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why is nobody addressing Something Awful's involvement here? While I support the opinions of the people who support merging, I thought DRV was more than just an appeals court; I guess I'm wrong. - Chardish 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Just Plain Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia; if this gets worse, Relist. Looks to me that few people bothered to deal with socks in the AfD in any case. However, I don't think the article should be deleted, merely merged, and for merging, we don't need to go through AfD yet again. Would save time, no? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Close, but I think a merge + redirect would be a perfectly reasonable final outcome as well. JavaTenor 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

"Political Spam" Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Page was deleted "COI spam by owner of politcal party", however while it was created on the behalf of the President, whose account this is, it is hardly spam as much as it is a recognition of our status as equal to comparable movements who are similarly referenced in Wikipedia, including, but not limited to Australian Young Labor and the Young Liberals (Australia). Phanatical 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• See that word "our"? Endorse deletion until we have credible evidence that anyone but the group cares. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion If the group is notable, someone uninvolved will create a real article in time. We'd need a pretty darn good reason to undelete a blatant WP:COI violation, and nominator presents no such reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion A quick glance did not find any reliable sources that talk about the group. If we had them we might be able to have an article but we can't without any real sourcing. JoshuaZ 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• self endorse deletion. Per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: "recognition of our status as equal to otherstuff" is not a valid argument for anything here. First of all, Wikipedia does not exist to "recognize" anyone's status. Status may be an issue with respect to notability, but, second, this wasn't deleted for a lack of notability. It was deleted as spam! And third, of course, the existence of other articles is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All this obviously means that there is no prejudice against creating a non-spammy article, but it would have to establish notability using verifiable information from reliable sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Anyone who can do that (even the president and/or owner) is welcome to do so, but it is, in general, very hard to do if you have a conflict of interest. Xtifr _tälk 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Page was deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, but it wasn't advertising. The article was about a clothing company in Boulder, Colorado, GoLite. The company is of similar size to other companies that have articles, such as CamelBak and Kelty, and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, such as the article on Hydration packs, the article on rock climber Ray Jardine, and Primal Quest. Lucien Dray 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete I'd say they pass WP:CORP, and the article didn't have a spammish tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Definitely a real company... Heck, I own two jackets made by them. — George ^[talk] 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Better sources (that is, independant ones) would probably be needed, or at least asked for, at an AfD. But this was a speedy, not an afd, and this does not read like advertising, far less blatent advertising, to me. DES ^(talk) 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• WP:ITSAREALCOMPANYALRIGHT does not seem to be an inclusion guideline, article was unsourced and requestor and article creator has no other contributions. All of which serves to engage my scepticism. So: Lucien, can you cite the multiple non-trivial sources from which a rewritten article that does not fail policy, will be drawn? Guy (Help!) 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • There's plenty of sources to choose from. A Google News Archive search brings back 502 results, the first page alone of which contains the LA Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, and two New York Times articles. Google Books brings home some book mentions too, mostly backpacking how-to guides. This is plenty sourcable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per Starblind. JoshuaZ 17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn appear to be plenty of sources out there. Here's a link to the search mentioned by Starblind. JavaTenor 19:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I was the creator of the Andrew Lande article and upon returning from my trip to Europe to my surprise the article was deleted. Maybe I didn't write up enough sources the first time but the guy is in fact encyclopedia worthy.

I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People)

First the broad notability

Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary.

Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc.

Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes.

Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS partly where it passes

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources.

Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)

• The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)

• The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.)

Andman8 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy undelete Contested PROD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted as "blatant advertising" instead of being reverted to a neutral version, one of which can still be found in the google cache [18] Kappa 22:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Specifically the revision by User:VoABot II on 12 June appears to be quite spam free. Overturn DES ^(talk) 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Although i would delete the cost figures. DES ^(talk) 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• The version I deleted was also a blatent copyvio containing information from [19] and [20] as well as reading like a school brochure. If anyone cares to check my talk page (and/or Kappa's) they will see I offered to undelete the article yeserday - subject a request to Kappa to keep an eye on the article to prevent it getting into a state again. Quite why we are having a deletion review is beyond me since the offer is still there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Kappa's reply on his talkpage may have been unhelpful, but the fact that there were good revisions to revert to is a valid reason to let the article stay. In addition, I don't think that he or anyone else has the ultimate responsibility of maintaining the article to keep it free of copyvios, spam, and vandalism, considering that this is an all-volunteer project. It is the responsibility of the community at large, not the responsibilty of an individual. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

now have a better understanding of necessity to reference everything in posting, would like to have the opportunity to create a new page from scratch which is strictly informational, not advertising Comet111 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you create a new version in your userspace first and then bring it for us to review. We can unprotect the page if we agree that the new article meets WP:SOFTWARE, WP:WEB and WP:RS? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations on finding deletion review with your very first edit. What happened to the editor who created the article, they don't seem ever to have contributed anything else to the project. Guy (Help!) 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comet111 indicated in an e-mail to me that she is the same person as the editor who created jaxtr in the first place (that is, her name matches that account). Chick Bowen 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This should be undeleted, as it now sites its sources. James3uk 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, speedy close The "sources" are really just a link to the Friendbot website. LOL teh funnay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not recreate deleted material before you have had the AFD overturned. Especially one still warm. I have redeleted the articled and protected it against recreation. Please take the time to read WP:WEB and WP:RS. Self referencing links are not sources under our definition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've been going back and forth with the author of this page, so I'll not bother to vote. However I want to note that immediately after the AfD deleted it he recreated the page three times as it was speedied for reposting. He also accused me of "a very horrible, nasty and vulgar warning message" for leaving this comment on his userpage after (I believe) the third recreation. He also posted a link to the friendbot website and/or the friendbot article to five other articles. Improbcat 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and suggest coming here again if it becomes well-known enough to have references from other sources. DGG 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

deleted six times and protected in January 2007. The band is now releasing an album on notable label Fueled by Ramen, and has a respectable Allmusic entry. Note also article regarding nationwide tour. Would like to have the article Unsalted because band has enough press to establish notability. Chubbles 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Unsalt if a well-referenced version is created in userspace. Certainly getting on Fueled by Ramen is a great leap forward as far as notability goes, but it still takes 2 albums to pass WP:MUSIC. I think a good article should be possible at this point, but given the article's history some care is warrented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Proposal Cubbles. You are going to get some resistance I suspect because of the lack of something to show as a alternative to show the band's new status (like the "conditional" opinion of Starblind). I propose that you have the most recent version of the deleted page userfied to you so that you can do this work, updating their status and given sources for the changes. In general showing in a version of the article exactly why you think they are now notable. You then withdrawn this DRV as premature and, when you have the article version in your user space at a point where you think it will stand WP:BAND scutiny, you resubmit for DRV at that point. Does that sound workable, Chubbles? - TexasAndroid 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  I suppose that works. The album comes out in a couple of weeks, I can come back then. I would like to know if there was any information worth salvaging in the deleted versions. Chubbles 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• See User:Chubbles1212/Powerspace for the last version prior to deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Chubbles appears to have contributed a at least one FA and to a couple of GAs. That's enough for me to trust him. Unsalt and allow recreation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note that WP:MUSIC calls for two albums. Corvus cornix 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Notability is to be established through national tour supported by press sources. Chubbles 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted for now: this is still slightly premature IMO, as the tour is still in-progress, and touring may be the most controversial criterion in WP:BAND in any case; especially a tour as a supporting act. No objection to userfying for Chubbles to work on in the mean time, though, since it does look like it's starting to be a borderline case, and Chubbles is clearly an experienced enough editor to handle the challenge. Xtifr _tälk 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note A mockup of the article, supported with sources, is available at User:Chubbles1212/Powerspace. Chubbles 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted without consensus reached. Also article rewritten within Afd timeframe for notability but did not receive any new reviews after the article was rewritten. Should be undeleted and at minimum relisted for consensus to be reached. 83.88.224.53 11:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I wish to quote one comment in particular from that debate (from a SPA, no less) which adequately sums up the 'argument' for keeping this article:

  I have been following InspIRCd in it's development, while it may not be notable right now, it is one of the most interesting (and successful) recodes and re-thinking of IRCd, with fresh ideas.
  

  "Stskeeps", 84.238.9.161, 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  That sums up why Riana was perfectly correct in applying WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and close this as 'delete'. Daniel 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The delete votes made some very good points on why the article should be deleted. Bizarrely enough, the keep votes also made some very good points on why the article should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, reasonable closure, consensus not numbers. Moreschi ^Talk 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse - decision seems fair enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from closing admin A generic SPA-flooded AfD filled with 'I have used this product, so it must be notable' - 'I have heard of this product, so it must be notable' - 'It's on Google' - 'I have been with it since it's conception, so it will one day be notable' - wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. We are not the establishers of notability. It's why we have policies like WP:CRYSTAL. The Google test is, as we all know, subject to fallacies ("67k Google hits is quite poor for something that is available on SourceForge... you're going to get thousands of hits just by being on SourceForge"). Ultimately the arguments for deletion were grounded in real, pithy policy, and that's what I based my decision on. Cheers, Riana (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC) (This is my first deletion on DRV, so if I shouldn't have said anything here, please let me know. Just felt like I should explain myself a bit further.)

Category:Australian soccer players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:Australian football (soccer) players was renamed yesterday. This action happened without any imput from the Australian football community on wikipedia. I am requesting this decision be reversed. Players, fans, clubs and parts of the media refer to the sport as Football. User:Shalom started the process and he has said here :

I'm sorry that I failed to get the word out regarding the CFD. I don't do many CFDs, so I'm not familiar with the need to tell everyone. My main line of work is AFD, where this is generally not necessary because users who care about an article will usually see it on their watchlist. I have no opinion on the debate anymore. Feel free to decide things without me. Best regards. Shalom ^Hello 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tancred 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is also currently nominated for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 26. I suggest closing the WP:CFD discussion and simply redirecting all debate to this page instead. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Closed as a procedural speedy keep, sent everyone over here. Daniel 11:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Although I suspect that many people will say 'CfD valid, endorse move', and I would normally be one of them, I must protest on this occasion. Wikipedia has come to the compromise to call the sport Football (soccer) in countries where 'soccer' is used as an alternative (ie. Australia, USA, etc.). The comment that 'everyone in Australia calls it Soccer' is just wrong, because a) I don't (and make a point of not doing so), and b) the Football Federation Australia (main governing body) uses 'Football', the national league (A-League) uses 'football', including in their motto 'It's football, but not as you know it' (see also here), and Wikipedia's naming conventions on Australian football/soccer topics is to use 'football (soccer)'. I wasn't aware of this debate, and wouldn't have even known about this DRV if I hadn't have followed a link to a DRV above this from Riana's talk page, and I ask that the move be reversed and the CfD reopened. There's six years of site-wide consensus which is being over-ruled here. I won't say that the category should be at 'Australian football players', because I acknowledge that there are half the population who call it 'Soccer', but I ask that the other half be respected, as they have been on Wikipedia through this long-standing compromise, and that it be called 'Football (soccer) players'. Daniel 11:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• [Relist] Agree with Tancred. A hasty, bureaucratic decision, made wiithout any consultation to relevant editors. Blackmissionary 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't disagree with the last part of your statement, but there is no need to call the closure hasty or bureaucratic. This category stood for deletion as long as any other and the closing admin can't be expected to check to ensure that the appropriate parties were notified before making his decision. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'm sorry to have to point this out but not everyone who edits wikipedia is on here every day. 5 days to debate a change means that many editors will miss out. I would also suggest that the person who proposed this change made no effort at all to contact anyone who might have wanted to join the debate. There is a Australian football project page. Posting one comment there would have allowed many more people to join the debate. The Australian national football team is another easy to find page where a comment could have been left. Tancred 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't understand why you feel the need to point this out. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be notified within the boundaries of WP:CANVAS. I am only saying that the closing admin is not responsible for this. I suggest that you discuss this with the person who nominated the category, not the closing admin. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I was not having a go at the closing admin. I sent posts trying to follow the 'paper trail' so i could get to the source of the nomination. This established, i tried to gather an understanding as to why and how this came about in the way that it did. I'm here just about everyday, but i mostly just check the items on my watchlist; not everyone has the time or inclination to go through all the bureaucratic stuff that goes on behind the scenes. I apologise if my mtheod was perhaps a little clumsy. Blackmissionary 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Daniel. Riana (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• As the closing admin, on a technical, DRV-based standpoint, I must endorse the closing, as there was nothing wrong with it. However, I wouldn't be upset if it were relisted to let the football/soccer people weigh in. --Kbdank71 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know if DRV has jurisdiction on renamed things, so I won't be making a bolded "vote". However I see no harm in inviting additional comment and gathering more complete consensus, whether on a formal relist or on the talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist taking jurisdiction under IAR, first time i've said that. The change can obviously be undone by another request at CfD but there seems to be a general concern: the obscurity of CfD (and RfD and MfD) is a problem, and there has to be a better effort at notifying those concerned. DGG 16:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The procedures were correctly applied. It is not desirable to have more input from Australian soccer fans, as they are a biased minority within Australia, seeking to promote their sport making a claim to primary use of the word "Football" which is dismissed by the vast majority of Australian sports fans. This is a perfect example of a discussion where utilising more so called expert knowledge could lead to a biased POV outcome. If this is relisted, it should also be brought to the attention of Australian rules football, rugby league football and rugby union football fans. Alex Middleton 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with it being relisted and notified amongst the followers of the other codes. I happen to be one of them. It is not wise to try and put people in boxes. The key issue here for me is not petty point scoring, after all i follow both aussie rule and soccer equally. The key issue is that there has been months of negotiation between the various relevant projects/editors that has been utterly diregarded. Blackmissionary 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It is wiser to take counter action in such cases than to be willfully blind to bias, and thus allow groups of biased people to have unfettered control over any aspect of Wikipedia to which they choose to turn their attention. Alex Middleton 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. This seems to be an obvious case where consensus might not have been represented completely by those at the discussion. No harm in letting it run again. --- RockMFR 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - Even though process was followed, the fact that the Australian football/soccer project wasn't notified meant that opinions were coming from those who were apparently not privvy to the previous debates (big list here). It's taken a lot of time and effort, and "football (soccer)" is clearly a compromise between the two, it's not ambiguous and it follows the WP standard for the name of the article itself. I have no problem with the RL/AFL/RU projects being informed, but it should be made clear that there should be no bias towards "leaving things as they are" because the way things are at the moment is different to what they were a couple of days ago, and for months (without complaint) before then. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Process was fine, but another discussion seems likely to get a different result, so let's put it up again.--Mike Selinker 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have relisted the debate Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Australian_soccer_players Tancred 08:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would have been appropriate to wait for this discussion to close first before relisting. Having two discussions in one place is confusing. Moreover, as this discussion has been open for only one day, people have not been given adequate time to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Correct procedure, correct result. Nothing further to discuss. Postlebury 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've closed the other discussion. We certainly don't want to have two going on at once. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Can someone please add a link to the discussion under review at the top here. Thanks. Johnbod 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Make-Up.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson failed to cite appropriate or valid reasons for speedy deletion, and has since all but refused to discuss the matter further. Image was originally deleted for Fair Use violation, but the image seemed to have satisfied all criteria of WP:FUC. Deletion was also rationalized by redudancy and resolution issues, but the image still satisfied all criteria of WP:IUP and WP:CSD. An archive of the discussion (or lack thereof) can be found here. Drewcifer3000 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Image, in lower resolution, exists here: Image:Makeup.jpg. It's redundant, and larger than the dupe, which is a valid reason. There is no need for a second. Fair use is restrictive, and we cannot have as many different versions of random copyrighted images hanging about to meet pathetic aesthetic whims. You people should be damned lucky that we even allow fair use in the first place - this is the Free Encyclopedia, after all, not the Encyclopedia where we rip off images as we see fit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To avoid hashing out the discussion here, I would first point out that I completely agree with most of what Jeffrey said above. However I have previously responded to this exact line of reasoning here (3rd bullet point midway down). I believe Jeffrey's line of reasoning, and Wikipedia policy, dictates deletion of the other derivative image more so than the original which was instead deleted. Drewcifer3000 09:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of which image here is the right one to delete, it's a replaceable fair use image. The people in question are still alive, and in general we do not accept copyrighted media for such people since it is reasonable that a free licensed equivalent either is available or can be created. I've tagged the remaining image as such, and notified the uploaders. --Durin 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience with Fair Use, specifically the first criteria, if a picture is of a group (rather than a single individual) then the important factor is whether or not the group is still active. In other words, is it a realistic (or even remotely hypothetical) possibility that these four people would ever gather together and be photographed as the same group. Unfortunately the Fair Use criteria does not specifically mention this, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion to come to that the band will never be photographed as a band again, since the band has dissolved and everyone has moved on. Even if the members were gathered together, which I suppose is realistically possible since they are all still alive, they would not be "The Make-Up" since "The Make-Up" has long since dissolved and the members are parts of other bands now. I checked a few archives of WP:FUC Talk Page and couldn't find any discussions related to this, but perhaps this might be a question better suited to the policy itself rather than this one image. Drewcifer3000 19:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's an interesting point. I do think though that the policy still applies, as the band members are all alive. It would be possible, for example, to take individual pictures and montage them. --Durin 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: in the same way that a fair use image of an individual is replaceable if a person is still alive, a fair use image of a group is also replaceable if the group is "alive." Since the Make-Up is, for all intents and purposes "dead" it is unrealistic to assume it is replaceable.

As for the montage idea, that would also seem insufficient to me since it would depict the people who were part of the Make-Up but not the Make-Up themselves. If that makes sense. But, the same concept could be applied to an individual. If an individual is "dead" might it be possible to create a montage of fair use images to represent them and their physical features? Take Photographic mosaics for instance, specifically the sea gull at the top. If we, for the sake of argument, assume the sea gull is a celebrity, and we had no free photo of the sea gull, would this photo montage of free-images be a replaceable alternative to a fair-use image of the sea gull? I personally don't think so. This might seem like a tangent, but given the current language of WP:FUC, we must treat media of individuals and groups under similar criteria, since there is no clear distinction made.

Finally, you might think of an image of a defunct band as a historical document. The band existed from 1995-2000, and the image represents the band within that time frame. Any article concerning a defunct band could similarly be considered a historical document, as opposed to a document about a current event. Therefore, a historical article would require a similarly historical image.

But, like I said above, perhaps this might be a discussion better suited to WP:FUC talk page rather than this one isolated image? Drewcifer3000 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's no consensus on whether to delete pictures of defunct bands. If there were it would probably go against deletion. I don't see a legal problem, and there is no policy or guideline to address this directly -- an administrator who deletes this is making up his/her own guidelines. So I don't think deleting this picture as an isolated test case is a good idea. Let's make the policy first, then decide on the individual issues. On this point, it's silly to say that a rock band is four isolated individuals, or a picture of the band is four unconnected pictures. As a practical matter a photo montage is impossible. The band in action, or posing in their trademark clothing and makeup, shows a collective energy and identity, a branding and an image, that you just can't convey in words or through disjoint free use images. If that were the case the band would release its publicity shots that way. Obviously somebody thought there was something special to getting the whole band together for a promo shot.Wikidemo 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Per Drucifer3000's request, I have restored the discussion about the image. Per Jeffrey O. Gustafson's objection to it being in article talk space, I have put it at User:Drewcifer3000/TalkForMake-Up.jpg. Hope that makes things easier for folks to decide. William Pietri 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

BatchMaster Software is the leader as far as formula/recipe based process manufacturers are concerned. There are many companies listed in the 'List of Software Companies' that are less notable than BSI.

I admit that I am guilty of placing our article on Wikipedia repeatedly, but I was making changes to the article every time based on the comments on the talk page or the primary cause of deletion. I honestly believe that considering the position of BatchMaster ERP in the world of process manufacturing, having an article on BSI is justified. Rahulkhare 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted as promotional; I am willing to unprotect the page to allow somebody else to write a new article about the company (the deletion discussion/vote was more about the article than about the company); but Rahulkhare, please don't re-post your version of the article. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will completely re-write the article. A humble request to please unprotect the page. My assurances that my version of the page will never see light again. Rahulkhare 08:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd recommend you to create it as a subpage in your user space, such as User:Rahulkhare/BatchMaster Software; when it is complete, it can be moved to its place (if approved by other editors). - Mike Rosoft 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I really appreciate this. Will do as you've suggested. It might take me upto a week to create a new page. Will this thread be active until then, so that I may place my request to the editors once again? As you may have noticed, I am fairly new at this. Do you think If I removed the company infobox from the original page, it will be less offensive? Rahulkhare 04:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created the subpage as suggested by Mike User:Rahulkhare/BatchMaster Software. Please provide your feedbacks if any changes are desired. I am prepared to make any change as required, but humbly request the editors to give specific suggestions for improvement. Please let me know the next step in the process. Rahulkhare 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please advise on the next step in the process of re-inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. Rahulkhare 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

HI: I am eagerly waiting for instructions for the course of action. How do I attract the attention of editors to view my sample article so that it may be included as a real article. Rahulkhare 12:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Why did this page get deleted as if it were "blatant advertising?" This makes very little sense considering it was three sentences long, one giving the title and web location of the magazine, a second stating when the publication was born and a third naming the two parties who founded the publication. I feel like a disservice to the wikipedia community has been made here and ask that it is corrected. Wishtank isn't even a commercial magazine, it is run by volunteers and sells absolutely nothing. What would this wikipedia entry be blatantly advertising? Garrettheaney 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion TwiceThree times speedied as advert, and reading the article I can't say I disagree. Would never ever ever ever pass an Afd vote anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, what is it about the article that you consider and advertisement? The information and language are unbiased and straight forward. It makes little sense to me why anyone would find the article inappropriate for wikipedia. How does the short Wishtank entry differ in form from any other wikipedia entry giving information on a magazine or resource? Wishtank is a voluntary service and doesn't monetize in any form — this claim of "blatant advertising" is simply untrue.

• Just because it doesn't say "BIG SALE!!!" or "AMAZING OFFER!!" at the top doesn't mean it isn't blatant advertising. It's an article about a brand-new (less than a month old) website, obviously created by the operator of said website. How else are we supposed to see it? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You could see it for what it is, an entry holding basic, unbiased information on a magazine. Is there a policy regarding the length of time a publication has to be in circulation before it becomes a valid source for wikipedia? I was not aware of any such policy, and if there is, I sincerely apologize. It's actually funny, that you noticed a third attempt of the wishtank entry, and you inaccurately describe that as an "advert" deletion. The reason given for the third deletion was that it didn't do enough to "sell" the magazine as an important source. This seems contradictory, considering you are here saying that that sort of "advertising" is not permittable. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you do in keeping Wikipedia free from advertisement, but any reasonable person would see that the entry made for Wishtank is purely informational, without any of the "blatant advertising" you site in your deletion and endorsement of deletion. You are providing a disservice to the Wikipedia community and wrongfully censoring information. But I digress, you have the authority to do so and it is done. It's just disheartening from my perspective to see an objective, informational entry be labeled "blatant advertising." Go look at other magazine entries on wikipedia and tell me how they differ (other than their duration on the news stand, which again, I wasn't aware was a qualifying factor).

• Actually, the third deletion was for advertising as well, specifically tagged as "db-ad - note that the article creator has the same name as the magazine's editor". And yes, we do have guidelines for websites and web content, which can be found at WP:WEB. Even if advertising were not an issue (which it is), the article would not pass our web standards. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any independent reliable sources on which an article on this topic could be based. And in addition, creating or editing articles on things you own, manage, or are personally involved with is discouraged per out conflict-of-interest policy (WP:COI) as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I would consider it a valid speedy. It was just a product announcement, with no sourcing at all, and to me, that counts as an advertisement. If it becomes notable enough to write a sourced article, then would be the time to reconsider. DGG 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted the first two versions as spam (G11) and the last one for no claim of notability (A7). - Mike Rosoft 08:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lying Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as Patent nonsense, and it simply was nothing of the sort -- Patent nonsense has a very restricted meaning. I undeleted as per WP:DP#Deletion review which says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." But having undelted, I find that it was in mid-afd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Game), which discussion was speedy closed by the speedy deletion. I want some support in undoing this close, and reactivating the AfD. DES ^(talk) 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion and Endorse resubmitting at AfD. Clearly a violation of WP:MADEUP, but not a speedy candidate that I can see. I also note it has a PROD tag in addition to the AfD tag, which should probably be removed if we're going to do a full AfD. -- Kesh 06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• This is process for the sake of process; had I seen the article, I would have probably speedily deleted myself. - Mike Rosoft 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Since it would clearly be deleted at AfD, endorse deletion is the only sensible response. To overturn and send to AfD is an abuse of process as "process for the sake of process" which is very much against Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY). However I see that DESiegel has gone ahead and undeleted, which is okay I suppose. A minor abuse of policy and a flagrant waste of time, but not egregiously damaging. --Tony Sidaway 09:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  I see that DESiegel has undeleted but not (as I thought) sent it for deletion again. So I suggest that the article should be redeleted. Unless DESiegel thinks a deleted article belongs on Wikipedia, he should never restore it. That would be very, very silly indeed. --Tony Sidaway 09:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK, endorse undeletion since the article is not patent nonsense in the strict sense we use the term on Wikipedia. However, I have grave suspicions that the article utterly fails notability requirements. Nonetheless, I could be wrong, so I think it's best to wait it out, and see if someone has sources establishing the suitability of the article (I cannot rule it out completely). I have tagged it with a "prod" notice along with my reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (For clarification, Ram rottenly tried nominating the article both through prod and afd at once, which looks like an honest newbie mistake. Nobody has yet objected to the article being ultimately deleted, so prod seems appropriate.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've speedied it again as an A7. It was clearly not a G1, but I don't quite see the point in restoring for the sake of following unnecessary process here. Kusma (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable given the cirumstances. Can we close this now? If someone comes up with a reference for this they can create an article and we can restore the history. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted Whether it strictly fits speedy criteria or not, I see no point in running an AfD which is absolutely certain to result in delete, just to say we dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Deletion is oviously correct. Starblind 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Let me be clear. I undeleted this because whatever else it was, it wasn't a speedy. It wasn't an A7, because it wasn't about a person, group, firm, or website. It is just possible that references might have bene found at an AfD that would make it notable enough to be kept, although i doubt it. I would have placed it on AfD, but there was an AfD in progress, and I was unwilling to revert the close of that without some support here. Had I encounterd this untagged, i would probably have tagged it with prod, and possibly {{hoax}}. Perhaps this was a case where soemthing that clearly wasn't a speedy shouldn't have been argued over, given that the chance ogf it being kept as a valid article is low. Buit I am seeing far too many invalid speedys recently, and given that some editors, and indeed soem admins, infere precedents from lack of action (look at the spoiler debate) failing to act on this kind of invalid speedy is tacitly agreeing to an extension of the spedy criteria that is IMO a vary bad idea. DES ^(talk) 14:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn If we don't have process, what are we doing here--deciding whatever comes up on the merits? Why do we need DR for that, when we have AfD. WP has a deletion policy. I do not agree with every bit of it, but I abide by it and work within it, and I expect everyone else to do likewise, and delete what the rules say I should delete, and refrain from deleting when such is the rule, regardless of personal opinion. When I became an admin--fairly recently--I was asked about this, as customary, & I promised to never do otherwise Any admin. who is not willing to follow it shouldn't act as an admin. in anything that concerns the part they do not wish to follow. DGG
  • Speedy is being overused; to many eds. and probably some admins., speedy means not able to withstand AfD. This destroys the utility of it if everyone follows their own standard. Nonsense does not apply to things that are not nonsense. Early on here, I tagged a few things which read like English but had nothing solid; an experienced admin. lost no time in telling me not to do that. Now I tell beginners that also. The same rule goes for everyone else, I think, even the most experienced. This is a place to correct errors of judgment, and that's what we ought to do. DGG
  • A7 applies only to a person, group, band, firm, or website. I stretched that a little myself as a beginner, and was called to account then too. I now remind others. I once tried deleting an obvious hoax under that provision also, and I was similarly taught the right way. If we have rules for deleting something, and something needs deleting, it should be deleted according to the rules. Seems simple enough to me. DGG 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• weak overturn If DES wants to have it run through the full time let him. It was out of process so its clearly within his rights to do so. There isn't much reason to do so since it is unlikely for the article to succeed but out of process deletions are not good. JoshuaZ 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I am no fan of process for process' sake, but when an article does not meet any of the CSD categories and has generated this much controversy in a DRV, that tells me that the speedy deletion via a preemptive snowball clause is probably not the way to go. Let it have it's day (or 5) on AfD. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - the article is completely and totally unsourced. Process does not give you the right to have garbage hang around for a week. This page is about a game that some friends at college made up, not something that actually exists. --BigDT 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tell me, exactly where in WP:CSD is the criterion that says that "completely and totally unsourced" is a speedy deletion criterion? When did {{unreferenced}} becomw a speedy deletion template? I recall such an idea being proposed, and failing to gain consensus by a wide margin. Did I miss the change of policy? DES ^(talk) 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Is Wikipedia going to be a better place if we undelete somebody's joke/made-up game for a week? You are an administrator - have you looked at the deleted content? I see nothing remotely redeemable there. --BigDT 05:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes I have. I think it likely that after an AfD this would be deleted, but I think it just possible that this game has in fact become common on some college campuses -- I have seen far more foolish games that did. If it has, and IF that can be documented through reliable sources, then there would be a valid article here. If not, the afd or even prod would probably have taken far less of people's time than this discussion has, and if an editor had hung {{notability}} or even {{hoax}} on the article, no harm would have been done to the project as a whole, because no one would have been fooled into thinking that we endorsed this until and unless sources were found. WP:CSD says: "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I think it is important that every editor who tags for speedy deletion, and particularly every admin who deletes under the CSD should keep that firmly in mind. The reason is, that when we step outside those narrow criteria, we increase the risk of deleting valid articles by mistake, because not enough eyes saw them. We also increase the risk of divisiveness because people felt that their concerns are not being heard. If speedy deletion really means "Anything an admin in good faith thinks doesn't help the project may be deleted without consultation", then being an admin becomes a very big deal indeed. I think that would be a bad thing for the project. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist: I've seen too many articles that looked completely hopeless get saved by the intervention of some knowledgeable editors at AfD (which is one of the main reasons that the speedy criteria are so narrow). This may not be such a time, but to assume that it isn't violates our crystal ball policy. This is not blatant spam or an attack piece that we need to get rid of ASAP. This is just something that's probably not notable, so it will do no harm to let it sit around for a few days while people mull it over. Xtifr _tälk 05:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• DES is right that the contents of this page did not meet any speedy deletion criterion. He's also right that we shouldn't give admins carte blanche to delete whatever they think wouldn't pass AfD. Haukur 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

X-sample (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with the log comment "CSD A7: Article about subject that does not assert significance (emphasis added by me). Now of course A7 does not extend to "subjects" in general, and this is an article about a pseudonym. Furthermore, even if A7 extended to such articles, the assertion that this pseudonym was used by the very notable Eric Clapton is IMO at least a claim of notability. Now at an AfD, this might well be merged into Eric Clapton, or perhaps even deleted. Or it might be kept and improved. Overturn as improperly speedy-deleted. DES ^(talk) 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; this is obviously not a speedy deletion candidate; undelete, and merge/redirect to Eric Clapton and/or Simon Climie#TDF. - Mike Rosoft 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per DES. JoshuaZ 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted under WP:CSD#G1 (Patent nonsense). It is clearly not patent nonsense -- i have no trouble understanding what the article says and means. (Note that PN is limited to content that "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.") Liam Hunt is an article about a fictional character. The character might be non-notable, and too much of the article is written in an in-universe style, and there is too little real-world context. Those are all things that could be fixed, or if judged non-fixable, might lead to deletion at an AfD. But none of them, IMO, is a good reason for a speedy deletion. Overturn so that other editors have a chance to improve the article and, if need be, debate its deletion. The deleting admin has been asked to consider undeleting this, and has not responded, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. DES ^(talk) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleted, it's one in a series of hoax articles started by a vandal-only account. Yes, it's not patent nonsense, but undeleting it and speedy deleting it later as a g3 would be stupid. - Bobet 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion - user indefblocked --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Obvious hoax/vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoax/nonsense related to speedily deleted article Nathan Bragg, see VfD. Keep deleted. - Mike Rosoft 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This was deleted this under WP:CSD#A7 (No assertion of significance or importance). I think that the text "She and Wallengren both received together a "star" on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for their work on the radio." in the article constitutes an assertion of significance sufficent that it should not be deleted via A7. Whether it would/will survive an AfD is of course another matter. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, avd has made no response, although he has responded to later msgs on his talk page. Overturn as invalid A7 speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn: getting a star on the Walk of Fame is a pretty strong assertion of notability. Since I can't see the article, I'll say that listing is optional, but it definitely isn't A7 fodder. Xtifr _tälk 11:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: The article was a stub deleted after its creation with no subsequent edits. Assertion of notability was made. It should probably be given a short time for expansion and then go through either PROD or AFD if deletion is still desired. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn a Hollywood Walk of Fame star is a damn strong indication of notability. They don't call it the walk of FAME for nothing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and remind the very experienced admin who deleted it that CSD has rules. DGG 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The admin in question seems to be deleting things under A7 that are not. Someone else has brought up the idea that they're just not updating the log entries, but that's actually even worse in a way for sorting this out. This is certainly not A7 though. --Thespian 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn' per nom and Xtifer. JoshuaZ 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Assertion was made, per those above. Johnbod 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

23andMe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable but speedy deleted with 150K Ghits, deleted without review. There should be a stub there, this never should have been speedied without review. Please check again under the capitalized spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

• This was speedy closed as "never anything there to begin with", but there was an article at 23andMe. I've reopened this DRV, but I still say keep deleted as a valid A7. Google investing money in a company isn't an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but when Google invests in a company it gets "multiple, non trivial coverage" which makes it notable. 150K Google hits and stories in Forbes, New York Times and CNN. How does that get a speedy delete without review? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, list at AfD optional. I wouldn't say that Google investing in a company gives it a free pass and a guaranteed article, but I do think it pushes it out of speedy-deletion territory. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn improper deletion. For a stub, this was even referenced. A biotech company that gets a multi-million investment from google may not turn out to pass WP:CORP. But I think it has enough chance of being notable, just on those facts, that it shouldn't be speedy delted, particualrly not as an A7, but should insted be put though an AfD if soemone thinks it ought to be deleted -- and I'd make a small wager on it surviving AfD. DES ^(talk) 15:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per DES. JoshuaZ 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn it needed a bit of help, but a quick search shows some good things to cite, a couple news hits in the last month, etc. Sparse articles should be improved, not deleted. --Thespian 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Its a Catch 22. I don't want to invest a lot of time in an article that may be deleted, but then people delete it anyway saying its only a stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Question: can we see the history here? I'm inclined to say endorse without prejudice against a good re-creation, but some of the comments above make me wonder if it was really as bad as most of these cases usually are. Xtifr _tälk 05:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Undeleted so you can see what the article was like previously. I don't think it was even too bad, I sure wouldn't have speedied it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since it was undeleted, and Andrew didn't see fit to use {{Tempundelete}}, I have edited this, adding some content and several references, in the way that I might have done had this been listed on AfD. I think these help make the notability of the subject clearer, and there are more out there, lots more. Do a google search on "23andMe". DES ^(talk) 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/keep undeleted per WP:IAR (if nothing else): DES's improvements were arguably out-of-process, but I'm not a policy wonk, and the result is good enough that a speedy is no longer justifiable (assuming it ever was). Listing optional, since I'm only here to judge the deletion, not the article. Xtifr _tälk 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

"deleted this article as a recreation."

Overturn

This article has a notable subject that has, amongst other things, been responsible for two legislative changes in Texas as a result of her murder - one of which is named for her.

Follows is the somewhat lengthy precursor to this "speedy delete."

Yes it's me, the anon user who nominated Brian Crecente for deletion. I was debating on nominating her (ed. note: referring to Jennifer Ann Crecete) article as well, but I figured since you added alot to it, I would run it by you first. I feel neither her article or the charity are really notable so I've been thinking about a possible merge of her article and the charity based on her, what are your thoughts? I know you are probably angry about the comments I made in the Brian Crecente afd, so I don't expect your words to be sugar coated. Please speak your mind.64.231.250.116 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still consulting with a few other users about the pages we are questioning, we are currently looking for sources. Going to give it another week or two and then a possible rewrite or afd will be dealt. 64.231.250.169 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted this article as a recreation. I saw that you used the legislation as a justification for moving it back out of User space, but I do not agree that that is enough to overcome the reasoning given at the AFD debate. At this point, as I'm pretty sure you will disagree with my actions, I encourage you to contest this at WP:DRV. Deletion Review is the proper place to try to overturn AFD deletions if the circustances have changed. - [User:TexasAndroid] 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Drew30319 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question - Was the article that was moved from Userspace to Mainspace relatively unaltered? If so, then Endorse as recreation of previously deleted material. The entire point of userfying is to allow folks to improve the article first and make sure it is up to Wikipedia's standards before moving it back to mainspace. -- Kesh 04:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Here are the two pieces of legislation added to the userfied article. Both were entered into legislation and then passed as law since userfying the article. The first legislation requires every school district within Texas to adopt policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. The second legislation (called "Jennifer's Law") is to award posthumous diplomas. Refer to the deleted article to follow the relevant references and are fully cited in newspapers.

• On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. [15]

• On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. [17]

Drew30319 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse AFD For the sake of this discussion, I have placed back in Drew30319's user space both a copy of the version that was originally deleted by AFD, and the version that I deleted as a recreation. As far as I can see, the main thing that has changed since the original AFD is that the Texas legislature acted in the just finished session to pass some Teen Violence legislation that has emerged from the murder. But I just do not see that as being enough to fulfill notability, sorry. So I have to stay on the side of endorsing the AFD at this point. - TexasAndroid 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Overturn and relist at AfD - The article has changed enough to not be a direct recreation of the original, and Drew30319 has gone to the effort to cite the article well. However, I agree with TexasAndroid that the subject is likely not notable enough outside her local area to have a Wikipedia article. There's enough of an assertion in the rewritten article, though, that I think it deserves another shot at AfD to reach a consensus. The issue for DRV is, did this qualify as a simple repost of previously deleted material? I believe the content has changed & improved enough that this is not the case, so deleting as such does not appear correct. Given the notability issue, though, it should go through another AfD process. If the AfD again shows she is not notable enough, it should remain deleted. -- Kesh 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist G4 shouldn't be used when the article is markedly different, DelRev shouldn't need to be involved. The article on its face is different, as specified. Whether the legislation is sufficient will be an interesting question at AfD. DGG 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist' per Kesh and DGG. JoshuaZ 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist per the above. The legislation may be the only difference, but it is better to let the community decide if that is enough rather than a unilateral decision that it is not. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist There are multiple opinions in the first AFD that explicitly reference bringing the article back when a law passes. (Alba, Addhoc, Nehwyn, but not myself demonstrate that in their comments.) That is adequate evidence that the law passing does constitute a significant difference in the eyes of the original AFD's participants. Given current attitudes about bios of people involved in only one noteworthy event, we might instead want an article on the law or event, but that is a decision to let editors and or AFD participants make. GRBerry 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Opinion seems to be pretty overwhelming to overturn me. So be it. I have no objection if someone wanted to close this DRV out and go ahead and get the AFD relist underway. I guess I'm saying to WP:SNOW it, as it's fairly obvious where the consensus lies at this point. - TexasAndroid 22:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Here we go again. This is another article that pretends to be a biography but isn't. If the law gets passed, it will make a fine start for an article on the law, but the case itself is a news story not an encyclopaedic biography of a person. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually there is not one, but two laws that are associated with the subject of this article and both have already passed the Texas Senate and House. One has been signed by Governor Perry and the other becomes law on Sept 1st by default. The relevant content is up above but I'll reproduce it here with emphasis added to the pertinent sections:

• On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente[13] and Ortralla Mosley.[14] Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect. (emphasis added) [15]

• On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law".[16] On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first. (emphasis added) [17]

As to your comment about "Here we go again." it's difficult for me to respond without more specifics. My understanding is that this is a forum to discuss not the merits of the article but instead the unilateral "speedy delete" by User Talk:TexasAndroid. Drew30319 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following are the arguments I have made for the undeletion of this article on Encephalon's talk page more than two months ago. I have not received any response from him since making those arguments, and so I must add this deletion review.

The former Pizza Corner article, about the landmark in Halifax, Nova Scotia was created by myself, and as I was not active on wikipedia last september when it was deleted, I did not have the opportunity to defend it. The current Pizza Corner article is about a pizza chain in India. While I do agree that this chain deserves its own article, I do not see any reason there should not be a disambiguation page leading to both that and the landmark in Halifax.

I have read the AFD Page for the original article, and would disagree with the assertion [the closing admin] made: "Besides, surely such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots—alone reason enough to approach any such write-up with considerable caution. Hence, delete." My response to that would be to ask, what is Times Square if not a moniker for a little spot, just like Pizza Corner? Pizza Corner may not be as widely known, but it is known, at least as well or better than the Armdale Rotary, Scotia Square, Spring Garden Road, Barrington Street, Bud the Spud or The Dingle - all of which undisputedly deserve their own articles.

I would therefore like to ask that the article be reinstated, in the location Pizza Corner, Halifax, and that the present Pizza Corner page be changed to a disambiguation page, with the article presently there being moved to Pizza Corner (food chain) Uniqueuponhim 00:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Based on the AfD and the cached version of the article, it does not show that the business in question is notable, has no reliable sources to establish its notability, and the article reads like the back of a menu or ad flyer. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. The further arguments here (Times Square, etc.) boil down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Kesh 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply - Pizza Corner is not a business, it is a location in Halifax. And just like the Armdale Rotary and every other place I mentioned, virtually every resident of Halifax (that's more than 300,000 people) has at the very least heard of Pizza Corner. In fact, it is notable enough that when a US sailor was killed near Pizza Corner last November, many newspapers (including ones outside of Halifax) reported that the man was killed near pizza corner, rather than use the street names. Uniqueuponhim 11:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've struck out my endorsement, as it's now more clear that there is a seperate article in question here. That was not clear to me, as reading the DRV and AfD, I got the impression it was a re-written version of the same article. I'll look through this more closely later. -- Kesh 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion nn local "corner". Comparing this to Times Square is just silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I must disagree, it is a perfectly valid comparison. Perhaps not as many people know about Pizza Corner as do about Times Square, but I would certainly say being known by more than three hundred thousand people, being mentioned by name in news articles and editorials, and being (while perhaps not exactly an attraction,) a place which many tourists visit would be enough to make it notable. Uniqueuponhim 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I should also point out that the comparison was made in rebuttal to the closer's argument that "such monikers exist for a thousand other little spots". The name "Pizza Corner" is perfectly analagous to the name "Times Square", both nicknames given to notable intersections in their respective cities. In fact, those nicknames are a testament to the fact that they are indeed notable. If they were not, they never would have been given those nicknames in the first place, and they would have continued to have been called "Grafton and Blowers" or "Broadway and Seventh Avenue". Uniqueuponhim 21:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It is nn, and was deleted following the rules. The article still shows it's origin: it includes a list of menu items, it includes advertising slogans. DGG 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that this DRV isn't about the Indian restaurant chain (which is an okay article IMHO, but could use a trim). This DRV is about an article which existed before that one, and was about a street corner in Halifax with 3 adjacent pizzarias on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not one, but two of these endorsements have been made under that erroneous assumption. Perhaps these people should actually read the AfD rather than blindly posting endorsements. Uniqueuponhim 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I read the AfD, but it did not seem to make a clear distinction that there was a different article in question. This complicates matters. -- Kesh 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon species by gender categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

• Category:Pokémon species by gender
• Category:Female-only Pokémon
• Category:Male-only Pokémon
• Category:Genderless Pokémon

Nominator believed that gender played little role in only a small aspect of the Pokemon franchise, two users came forward with more detailed examples of the significant role this feature plays. supporters of the nominator added little to the discussion, characterizing the categories merely as "over-categorization" with no arguments or reasoning to back them up. The closing admin unilaterally closed the debate when a consensus was clearly not evident. ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - clear consensus shown in the discussion. Also, Wikipedia is not a game instruction manual. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What's your definition of "clear consensus"? --Brandon Dilbeck 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • 4-1 is pretty clear. Endorse deletion as the information presented on genered Pokemon does not outweigh the overcategorization issue and the closing admin correctly recognized that. Otto4711 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • 4-1? it's not a vote... if four people came on saying, "Keep b/c pokemon is the best" would you have determined the category was closed correctly as Keep b/c the overall count was 4-1? take a look at WP:CON before giving your own interpretations of consensus. secondly, when deciding if a category is appropriate, people should be looking at WP:CAT and seeing if the category satisfies the 3 criteria presented there (note that "overcategorization" is not a reason to not create a category). the closing admin closed based on majority, not actual discussion which happened to refute the nom's determination that gender was an insignificant aspect of pokemon. these cats satisfied all 3 guidelines -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow, you really might want to step back from this. It's pretty clear from your comments here that you are taking this way too seriously and personally. It appears that you've made up your mind that there wasn't a consensus, so I'll just skip my explanation and go to sleep. --Kbdank71 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • if you'd like to explain why you think there was any actual discussion as per {{WP:CON]], i'd be happy to hear it. and to come on, make personal statements about me, and then refuse to even contribute to the discussion is incendiary. i've kept a perfectly level head and not made any personal attacks or said anything out of line. i just happen to prefer to respond to multiple people in the same post. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Looks like the correct call from a clear conclusion. Please bear in mind that CFD often reaches consensus with less debate than we see elsewhere in the Xfd spectrum. Spartaz ^Humbug!
  • is that neccessarily a good thing? -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per clear consensus in the CfD. Even if it were a closer margin of !voting, it appears to be a pretty evident case of overcategorization. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Especially "genderless" category. It's probably entirely based on assumptions or what was not clearly revealed in the English series/games. Tellerman 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • actually gender was an important aspect incorporated ever since Pokemon Silver and Gold and the introduction of breeding. if your argument is that the category can only be populated using speculation and OR you should rescind your endorsal. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse This Wikiproject should stop claiming ownership of pages. There was a CLEAR consensus. FunPika 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • the reason for this DRV is because it was more like a vote rather than discussion, not a single person added more to the discussion than "overcategorization" or denounced the opposers viewpoints. there was no discussion and therefore no consensus. and btw, you're the only person to mention the wikiproject... -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as closing admin. 4-1, as mentioned above, is pretty clear. --Kbdank71 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • because we're voting now huh? -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• endorse per Tellerman, Arkyan and Spartaz. JoshuaZ 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse this isn't the pokemon wiki. I also fixed the header of the DRV. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ty for fixing that, didn't remember there was a template for that. well this isn't the slave dictionary, so i guess we should treat that subject as superficially as possible too? u and all the other people who use the arguement "X not Pokemon Y" need to take a look at wikipedia's five pillars especially the first one. "Wikipedia... incorporat[es] elements of ... specialized encyclopedias...." see my above arguements for further discussion. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as original nominator. It seemed like consensus was clear that categories aren't to be organized by minor game mechanics. And PokeZap, we heard you the first time. No need to continue to drive home the same point.--Mike Selinker 03:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • i wouldn't need to drive home the same point if people didn't keep merely restating their opinion rather than countering my arguements. it's like you say, "A" and I say, "well what about B?" and you just say, "A" again, what am i supposed to do? in the CFD it would have at least had the appearance of a discussion if you responded to the people who refuted your claim. I'm not arguing that trivial mechanics shouldn't be categorized (i'd nominate Category:Shiny Pokemon by color any day). The thing is that you said gender was trivial, some people came on explaining why it wasn't, and you ignored them. everyone else just parroted eachother resulting in a vote that's been interpreted as consensus. two people even in this discussion have used the arguement "4-1 means consensus". -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Nom seems to be under the misapprehension that "over-categorization" is merely an epithet, rather than recognizing it as a widely accepted guideline (WP:OC), and therefore recognizing that the people who cited it were offering arguments and reasoning. (If it isn't a trivial intersection, it is at least, definitely a narrow one.) Arguments to keep, on the other hand, seemed to be based on the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a game guide. It is not. Xtifr _tälk 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • i appreciate your link to WP:OC, i'd like to point out that in the original CFD the only reference to WP:OC was "no sex/gender" which isn't actually on there (closest thing is "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" which allows for categories if a head article could be written). you cite Trivial intersections, and Narrow intersections. besides what was posted before, i'd also like to add that genderless pokemon are specially affected when it comes to breeding because they cannot breed with others of their species, but must breed with a Ditto. and gender in general has even been extended into causing visual differences between sexes of the same species as of Diamond and Pearl, so gender is not some small mechanic of the game, irrelevant to comprehensive understanding. As far as "Narrow" goes, WP:OC states, "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article." This isn't what's going on here, there never was a Category:Males or even Category:Fictional males. "Narrow" would be creating Category:Female-only Bug-type Pokemon. so if you want to cite WP:OC you're going to need a different reason. And there is no misunderstanding about game-guide material, except perhaps that if people are ignorant about a topic related to games that they immediately call it cruft or a violation of WP:NOT. the concept of gender-specific pokemon is not instructional nor superfluous. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OC leads one to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states in relevant part "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Which Pokemon are boys and which are girls is not a topic of special encyclopedic interest. Otto4711 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• alright, but looking at that, all the examples are for people. and indeed, whether an author is male or female rarely has any impact on their importance. however, the fact that a certain pokemon can only ever be male or female (or genderless) is an important factor in the game on par with type, thereby having a specific relation to the topic which is at the core of the statement, the topic of encyclopedic interest was in reference to the example. I'll jump the gun with you, and go right to the most relevant point, a simple statement that, "a gender... subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree." however even this falls a little flat as it's point to to avoid "ghettoizing" people. but pokemon aren't people, they don't have rights and feelings we should respect. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have certainly deleted sex-based categories for fictional characters in the past for example for female superheroes and supervillains and the like. If the reason that the sex of a Pokemon is important is because their sex determines their role in a game then the category strays into game guide territory, which Wikipedia is not. Otto4711 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by religion (edit|[[Talk::Category:Wikipedians by religion|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This category was closed as delete against a consensus of 30:11 in favor of keeping. The closing admin in his comments retained all of the arguments in favor of deletion (even though they had been contested by several editors) and none of the arguments in favor of keeping. Request DRV on the basis that this was closed in error with no visible consensus to delete and a probable rough consensus to keep Ramdrake 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin

I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of categories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that are neutral categories that can help the project. The comments in favor of keeping are addressed by the fact thhat "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can be used for the purpose raised in these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Simple as that. Don't turn this into another xfd, please. --- RockMFR 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural note: Ramdrake, did you also intend to request a review for Category:Wikipedians by religion? Shalom ^Hello 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I mixed up the nomination, as the header for the CfD in question got deleted in the closing. I ended up correcting myself twice, and I apologize for any confusion this may have created.--Ramdrake 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Mild overturn I read the debate as "no consensus" because I think there were solid arguments on both sides. Shalom ^Hello 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with the closing admin's rationale. --Kbdank71 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• For the record: Strong overturn. There was definitely no consensus to delete the categories, either argument-wise or !vote-wise. Therefore, verdict should have defaulted to either "keep per rough consensus" or "keep per no consensus" (I'm not particular on this point).--Ramdrake 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per closing admin's rationale based on strength of arguments. This basically comes down to the issue that the policy of WP:NOT trumps WP:ILIKEIT. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOT 1)applies only if the categories have no collaborative value, which is strongly contested by several editors in the CfD, and 2)even then, it is doubtful whether WP:NOT applies to user categories, as WP:NOT is specified to apply to mainspace only. So, please don't say again the arguments in favor of keeping the category boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, as this is simply not true.--Ramdrake 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply WP:NOT does not apply only to the main space as it states "Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well." Also, these categories are not in the user space, they are in the Category space, for which the more strict article standards apply. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply Does WP:NOT apply when editors have pointed out that the user categories are indeed useful to something else than social networking? If that is so, we should stop wasting our time and just delete ALL user categories. Is that what you want to do?--Ramdrake 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • At this risk of going off-topic here, yes, I believe that polemics should be avoided. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse A lot of the keep votes were pretty weak. I partiuclarly liked the " I think that this is a good avenue for encouraging collaboration" - isn't that kind of narrow selection of collaborators that we had the userbox wars over. Deletion arguments were well supported by policy and recent precedent and this just tips it within the closing admin's discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Sorry... but I think we do these by consensus for a reason and we have to swallow the outcome even if we don't like it. --BozMo talk 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The numbers might have been against him but the strength of the rationale wasn't. --Tellerman 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse If wikipedians by politics can't exist, neither should wikipedians by religion.--Sefringle^Talk 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that Wikipedians by political ideology is also currently under DRV and besides, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good argument in this.--Ramdrake 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion — Admins have to make tough calls some times and this was definitely one of them, but the demonstrable harm to the encyclopedia of this category was not trumped by any of the "but I like it" keep "rationales". --Cyde Weys 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse May do no harm but does no real good either. I'm against all forms of categories used only on userpages. We're editors, not bloggers. --Tellerman

Overturn closing admin's rationale makes no sense. "other similar categories deleted on same basis" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. This was a discussion for these categories and an overwhelming consensus to keep. You can't cite other consensus to override this consensus. -N 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn As a matter of procedure: the closing admin cites material which was not in the vote and discussion -- the so-called "similar" deletions -- and therefore not voted on and not discussed in this particular CFD. Similar deletions, if they apply, should be cited and simply become part of the open discussion and vote. In fact, the admin didn't contribute these "similar deletions" to the discussion. What's being suggested here is if an admin doesn't agree with the outcome of the vote and discussion, a "similar" deletions faux precedent can be applied in a totally arbitrary manner. How could this be "closed with delete" without reference to the vote and discussion which had just taken place? This wasn't a vote on the deletion of all editor self-identification categories, but a specific set of categories on which a specific discussion and vote took place. Let the vote and discussion of the deletion of all editor self-identification categories happen elsewhere if that's what this admin wants purged from the Wikipedia. patsw 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/remove from userboxes. There is obviously no consensus to delete outright. The idea that I think is the best and a most reasonable compromise based on the given arguments was the suggestion to simply remove these categories from userboxes. There is an encyclopedic use for them - finding people to write articles. If someone cares enough to add themselves to the category manually, chances are they are interested in helping to write an article. Getting them out of userboxes answers just about every objection other than the "religion=bad" objections, which, well, aren't very helpful. Banning userbox categories for anything other than babel boxes would actually solve a lot of life's woes - they serve no function other than to be annoying. When people add 50 userboxes to their userpage and that puts them in 50 categories, that doesn't do a thing in this world to help you find an editor on a topic of interest. But when you have to manually add your category, then user categories are actually helpful. --BigDT 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I just read WP:NOT, and I don't see why a few people at a small debate on a single issue should be able to ignore policy. I think it is great that whoever is in charge here can just go ahead and follow the rules despite the vote. Until(1 == 2) 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment To establish a consensus you have to cite something specific in WP:NOT that applies to this specific UCFD. It is unpersuasive the wave your hands over WP:NOT and declare it applies to this specific UCFD but not also to all of the other editor self-identification categories. patsw 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mild overturn - were half of the votes ILIKEITs, it'd still be a no consensus. I also have faith in the categories in that, unlike "Category:German Wikipedians who like to wear shower caps backwards on alternate Thursdays in months beginning with J", there is a chance for people to collaborate using these categories. A chance, mind, not a guarantee, but it does bond editors with a common encyclopedic interest together. While I know that most of this is more of a deletion debate keep, but it's still a valid point. Will ^(talk) 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Clear overturn at the least that was no consensus - I would have closed it as keep. There are several !ilikeit style votes, but this is user categories we are talking about, Ilikeit basically amounts to "I think it is useful" or "I dont think we are causing any harm" there were also several idontlikeit votes which amount to the opposite. in addition to that there was several Othercrapwasdeletedsothishsouldbetoo delete votes which are possibly the least useful of the lot as that its NOT the way wikipedia works. The results of a previous XfD on a similar subject do not nullify a newer one. That said, I don't think jossi made this call in bad faith, I just wish admins would stop imposing their will on closures - if you want to have a say, make an argument then damn well do it IN the debate itself. Viridae^Talk 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I never close AfDs or CfDs in which I participate in the discussion. That gives me the chance to review the comments and assess them on their merits. "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can fulfill the role that the "keep" comments want, so their concerns have been addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you close it if you participate in it. I was suggesting that if you had an opinion you should participate, rather than force it on the community by way of your close. Viridae^Talk 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What I did enforce is the overall view of the community as I assessed it to be, and not just the !votes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may have intended that and just been misreading a consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Wikipedians by political ideology.--T. Anthony 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS do not trump policy.Proabivouac 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While the MfD might not have consensus to delete, community consensus has been to delete user categories that are not directly related to one's editing of Wikipedia. As the closing admin pointed out, there are "interested in" categories that supplant this one and are far less divisive. This is a sticky issue, but I believe the closing admin followed proper process by dealing with the broader community consensus on policy, rather than the narrow consensus at the deletion debate. -- Kesh 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You said it yourself, there was NO consensus to delete. It might be pointed out that consensus can change, and that is why we hold seperate xfds for seperate articles, cats etc (even if they are related in style) - otherwise, you are essentially suggesting that when one set of categories, articles gets deleted then everything related or similar should go with it - that is not the case and that should never be the case. Viridae^Talk 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A clear statement has been made that divisive userboxes and (IIRC) user categories are to be deleted from Wikipedia. This overrides XfD consensus. -- Kesh 05:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • How exactly is this divisive? I support the removal of disruptive categories, userboxes etc but these are hardly that. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - We should focus on writing articles, not on navel gazing, and this one invites discord and strife. Zero value to the project. Crum375 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We give our admins certain discretion because we trust their judgement. Discretion was appropriately used here, in keeping with policy. An utterly needless and potentially damaging category. Marskell 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or maybe relist. As I voted "keep" maybe I shouldn't speak, but I can accept a consensus that goes against me. I just don't quite see the consensus here. Discounting every one-line statement about keep, and ones simply saying "I like it", there doesn't seem to be a consensus for delete. Deletion seems to be partly based on "other stuff was deleted", granted there might be no article for that idea, which I'm not sure is considered a valid reason. Although if we remove all "identity" categories then this would have to go.--T. Anthony 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Let's see. Are these categories in any way useful for building an encyclopedia? Probably not. Are they in any way harmful? No, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Is any of the content on most Wikipedians' pages useful for building an encyclopedia? Likewise, no. Unless we are willing to remove all personal content from user pages, undelete. (Not to mention that deletion was against a clear consensus to keep.) - Mike Rosoft 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Seems to have been properly closed. Admins are trusted to use discretion based on what's best for the project. ElinorD (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The only compelling arguments were on the "delete" side. The closer did an excellent job. Sean William ‹‹‹ 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Cyde and ElinorD, and particularly per all who reminded those here that Xfd is not a vote. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn per Anthongy. While the Puppy is correct that XfD is not a vote, 30/11 is a bit extreme and there were decent arguments in favor of keeping so it isn't like these were ILIKEIT keeps. JoshuaZ 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn. Here we go again: as with the political categories, this debate was closed without achieving anything remotely resembling a consensus to delete. Having taken an intermediate/compromise position in the discussion, I am appalled that Jossi's closing comments interpret "users can categorise themselves as Wikipedians interested in XXX" as endorsement or support for deletion. Those of us who argued in favour of "Interested in XXX" categories made clear that this was a proposal to rename the existing cats, not to delete them. There seems to be a misapprehension in the closing comments that "Interested in..." categories already exist for users to transfer themselves to. As far as I have ascertained, they generally don't. For a given religion, both "interested" and "identifier" userboxes will nearly always put you into the identifier category. Currently, only 3 interested cats exist (for Buddhists, Jews and Sikhs). As an enormous set of them will have to be created to replace the existing identifier cats, it makes sense to keep the latter and rename. This is an unfinished discussion, arbitrarily cut short. It seems to me that some people are treating deletion debates as a formality which can be ignored if the community doesn't reach the "right" conclusion. That's divisive and undermines the assumption of good faith. Gnostrat 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

comment: sofixit. Nobody is stopping anyone from creating these "Wikipedians interested in" categories. If you did not know it, note the wiki software does not allow the renaming of categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: When a verdict of rename is reached at UCfD, usually the closing admins recommends such and care is taken to create the new, renamed categories to replace the old one, including transcluding the users therein; here, a straight deletion was recommended, and such was carried out summarily, before even the end of the DRV. What's more, this is a supercategory containing about 150 individual categories, and thousands of individual users. If Jossi suggests that he really had in mind that the categories should be renamed, he should take up the task of renaming and transcluding all relevant subcats and users, (which is an admin task), and not suggest a mere editor do it.--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can transclude categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: as we're also speaking about around 150 cats encompassing several thousand users, I'm wondering if a mere UCFD delete is enough to settle the matter, or if it shouldn't have been brought to the Village Pump from the start?--Ramdrake 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Once again, we have an editor who has never been to UCFD unilaterally ignoring the wishes of the people registering their opinion there. This has to stop.--Mike Selinker 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may not understand what an xfD is and what does it means to close it. Closing admins take into consideration not only !votes of the few people that commented, but the arguments presented, and overall established understanding of what user categories are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

!Votes of the "few people who commented" was 30:11 in favor of keeping. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping, which if repelled would set a precedent by which all user categories must cease to exist. How could the closing admin dismiss such a consensus and such arguments without even mentioning them in his closing?--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've closed hundreds of discussions at CFD and UCFD, thanks. You, on the other hand, have commented exactly once at CFD and once at UCFD in 2007, before closing this debate. So I'd prefer it if you didn't lecture me about what you presume I don't know.--Mike Selinker 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I may not have closed CfDs, but have closed many xfDs. Your comment unilaterally ignoring the wishes of the people registering their opinion means that you have not understood the rationale for closing the way I did. People commenting in xfDs sometime does not represent established understanding and community consensus. In these cases a responsible sysop will do what I did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the people here understood the closing admin's rationale alright (at least most of them); they just don't agree with it.--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not !vote in xfDs or DRVs. We comment and bring forth our arguments to be evaluated on their merit. Counting !votes tripped you before, and is tripping you now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but I believe Wikipedia works by consensus. I would take a 30:11 expression of preference, without any indication of IPanon vote-stacking, or SPA activity, and no overarching reason to go against consensus (such as a copyright violation) as a pretty good consensus to keep. I'm not looking for an explanation to disregard the vote; I'm looking for an explanation to disregard the consensus.--Ramdrake 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that I took the keep comments into account in my closing, and I believe the expression of preference for keep can be bridged by the "Wikipedians interested in" categories. So, I still believe that the closing was expressing consensus, and not dismissing it. Now, we should let the DRV continue without additional back and forth between us. I guess that we can only agree to disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Community supports these categorizations despite a few editors zealously interested in their removal. Owen 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Policy and common sense trumps WP:ILIKEIT. Close was clearly in the interests of the project. And salt them too, so that this crap doesn't come back. MER-C 09:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- voting is evil, and admins are empowered to ignore non-compelling arguments. Liking a category is not compelling. --Haemo 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Policy and common sense also trump WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is what MER-C's comment amounts to, and the same goes for a number of the Delete arguments in the CfD (as well as vacuous comments here like "zero value", "closing admin made the right call" and the like). The Keep arguments weren't all about "liking a category", this has already been adequately answered on more than enough occasions. Perhaps we could focus on the procedural issue, which is whether the CfD was improperly closed. Since WP:CDP places on closing admins the requirement of ensuring there is rough consensus for a Delete, which self-evidently there was not, then we default to Keep. Admins are entrusted with discretion, but this should "respect the judgment and feelings of...participants", see WP:DGFA. Only basic non-negotiable policy considerations justify overriding editor opinion and I can find no such policies that apply here. Gnostrat 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I just noticed the closing admin for the original UCfD went and deleted the category while the DRV is still running (and should be left running for at least another 3 days, according to the 5-day guideline). Is this normal?--Ramdrake 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It would have been odd for that not to have happened. He closed the debate as delete and deleted them. You contested the decision and brought it here. It won't be undeleted unless consensus here demands that. So the article deleted, as it is, is the default; there is no reason to undelete it before this discussion ends. Dmcdevit·t 10:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Overturn-It was very obviously a "keep", beyond any possible re-interpretation. Calling it otherwise, simply because he felt other categories have been previously deleted for similar reasons, in inexcusable. When clear and overwhelming consensus says to keep (or even "no consensus if one wants to take ludicrous liberties), then it is never excusable to pretend it's a delete, just because one personally disagrees with consensus. If you don't like the results, file another ucfd. Bladestorm 16:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn It must be the summer sun (or for those in the southern hemisphere, the winter cool). There is just no way this could be closed as delete. Indeed, XfD is not a vote, but that's not a license to usurp an overwhelming consensus based on one's personal opinion. If you want to contribute your opinion, do so by commenting in the XfD debate. Admins are supposed to analyze consensus here, with some leeway to ignore far-out opinions, not force their personal opinion on the masses by claiming the delete votes (like "Let's get rid of this poisonous trash" and "consistency and fairness"?) were more compelling. I'm sure you meant well jossi, but closures like these give the impression that this deletion was unavoidable, that the category was just going to be deleted anyway and the five days of discussion was a waste of time. Frankly, that's an insult to the community (even if it was not intentional). -- tariqabjotu 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• If 50 people said "Lets keep a copyright violation", and 1 person said "No, that would be illegal", should "consensus" win? I would like to see the page that actually defines this strange usage of "consensus", so I can better understand the propriety of this closing. I think I am close to understanding it from seeing examples of it in use, but I am still a little confused. I hope it means that mob rule can be overruled when they use faulty rational. Until(1 == 2) 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• That could happen, if there was a clear violation of a non-negotiable policy, such as a copyright violation. There is no copyvio here, and no demonstrable, indisputable breach of a non-negotiable policy, and no demonstrated SPA or anon vote-stacking activity. Therefore, consensus should win. For a better definition of what should have happened, please refer to the category deletion policy.--Ramdrake 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I was using copyright as an example. But where does it tell me what "consensus" means here, because you folks are not using the dictionary for that word. Until(1 == 2) 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• To answer your question, please look up here and here.--Ramdrake 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ohhh a flowchart! I am in heaven! Until(1 == 2) 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion In the future, such categories must be speedied as clear violations of policy. Beit Or 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the only violation which might apply (although it has been strongly disputed here and in the original UCFD) is WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. If we find a violation here, despite the manifest use of these categories for encyclopaedia-building, then all user categories are in violation, as they can all be used for social networking.--Ramdrake 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I see no clear consensus to delete (and bear in mind "keep" is the default outcome). Reasonable arguments were presented on both sides, and the closing admin's interpretation was not necessarily reflected in the community's discussion. Hut 8.5 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn the entire UCFD process is out of control and doesn't reflect community concensus SchmuckyTheCat
• Overturn How can you argue that there is a clear consensus to delete. --MichaelLinnear 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blessthefall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)Article was deleted and recreated four times according to the protected articles page for May 2007. I never saw the page when it was around, but the band is clearly notable; see Their Allmusic writeup and Arizona Star article noting nationwide Warped Tour appearance. I am willing to write the article and establish notability if it is unprotected. Chubbles 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This was rather promotional in tone, and would have needed rewriting and better sourcing to survive an AfD. But it was deleted under A7 ("no assertion of significance or importance") while the article as last deleted included "blessthefall's debut album, His Last Walk, surfaced in April 2007". This might or might not be enough to pass WP:MUSIC, but IMO releasing any album at all (assuming this was a true release, not an Internet-only release, which i think it was, since a real label is mentioned) is enough of a "claim of notability" to avoid an A7 delete. I would overturn and list on AfD. But in any case, this should be unsalted as there is a good faith statement of intent to write a proper article on this group, which if possible should not be blocked merely because someone wrote a poor article in the past. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just a follow-up: that is indeed a true release, on Record Collection, which is a major-label subsidiary. Chubbles 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt The last version isn't worth undeleting. Support unsalting and recreation with sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm not proposing undeletion, but current contributors to the article seem to not have correctly understood the procedure for review. Coren 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am proposing undeletion. On a word per word basis, I noticed you had the most to day about deleting the article. Plus you were quite clearly flaming one of the contributors to the AfD page.130.194.13.101 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Article should not be deleted. It's relevant, if a little obscure. I also noticed it has been updated to show it's notability, which was one of Coren's main complaints about it. Although, since Coren hates to lose an argument, I'm sure he'll find something else to complain about.Manic4wiki 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article was only placed on Deletion Review after I was told by an administrator that was the only way to argue against her closing of the original argument (which her decision was to merge, not delete). Please reopen this discussion. Cazza411 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Closing admin used WP:SNOW with two "votes" for this; eight similar Afd's also closed with SNOW after very little input or time elapsed. John Vandenberg 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW was not used as the main reason, it was used as a second incidental reason. I believe, I gave my reasoning for closing in all. IMO, the articles didnt stand a chance. Anyways, feel free to overturn and relist for discussion. --soum ^talk 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:N is a guideline, and requires concensus for deletion, and five days is the time allocated to allow people to respond. Closing it after 12 hours is relying entirely on SNOW to do the close. All nine closes should be undone immediately to allow them to continue. John Vandenberg 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Overthrow and return to AfD. I understand soum's comment as agreeing to this, so i suggest Speedy.DGG 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was surprised at how quickly they were closed, but given the total lack of sources (most rely on myspace) I figured that WP:SNOW was as good a reason as any, I don't see the article being improved in the next four days. Darrenhusted 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Update, a speedy keep by the same admin has been reverted so the Afd continues. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamie Sheffield. The admin has a notice on the user page that they will be offline for the next two days. John Vandenberg 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The closing editor speedied 9 AFDs after 4 to 11 hours and with 2 to 4 delete !votes, then posted that he would be offline a couple of days. If so, it would have been better to let someone else close the debates so they could respond to questions about it, or to take a look at them after the 2 days off. WP:SNOW is not appropriate when, in some time zones, people were asleep and really had no opportunity to comment. Not enough time, and not enough persons participating, to justify a premature closing of debate and deletion of the subject. The AFDs which should be restored and relisted are: Tony Rumble (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes), Glen Osbourne (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Steve Madison (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) Ron Hutchinson (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Jake Milliman (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Rick Fuller (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Chet Jablonski (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes) , Steve Bradley (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes) , and Destine (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes). I see no benefit in deleting articles as soon as they are listed, thereby substituting the judgement of 2 to 4 editors for the many who check the listings each day. This is not to say they are great articles at all. Edison 15:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the closing admin has already reversed this set of deletions and re-opened the AfD discussions for each of them. This DRV can now be closed as no longer necessary. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Didar Singh Bains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No claim of significance or importance). It seems to me that such statements in the article as "one of the richest Sikh farmers in North America" "a leading figure in the Sikh community for the last 20 years". "president of the World Sikh organization" and "founder chairman of the World Kabbadi federation" do constitute an assertion of significance. Obviously better sroucing would be needed for this to survive an AfD, but I think these claims ought to be enough to avoid an A7 speedy. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, but has not responsed, although he responded to two later requests to reconsider speedy deletions with "Please see WP:DRV." DES ^(talk) 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio. —Cryptic 05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So it seems. Obviously a copyvio should not be undelted, nomination threfore withdrawn. However, i can only assume that the deleting admin didn't know it was a copyvio -- at any rate it wasn't so indicated in the deletion log. I maintain that had this not been a copyvio, it was not a proper A7 deletion. DES ^(talk) 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with the comment "Biographical article that does not assert significance" four times by the same admin. The admin was asked on his talk page to restore, and has not responded. The article says "Moore co-wrote the true-crime novel Deadly Medicine with ex-husband Dan Reed in the early 80s. The 295-page work went on to become a New York Times best-seller for seven weeks in 1988, and also a NBC TV movie-of-the-week." That is a very celar claim ot notability. I don't see how anyone can think this is an A7 speedy delete. On that basis alone I would be incined to a keep at an AfD, assuminmg that this claim was sourced. But even if some editors might reasonably opt for deletion at an afd, this isn't the kind of "clear-cut" case that speedy deletion is intended for. Overturn deletion. DES ^(talk) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would not undelete this, as the article was clearly promotional in tone, but it may well be possible to write an article on the book (whicih has received significant non-trivial coverage) and a redirect to there would be unproblematic. There seems to be no claim to notability other than the single book. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't know if other claims to notability would arise as the article develops, or in an AfD, but IMO being the author of even a single book on the NYT bestseller list is enough of a claim to notability to avoid a speedy, and quite probably enough to avoid deletion at an AfD. If the article was somewhat promotional in tone (I would not call it "blatant spam") then it could be rewritten to accord with WP:NPOV easily enough. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notability is an artificial construct. What matters is the sources, and whether the sources are predominantly about the book or the author. If they are about the book (and those cited were) then the article should be about the book. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is a judgement call -- it can be discussed on the talk page of the restored article, or in an AfD. The article could be moved and rewritten to be about the book, or sources more directly about the author might be found. In any case, that is not the kind of decision that ought to be made by one or two editors, but by a more general consensus. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete as an invalid speedy We should follow process. (anyway, promotional tone is not an accepted reason for speedy.) The book was on the best seller's list, so writing it is unquestionably an assertion of significance (whether or not it may be sufficient) and does not qualify for Speedy. Doing it wong 4 times does not make it right. DGG 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Promotional in tone" was being kind. It was written as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete - claim to notability is established; while there might be other reasons to delete it, this should had been AfD. Though a minor writer, the notability still exists. --Thespian 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete I don't think this was blatant advertising... any more than any article about a published writer is inherently advertising. Yes some people might read the description and decide to read the author's work, but this article was just giving encyclopedic information and it did give a claim of notability. We really shouldn't speedy delete stuff like this. Replace this Amazon link with a "find in a library" link perhaps. --W.marsh 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete then AfD it. It isn't quite clear cut enough for a speedy. --BozMo talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - It's only 2 paragraphs, the first is clearly biographical, the 2nd is clearly promotional. Easily fixed with an edit rather than a deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and list on AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn/undelete per W.Marsh and no reason to AfD since the author of a NYT bestseller is clearly notable. Akradecki is correct about the need to remove the second paragraph in question. JoshuaZ 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list: co-writing a clearly-notable book is an assertion of notability, so this is not A7 fodder. It does not, however, demonstrate notability, since notability is not contagious, and it is quite possible that an author (and even more, a co-author) is not notable, despite one notable work. (I'm co-author, along with thousands of other people, of some very notable software projects, but that doesn't make me notable.) What we have here is questionable-but-possible notability, so AfD is the right way to resolve this. Xtifr _tälk 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Needs clean-up (even "needs extensive clean-up" or "needs total overhaul") are not valid reasons to delete an article about a best-selling author, let alone speedy. Undelete this article; then improve it. --JayHenry 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Rewriting the entire article based on other existing articles

Spyware Terminator's page was deleted for reasons of "blatant advertising". Upon comparing what was on the page previously, the information contained was no different from the information contained in Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spysweeper, or Windows Defender. I also rewrote the page following the layout and information of Ad-Aware and that was also deleted.

I do not mind rewriting the page from scratch, and working with people to make it look less like an advertisement, assuming it ever did look one. Cableguytk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The last version of the article, in full, was: Spyware Terminator is a freeware software program from Crawler,LLC used to help remove various kinds of Spyware and Malware from Windows based computers. Spyware Terminator incorporates realtime protection, basic HIPS protection, and Clam AV integration to help protect computers from these threats. This was tagged with db-spam, but this is not sapm, it is no more spammy than most stub-class articels on software. The deletion log said "tagged as spam, deleted as nn software/freeware." But "non-notable software" is not a speedy deletetion reason, nor does WP:CSD#A7 apply to software of any sort, nor should it iMO. Overturn and list on AfD to determine by consensus discussion if this should be included or not. It may not be notable, but I can't tell, and that is not a judgement properly made by one admin. Yes admins are trusted, but one pair of eye is simply not enough.DES ^(talk) 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See comments below. DES ^(talk) 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Already afd'd here. Nomination amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Endorse and keep salted. —Cryptic 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'm sorry but I am not clear on where this discussion started or what. That AFD says I cant modify it, so what am I supposed to do? I was not aware of this AFD nomination previously. So I would like to start a 3rd nomination so that I may voice my opinion. Cableguytk 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I see. Since this had previously been deleted via an AfD deletion discussion (twice in fact) it would have been helpful had the speedy reason been given as G4 (recreation of deleted content) with a link to the prior AfD (or in this case, AfDs). The AfDs cited two primary reasons for deletion: lack of notability, and advertising. IMO the latest version had already dealt with the advertising issue. If any editor wants there to be an article on this procuct, that editor should, IMO, 1) create a draft that clearly establishes notability by including references to non-trivial mentions in multiple independant reliable sources. 2) When and if such a draft is complete, bring it here for review. if it establishes notability, then and only then the article should be unsalted and the new version moved into article space. DES ^(talk) 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Info: Distinguish page Spyware Terminator from page Spyware terminator. Anthony Appleyard 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have made a draft and published it several times but it keeps being deleted. I believe it addresses the advertisement-look and the lack of resources.

Here is my draft which was so nicely deleted:

• The text of the article can now be found at User:Cableguytk Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This layout: 1) does not appear to be advertising to me 2) follows a mesh of the layouts at Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Windows Defender (mostly focusing on Spybot) 3) has a good amount of sources. Unfortunately due to the age of this product (around 1.5yrs), the lack of a hosuehold name like "Ad-Aware", and continuous negative campaigns against the product, including here on Wikipedia, not many other sources are available outside of the ones provided.

Please review the entry and let me know your opinions. Cableguytk 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've g4d this again and salted the properly-capitalized title as well. The new and improved independent reliable sources cited in this version were spywareterminator.com-domain links (11 of them!), a single reprinted press release, and links to download sites, just like those that were in the version deleted at afd. How many times do we go through this before folks stop assuming good faith? —Cryptic 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• As I said, the program is ONLY 1.5 years old. Combine that with the fact that it is not a household name, it is mistaken for many bad products (Spyware-Terminator 4.0), it was briefly listed on SpywareWarrior.com, and it is developed by a company which had PREVIOUS ties with an adware company which eventually changed its business practices. There is NOT much for me to work with here. How many different download sites can I link before it becomes too redundant? This isn't Ad-Aware or SpyBot where the product has been around for 10 years for people to test and award it. Cableguytk 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Can you provide multiple independant third party coverage to allow us to establish notabiliuty and verify information. Stress on the words multiple and independant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• If there is really "NOT much ... to work with here" that rather sugests a lack of notability. Please understand that the question isn't whether this software in some sense "deserves" an article because it is good software, or because it has had bad breaks. Nor is wikipedia a place to publicze unknown software. We have articles only about notable subjects, and that generally means a significant amount of attention has been paid to the subject by someone other than its creator, If there has not been such attention, the article will have to wait until there is. If there has been, then an article needs to document it. DES ^(talk) 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

the "11" links to the Spyware Terminator domain were to cover me should anyone claim that any of it was independent research, since Im always beig flagged for this kind of stuff. I linked to Download.com (which Ad-Aware does), I linked to a couple domains which have awarded the program (Softpedia.com, and Xmaesto.com), and I linked a press release which was about Spyware Terminator's associated former parent company changes in business practices. Other than that, there really isnt much out there worth linking, unless you want me to link up to the plethora of download sites similar to Download.com and Softpedia.com that have reviewed and listed the program. In all, I have links to 4 different independent sources (websearch.com, softpedia, xmaesto, and download.com) By comparison:

• Ad-Aware - 2 different independent links (2 links to google, 1 to download.com)
• SpyBot - 0 different independent links
• Windows Defender - 3 different independent link
• Spyware Doctor - 5 different independent sources

Cableguytk 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:INN, if you find articles which don't meet wikipedia requirements like verifiability please consider (a) fixing them or (b) nominating them for deletion if unfixable, but whatever you do don't see it as a green light for creating more of the same. --pgk 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Deletion of those articles is not my objective, nor should it be. The only reason why the Spyware Terminator article is deleted and not those articles is because there are more people out there who want to run negative campaigns against the software, and less who want to for those listed programs. So there is more likely to be a person on Wikipedia who wants to do whatever they can to take down Spyware Terminator. Im sorry, but Im not going to flag those articles for being bad...I see them as being legitimate articles worthy of being listed, and if the admins see otherwise, let them handle it. My objective is to get the Spyware Terminator article relisted, and if the admins do not see a problem with those articles listed above UNLESS a user raises issue, then the Spyware Terminator article should not be discriminated against. Cableguytk 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Admins are volunteers, admins do not spend all their time looking at every article and vetting it, so yes unless someone flags an issue with an article it may go unnoticed for a long time. That's the way it works. Admins are also not obliged to bring every article up to scratch just because someone points it out to them. Sorry you see this as some sort of grand conspiracy, it isn't and declaring it as such is unlikely to garner any sympathy. As for discrimination, yep wikipedia discriminates against all sorts of content based on our basic standards of verifiability, no original research etc. etc. If you want somewhere which is merely a "fair" free for all where any crap goes, wikipedia is not the place there are plenty of free web hosts out there. --pgk 08:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious endorse deletion. Article was canonical spam, author is pretty obviously promoting his own interests here. Nothing to see, move along please. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - As I read the draft article, I got the distinct feeling I was reading the software's box, complete with the systems requirements label. Sorry, but not only was the article not encyclopedic, there was nothing in the article that convinced me that this particular program was notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia. (And just for the record, between the two versions of the title, this article has been deleted a total of 9 times...enough already!) AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• JzG: so you would rather me go around and nominate for deletion every article like Ad-Aware, SpyBot...anyone that I found to be a junky article, thus causing the future removal of articles which no one maintains, yet there is no desire to list an article which may be bad in some peoples eyes but has a good following of people who are willing to maintain it to make it look good? I just dont see how this helps Wikipedia.
  

Akradecki:Why dont you go check Ad-Aware or Spybot or Windows Defender while you are at it and tell me what you think of those articles?
Seeing as how the admins dont mind reading those other articles during this deletion review for comparison, why arent those up for deletion? Oh right, because no non-admin has voted them for deletion review.
As I have been indicating, just put the article back up and, as you see that I am willing to maintain the article, i will clean it up to the point where it doesnt look like ad advertisement. There is not much that can be done with the artcile if it is not available to me or anyone else. Oh yeah, I can attempt to edit it offline, but the incremental update history which Wikipedia provides helps admins see where changes have been made and where suggestions can be made.
If the Ad-Aware and Spybot articles were to get deletion review tags for spam/advertisements, editors would be able to edit the articles to make those changes before the article was to be deleted. That is how it worked with Softpedia and WIP (AM), both of which I am/was an active editor with. People had a problem, i edited the articles and resolved the problem. Cableguytk 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion fails to meet our standards, nominators insistance that it should be here because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS whilst not willing to nominate that other stuff for deletion suggests they just want to use wikipedia as a free webhost, something it is not --pgk 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Spyware Terminator already has its own webhost (spywareterminator.com), there is no point to having wikipedia be a webhost. The intention here is to have an article which gives the user a one page rundown of the product without having to 1) download the product, 2) install the product, or 3) run the product. It is to inform the user of the product, its intent and a short history. I am not willing to nominate any of those articles for deletion because I personally dont feel like they need deletion. For simple windows software the layout of these pages, including Spyware Terminator's previously deleted one, is sufficient to inform the user of the program and its intents. Let me put it this way, if today was September 11, 2001 @9AM and you wanted to make an article, the article would be 100% made from original research. You saw the event, no papers have written anything yet, and all that exists is your word and the next guy's. Obviously this article is a major historical event that needs to be in Wikipedia, but you are going to tell me that it requires deletion because there are no sources available, or the article does not become valid until you find some independent sources like the NYTimes/CNN/etc. to write a story about it? And when someone complains that it was deleted because there are no published sources for 9/11 at 9AM, and the reply that entries for biblical events like Noah's Ark have no published resources and you going to say that this falls into the category os WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I doubt that. Every piece of history in the history books, even the BIBLE, has had some form of original research or content. Information about the most generic parts of an event dont require citations or the sort - 9/11 = 2 planes hit the WTC, 1 plane downed in PA, 1 plane into the pentagon - it is not until you start going into detail with claims that you need that kind of citation. In sum, every article has a good portion which is and requires original research, things that dont need citations to say that it happened or existed. If the Spyware Terminator article is made to be a stub which says "Spyware Terminator is a freeware application which removes and protects from spyware. It was developed by Crawler, blah blah" that is fine. In time, there will be some notable sources which will publish verifiable information. In 9/11's case it didnt take much more than an hour...in Spyware Terminator's case it might take a few weeks, but it certainly is no grounds for deleting the article. Cableguytk 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - do you realize that by saying "The intention here is to have an article which gives the user a one page rundown of the product without having to 1) download the product, 2) install the product, or 3) run the product. It is to inform the user of the product, its intent and a short history", you are essentially admitting that you are spamming? Your point is to provide information to the users/customers of this product, the very definition of spam. We are not a place to promote a product to potential users! I don't know how much clearer we can make this basic concept. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Not in my book. All the "spam" i receive insists I download or try the stuff Im informed about. Besides, what do you think the Ad-Aware, SpyBot, etc. articles are doing? In theory I could consider information about every article in here as spam if you define it that way. The sports articles introduce themselves, tell you where it can be found on TV, what is so great about the program, etc. That is not spam in your book? [McDonalds] article describes the store, its history, and its products. That is not spam in your book? It seems the only difference you make between a product article which is spam and which isnt spam is notable sources, but from my discussion above, sources dont make something notable or not. Again, in the first hour of 9/11, it is only seen by viewers eyes and the only people writing about it on are unrespected editors of the wikipedia community. It only becomes "notable" once there are articles in CNN or NYTimes apparently... Cableguytk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly. Notability, as we define it here at Wikipedia (see WP:N), is conferred by the existence of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. What I was referring to by your admission of spamming is the intention of the article: you were aiming it to inform specifically users or potential users of the software. In other words, it's not a general article for a general audience of a documentedly notable subject, it's an article that you specifically wrote to promote the product to a specific audience, the potential users of the product. That's basic marketing, my friend, and Wikipedia simply isn't a venue for marketing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You didnt address what I said, and I dont care about OTHERCRAPEXISTS because this is a valid statement. What about McDonalds, Burger King, NFL, etc. These have nothing to do with software, but it relates directly to it. I can go as far to Windows, and Sports, and television programs. They are all the same thing, product placement. It is all spam the way you define "spam". They are all articles aptly placed on Wikipedia to raise product awareness, that is all they are there for. The difference between Spyware Terminator and these other products is two fold: 1) a decent following of people willing to defend and edit the article (as you can see I am pretty much the only one on the defense team for the Spyware Terminator article here), and 2) a storied history from 10 years up to 100 years long. Cableguytk 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• List at AfD All these articles list no independent RSs, except their forums. they could--some of them have been reviewed. It's been customary to cut corners for software people recognize as notable. The comments about differential treatment are in my opinion justified. To establish the standard of content in WP for a class of articles, comparisons are relevant, consistency is important, othercrapexists is over-used--it's only appropriate when the other stuff is crap. DGG 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete and keep salted, there is differential treatment between other software and this one because Spyware Terminator, unlike some others, is not notable. (Or, at least, notability cannot be established). The whole point of notability guidelines is differential treatment. Coren 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And what leads you to believe it is not notable? Because there are no reviews by the industry-standard PC Magazine (which are in progress, mind you)? No content on TV about the product on G4TV? No recurring advertisments in major US magazines? I think you are clouded in your thought that the only notable security applications contains only 5 products (Adaware, spybot, Spysweeper, Windows Defender, CounterSpy). If you go over to Brazil or Czech Republic, you will find many more people who think Spyware Terminator is more notable than the aforementioned products. I guess Spyware Terminator should use some kind of aggressive advertising campaign like the aforementioned products or pay Download.com to be listed on the frontpeage when new updates arrive (like Ad-Aware) to become notable...however that would be seen as spam. Cableguytk 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an even better idea. Why dont you point me in the direction of an article of a software title which you DO accept. Then I can model Spyware Terminator's after that one so we wont have this problem. I can point you in the direction of several articles which exist on Wikipedia for every type of software, security, chat, fun, etc., and most, while accepted by the masses, dont follow guidelines and seem just like a big spam advert. So I want you to find me one you think follows guidelines to a T. Cableguytk 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of the form, of what it is "modeled on". For any topic, software, or pop star or author, or firearm, there needs to be notability. The most usual means of establishing notability is to show that there are reliable sources, independant of the subject or its creator or proprietor, that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. Note that blogs and fansites are enerally not reliable sources, and the site of the product manufturer may not be considered reliable, and is never independant. If other software articels have reliabel sources and this one doesn't, this one will be delted and the others won't. if other software articles also lack reliable sources, then they too will probably be delted in time, but there is no all-or-nothing rule, we get to things as we get to them. Srop trying to compare with other articles, good or bad, and find some sources that indicate significant notability for this software. If none can be found, thre won't be an article until such sources come into existance. If a PC-mag review is in the works, try again after it has been published, for example. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But it is does seem to be partially about a question of form as far as other admins seem to make mention of. As other admins have brought up, a version history apparently refers to spam, as does referring to the developer webpage 10+ times (which was done to cover my ass in the event that someone said my content was original research, which it was not), as does informing people what the program does. If I had compare the article to the established Yahoo! Messenger, it includes a version history, it also involves links to Yahoo! pages, and it also is an informative page about what it does, yet no one over there complains. There is obviously some standard for software that is engrained to all admins minds. On a second note, I did find notable sources - Download.com (#1 download site in the world), Softpedia.com (#3 download site in the world), websearch.com (another search engine, just as notable as the next search engine). Apparently there is some hidden standard of sources of what is notable and what is not, because apparently the ones I mentioned are not enough to satisfy. Do all the sites need to ranked in the top 10 of alexa rankings to be notable or something? Moreover, every attempt I made to recreate the article was subsequently deleted without discussion, just the standard G11-XXX spam message with no clarification. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural note for the record - If the deletion is upheld, the draft article needs to be removed from the user's page, and put into a sandbox if he wants to keep working on it. Spam on a user's page is still spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Being on a user subpage isn't really any better than being directly on a user page. What matters is that it's being actively worked on instead of hanging around indefinitely as an article surrogate. —Cryptic 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed in principle, but having it on a main user page makes it a much more visible target for someone to tag again for speedy. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • There article was put on my page by an admin, not me. Since the admin thought it good to be put there instead, I am maintaining it until it is accepted. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the article was indeed pretty promotional in tone, right down to speculation on the next release and system requirements. There might be an article to be had on this software, there might not, but regardless, that one wasn't it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, I can find about 10 other articles that do the same. The admins go out of there way to keep a watchdog on the Spyware Terminator pages and make sure that no one edits them, so I dont see a problem with the admins going out of the way to delete these other pages by themselves. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If Spyware Terminator is flagged as advertising than any individual product on WIKI should be deleted as advertising. As they are tooting their own horn. Either let them stay or delete them all. Categories could just be Spyware elimination programs, Virus elimination programs etc...This way everything sounds impartial. sleepm 26 June 2007
• Endorse Deletion. I trudged through nearly a dozen pages of Google results without finding a single article in a notable source with this product as its primary subject--just loads of download links and a few user reviews. Ad-Aware and Spybot, on the other hand, have been discussed as the primary subject of articles that would satisfy WP:RS. With that said, the arguments in favour of restoring this article seem to amount to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and I don't see any problems with process being suggested here. Heather 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • • Finding articles is one thing, having them linked on the wikipedia page is another, something which the Ad-aware and Spybot pages fail to do (they both have the same, or fewer, number of sources that my Spyware Terminator article had). If you spoke Czech, Im sure you would find a good number of notable sources since the company is based out of Czech Republic. Cableguytk 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ad-Aware and Spybot have been around alot longer than ST has. Is it being penalized for being too new? Either it is truly an Encyclopedia or it isn't. If it is just an Encyclopedia than no "products" should be allowed period. If it is not than it should be allowed. HAS ANY OF THE PEOPLE SHOOTING IT DOWN ACTUALLY TRIED THE PROGRAM? sleepm 26 June 2007
    • • Wikipedia is not a place for promoting or endorsing or advertising any program or service. Therefore, not having an article on a particular program is not "penalizing" it. We don't care about whether a program is represented or not. We care about whether our standards are met. Just because there's an article on another product doesn't mean "they are tooting their own horn." In fact, they better not be...we take a dim view of marketing folks doing that. Yes, it happens, and you have to keep in mind that there are 1.8+million articles here, and only 1,200+ admins, but I think I can speak for just about every admin when I say that if we get wind of such a self-horn-tooting campaign, we take it seriously, and try to get the offender to politely stop, and if not, not only do we remove the spam, but we will block the spammer, if they aren't responsive to respecting our standards. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether those products are tooting their own horn is not my problem (obviously sleepm has a problem with it). My problem is that when I recreated the article, which was subsequently deleted, I followed a guideline which said that when recreating an article make sure to follow the layout of previously established articles. I went to all three articles, Ad-Aware, SpyBot and Windows Defender, and made a layout which was kind of a mesh of all three...I followed the layout, i followed the tone of voice, the number of resources...everything. YET the page was STILL deleted. It shows proof of preferential treatment. The admins are not letting me or anyone else recreate the article to even ATTEMPT to clean it up. As you can obviously see I am more than willing, along with a host of other people to clean the article, make it appealing and conform to standards, yet the admins have some personal vendetta against the progra or the article and wont let that happen. Cableguytk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Endorse deletion. That's pretty much the problem. Your product is newer, and therefore has not had the reliable sources to comment on it. Once it becomes well-known, is written about by those reliable sources, and gets some cachet, then come back. Corvus cornix 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So basically you are telling me that if some major historical event was to happen right now or soon, I couldnt have it added to Wikipedia until a credible resource wrote about it? So if Barry Bonds was to hit 7 homeruns tonight, effectively breaking Hank Aaron's record, I couldnt write about it until a credible resource like CNN, AP, NYTimes, etc. wrote about it even though millions of people know of the event? Or if we had a major nuclear attack on some country, I couldnt write about that until the AP or CNN reports it even though billions of people know about it? Im not sure you realize that most of what Comptons and Brittanica publish is conjecture and based on the experience of a single author or historian. Cableguytk 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yup. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (see WP:NOTNEWS). If you don't like the policies, you're free to go start a discussion about it on the appropriate policy or guideline page. Until they are changed, though, that's the standard. Not liking it, though, is not a reasonable justification for ignoring it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, then I must really be missing something...Main_Page has a whole section devoted to today's news. Cableguytk 02:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • If you look at the bottom of the news box, it has a link to Wikinews, which is for news, and is where the content of that box comes from. Thus your arguement is invalidated.Improbcat 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
              • So then what is to say i can't post news of a new release of Spyware Terminator there if a proper press release is provided? Cableguytk 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
                • The fact Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]? As has been pointed out to you before and as I just confirmed by pointing out the flaw in your argument. At this point you are either being intentionally obtuse, or are fundamentally incapable of grasping the basic concepts of what wikipedia is and isn't.

If people tell you what wikipedia's policy on something is, and link to an explanation of said policy, then you need to stop arguing that that isn't the case. It has been shown to be the case, and any further claims to the contrary just appear that either you are not listening, or are trying to confuse the issue by arguing minutia that has already been deemed irrelevant. If you disagree with the policy, this is not the place to argue that. Argue it on the policy page, but the policy is not going to be changed because you said here you don't agree with it. Improbcat 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not refuting wikipedia's policies, Im arguing the point that Spyware Terminator is being held to preferential treatment. Some of the admins keep bringing up policies which I dont refute, but they are being held against the Spyware Terminator article and not against other articles.

Spyware Terminator has resources and it is deleted while SpyBot's article and a couple of my other articles have no sources, but they are left alone?

Spyware Terminator is accused of spamming/etc. yet articles written in the exact same form and language are left alone (SpyBot, Adaware, etc.)?

The resources I used in the Spyware Terminator article as sources were not valid even when they are used in other articles?

The policies instituted by Wikipedia are meant to bring about an all or none mentality. In other words, exceptions are not made. So if that is the case, then why are there still tons of articles which fall into the category of being an exception? In other words, "we make exception for Ad-Aware and SpyBot because, oh no one was DRV'ed it". Or, "we make exception for products like McDonalds and Burger King because they actually have a storied history". Or to take it one step further: "we wont delete XXX article because no one has DRV'ed it, but we will delete Spyware Terminator recreations without question or discussion". Cableguytk 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • Look, this is the last time I am replying, because I have seen no sign that you are actually listening to anything anyone is saying. The reason the admins are paying any attention to spyware terminator is because an editor submitted it to DRV or speedied it. An editor with as much access and power as you. The admins aren't "singling you out", they are paying attention to the DRV or speedied items, which is there roles as admins.

If an editor, any editor, were to bring the other articles you keep talking about to their attention via DRV or speedies, they would pay attention to those. In fact, the main reason for deleting you article is lack of reliable sources, and the spybot article is tagged as having the same problem. So people aren't giving the spybot article a free pass, they are noting it has the same problem. And if someone were to DRV it, it would need to prove it's notability the same as your article. Yes, your article happened to have been DRVed and spybot wasn't but that wasn't "singling out", it is happenstance. There are over 1.8 MILLION articles on wikipedia, and as such there are many articles that have not been properly vetted, wikipedia is an ongoing process so sometimes it just takes longer to get to some articles than others.

Yes, at this point editors and admins are probably "singling out" the spyware terminator, but that is due to your repeated violations of the policies of wikipedia. And the fact that rather than making your article comply, you simply keep reposting it, and arguing loudly that it should stay, regardless of it's meeting of the rules or not. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease", or in this case "The article who's author repeatedly ignores AfD rulings, doesn't make their article meet the required guidelines, spams it to multiple other listings, and writes multi-paragraph arguments rather than providing any independent sources get DRVed first".

As for the MacDonalds and Burger King articles you bring up The both have multiple independent references and have been the subject of many stories, books, articles, etc. completely independent of the company. Thus they clearly and easily meet the relevant requirements for their inclusion.

Your article doesn't, plain and simple. Your multiple internal references are NOT valid as proof of notability. Why? Because they are not reliable independent references. Period. Everyone here is pretty much trying to tell you "These are the requirements for inclusion, meet these and your article qualifies to be here. Don't and it qualifies to be deleted." And rather than meeting those requirements, you are instead arguing with them and intentionally misunderstanding them or twisting them to try and find a reason why your article should be allowed to stay when it quite simply does not meet he requirements. The fact that other adware articles are simply at the "qualifies to be deleted" stage and haven't yet been deleted is completely irrelevant to this.

If you truly feel that your article should be on wikipedia, here is the only sure-fire way for that to happen. Shut up here. Read all of the various pages of rules and guidelines for inclusion that people have linked to here. Go out and find Reliable independent sources relevant to your article. Link to them in your copy of said article. Re-submit the article to Deletion Review, and ask if it qualifies, and if people say it doesn't find out why, then use that information to fix the article again. If you are unwilling to do that, no amount of arguments or comparisons to other articles is going to make a bit of difference. Improbcat 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • So have you looked at Spybot's Wiki? Are they not "tooting their horn" by talking about awards they have won? Or using the words excellent and applauded? Isn't talking about its features like an ad for the product? And Ad-Aware lists system requirements, why? because they are trying to get people to use it. (ad material) Lets be fair for all or fair for none. sleepm 26 June 2007
• If anyone is interested the previous afds are here:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware terminator
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware terminator (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware Terminator . 650l2520 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. Can someone nuke the userpage at the end of the debate, as it is blatant userspace spam?
• Endorse Deletion Non-notable software that fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), complete lack of independent sources, multiple AfDs. And the author has stated repeatedly that the page is there to promote the software, which makes it spam by wikipedia's definition. Also is Cableguytk working for or otherwise connected to this company? Because that adds an extra layer of conflict of interest to the debate. Improbcat 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You all fail to answer. Is Spybot,Ad-Aware and AVg Antivirus promoting their products? Of course they are! Are they wrong also then? By your standards and definitions of course they are! So why are they allowed to get away with it? Where is the justice? sleepm 27 June 2007
    • Because the admins wont go out of their way to delete pages without someone requesting a proper Deletion review (DRV). Because I dont feel it is in my best interests, or wikipedia's, to go around DRV'ing articles and getting legitimate articles DELETED, Spyware Terminator will receive preferential treatment because there are tons of people out there willing to endorse its deletion because of their misguided views of its previous business ties. That about sums it up. What is worse, is that the article is not even allowed to exist as a stub, and every attempt to do so is deleted without discussion OR DRV NOMINATION, yet a couple of articles I have created that dont have a single source have not been touched because it refers to information which is apparently "notable". Cableguytk 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You keep saying Spybot, etc. are promoting their products on wikipedia. Except that they aren't. People have written articles about them, but the companies themselves did not put the articles up. In fact Wikipedia has pretty clear rules regarding conflict of interest. Furthermore it has been pointed out more than once in this discussion alone that you can not use one article's validity to support another article's validity. If you feel that Spybot, etc. are not valid articles, nominate them for deletion, otherwise shut up about them. Improbcat 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • As far as I know the original article was written by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajeshontheweb or whatever his name was (i unfortunately cant view any kind of history related to the page to say who originally started the article). And that was deleted. Im not accusing those articles of being written by the company, but I am saying that they use the exact same tone of voice, indicating intended product awareness. And no, im not going to DRV them for a couple reasons: 1) it is not in mine or wikipedia's best interest in deleting perfectly legitimate articles, 2) I dont have any interest in defending or pariticipating in a DRV discussion, and 3) I dont feel like getting the data necessary to put up a good fight for pages I care nothing about. I might not be able use that as an argument to prove Spyware Terminator's validity, but the argument is a valid one because while it may not give reason to restore the page, it does bring to light the fact that the page is being given preferential treatment (it is pretty clear that people here have a bit of a bias). Cableguytk 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to make one more attempt at trying to clearly annunciate for Cableguytk and Sleepm:

1. One article existing is not justification for another article existing. Each is evaluated individually.
2. Wikipedia's policies are not designed for "all or nothing" decisions as Sleepm asserts. Just the opposite. Our policies state that each individual article must stand or fall on its own by demonstrating compliance with policies and guidelines.
3. The articles on the other software brands are not, as far as I can tell, promotions by their respective manufacturers. Neither is the McDonalds nor Burger King articles.
4. The core issues here are threefold:
   1. The article, standing on its own merit, fails our notability test.
   2. The article, standing on its onw merit plus the clearly stated intent of the author is to directly promote the product to users and potential users, thereby qualifying as spam.
   3. The articles have already had judgement pronounced through mulitple AfDs.
5. This is not a conspiracy by admins against a particular software brand.
6. The above referenced users can now no longer claim someone hasn't addressed their questions.
7. Cableguy is not quite correct: yes, the original Spyware terminator was created by someone else, but after its initial deletion for spam, he recreated it, and he was the original creator of Spyware Terminator.

Having said all this, and since I'm involved in the discussion so can't exercise admin tools here, with a current tally of 9:1 endorsing deletion, can someone please snow this thing? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • The original writer of the article is a forum member of ST. Another forum member mentioned a Wiki article so he took it upon himself to do one. I never cared if there was a Wiki article until I saw other companies getting away with "advertising" while ST got deleted. Spyware Terminator does not need a Wiki article anyway. Word of mouth and effectiveness will take care of its reputation and increase it's following. Goodbye Wiki people!! sleepm 27 June 2007.
  • Oops...I am back. I happened to check Wiki for Smitfraud info and I noticed that "Spyhunter"

is advertised on that page and it even says it is recommended by Wiki-Security?http://smitfraud.wiki-security.com/wiki/ov_Parasite/Smitfraud/. This is a blatant ad. sleepm 28 June 2007.

• If you bothered to visit the about page for wiki-security you will see that it is run by Four Winds Marketing, LLC. Wikipedia is run by Wikimedia Foundation, a completely separate and unrelated entity. The wiki software, MediaWiki is available for anyone to use, and is used by many companies and organizations completely separate from the Wikimedia Foundation (see List of wikis for some examples). Just because something has "Wiki" in the title, doesn't mean it has any connection to wikipedia, aside from running the MediaWiki software (and possibly not even that).

Also, I checked the SmitFraud page on wikipedia, and see no mention of spyhunter on that page. Please check to make sure you are actually on wikipedia before making claims that something is violating wikipedia's rules. Improbcat 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• So why was Spyware Terminator not steered towards this site since you can advertise on it and it is computer security related? And why is Spysweeper, Ad-Aware and Spybot not placed in this area or another area. There should be no "products" in the encyclopedia that can be advertised.

If anything all these type of programs should just say they help remove spyware, adware etc. and that is it. About a 3 sentence Wiki.

• Because until you posted it here, I had no idea that site existed. Nor, I'm guessing, did anyone else who has commented here. Once again it is not part of wikipedia, it is a completely separate website. Wikipedia can't "place" articles in that "area" because it isn't part of wikipedia. If you want to go over there and write articles, knock yourself out.

Regarding your continued comments on the other products, this has been addressed ad-nauseum by myself and other editors. Your continued failure to grasp the point (intentional or otherwise) does nothing but completely undermine your continued arguments.

Let me state it once again, for the last time. The Spyware Terminator article does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements. The only way to keep an article on wikipedia is to have it meet those requirements, as shown by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your continued arguments based on other articles is not an appropriate or valid argument to make regarding deletion. The very fact that there are 1.8+ million articles on wikipedia, and that all the editing work here is voluntary means that some articles will get attention before others. At some point some editor (possibly me as lately I've been working on spyware related articles, but possibly not depending on my free time) will turn their attention to those articles. But that doesn't affect the Spyware Terminator article at all, as each article has to stand or fall on its individual merits. 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • thanks for your reply.....:)

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

This was closed as a delete on AfD despite only about one third of responders arguing for this option, based apparently only on the opinion of the closing admin. The excuse appears to have been on the grounds of WP:BLP, despite the fact that a) the person concerned is dead and b) if there any grounds that would affect living relatives, neither the closer nor anyone else has suggested what those might be. This was completely out of process. (Edit: Tony has since claimed on IRC that he interpreted this AfD as needing "consensus to keep", evidently due to the odd BLP argument. I've never seen a case like this.) Rebecca 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Response of AfD closer: this was not a vote. There were very few editors in favor of keeping the article in its original form. Many wanted a merge. Others pointed out that the case was covered well in Big Day Out. There are living relatives and so BLP policy applies in the sense that we should cover the event, not the person (who in this case is notable only in death). Accordingly, my considered close was as follows:

  The event is encyclopedic, and is handled in an encyclopedic manner in Big Day Out. The person is not encyclopedic and since there are living relatives there are biographies of living persons (BLP) issues. In short, the policy tells us the biographies of people known only for one event needn't be written about in their own right.

  Uncle G's suggestion of a redirect to Big Day Out is well taken. This may be created.

• I created the redirect after an administrator enacted the deletion. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This ignored the well-considered arguments of a number of people familiar with this incident and the media coverage of it, who pointed out repeatedly that the ramifications of this went far beyond the Big Day Out, and had quite widespread effect. This, however, was ignored in favour of your personal desire to delete the article. Rebecca 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn.I looked at the AFD, I looked at the article, and many things were done as a result of her death. I didn't see a BLP violation at all (maybe the inclusion of the middle name, but that one word shouldn't be the cause for a deletion). Also, a major organization, the Australasian Performing Right Association, still runs a foundation in her name, then the issues surrounding her death had more ramifications than just a new set of barricades. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A few things I found out. First, a government inquest occurred due to the death. Three government agencies in Australia had inquests into her death. Also, there was a safety code adopted for Australia concerts. As for the Foundation, it has been giving grants to artists "Red Sun Band" and Sarah Kelly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:SNOW: I suggest that we overturn this now. This information did not come out in the deletion discussion, and Rebecca informs me that the Australian editors came to the debate late. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn citing BLP in the deletion reason is, quite frankly, ridiculous. 'Living relatives involved'? I rather doubt that a Wikipedia article is at the top of their list of emotional priorities - let's not give ourselves too much credit. The facts are (a) the deletion should not have been on these grounds, (b) the subject of the article is notable in her own right, the ramifications of her death were far-reaching and diverse, (c) the article should not have been given the clear by a non-Australian at all. As I said in the AfD - there's no way for the non-Australian to understand how this person's death affected the country. Not the 2001 Big Day Out. A girl dying, a real person, makes it personal. It's a small country, these things don't happen very often. Again, the article should not have been deleted, and certainly not for the reasons cited. Riana (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This deserved a full debate; those advocating keep had strong arguments, and these supposed BLP concerns seem too shaky for me to deserve an out-of-process rougey deletion. Krimpet 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  The deletion was fully and completely in process. It isn't a vote, and I sought the line of consensus and fully explained my policy reasons. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Completely out of process. There was no consensus to delete here, this was, in effect, as speedy deletion with teh so-called "closer" tagging an an admin deleting. BLB doe not apply to dead people, and even if it did, there is not question as the consensus on notability among those who joined the AfD discussion. DES ^(talk) 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Overturn Multiple government inquests clearly shows an impact that can be considered notable and Riana adequately explains why BLP is not an overriding issue here. --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first off the ArbCom appears to be utterly rejecting the claim that the "L" in "BLP" stands for "living" ([21]). Second, any article on a biography can be summarily deleted by an administrator using the "WP:BLP" as a reason [22]. Even so, overturn per Rebecca. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The outcome was reasonable as it is a bio about an otherwise unnotable person due to circumstances of her death. However, new information has been provided by Zscout370 that demonstrates the significance of her death. As I said on the Afd, I think it should be renamed to avoid the details of her life being included; something like Big Day Out crowd control controversy. John Vandenberg 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse redirection to Big Day Out. Tabloidish, hurtful to the family, why would we keep this? Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How on earth is it either a) tabloidish, or b) hurtful to the family? It simply documents the widespread ramifications of one person's death, as with many other similar articles on the project. If it were actually hurtful to the family (or even could be), I'd be arguing to delete in a second, but there's no evidence whatsoever of that here. Rebecca 11:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as it appears in Big Day Out, Fred Durst is given more play than Michalik. There is actually a fair bit of coverage of her death as an individual event, and resulting changes, and even if the redirect is merited, it should have brought the full article over to Big Day Out, along with all the citations. However, I think that this is correctly its own article, to be mentioned from Big Day Out, instead.
• Endorse The close was proper. Only 5 editors called for keeping the artifle, while 10 called for merging/redirecting to the "Big Day Out" article and 2 called for deleting. The arguments presented by the supermajority were that the non-notable minor was an unfortunate victim of "wrong place, wrong time" and that the death was better covered in context of the event. The arguments for keeping were based on news coverage. The merge/redirect or delete arguments were based on WP:NOT#NEWS and the corresponding WP:BLP section. Edison 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. WP:BLP is undoubtedly an important policy, but it doesn't apply to dead people, nor can it be invoked in vague, non-specific terms to justify early closures of discussions. There are, certainly, circumstances where we should delete first and discuss later - such as libellous attack pages - but this is not one of them, IMO. Walton^talk 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, BLP clearly doesn't apply, the article contained very little material about any living person (a bit of incidental stuff about people in bands), and none which I can see any way could be called "potentially controversial". A merge and redirect seems to be a good option, but the history must be left intact for that, and merging doesn't require any type of deletion process, just a couple of edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs).
• Overturn BLP for a dead person... This is another major red flag that we have an issue of people abusing BLP policy. -- Ned Scott
• Merge per clear consensus on the AfD. - Chardish 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge per Chardish, Ned Scott and Seraphim. The notion that BLP applies because the person has living relatives has no basis in even the most overarching interpretations of BLP that I had yet seen. I'm also disturbed that a non-admin in fact closed this for deletion and then had someone else delete it. JoshuaZ 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• strongest possibly overturn. There is absoloutely no BLP problems here, that case is still cited by media (at least in the occasional television mention of BDO/crowd control) and considering that, and sources to show how well known the incident was (sydney morning herald writing about it 4 years later pretty much clinches it) and also that she is not exactly recently dead (six years is not what I would call recent - except in geological terms :P) there is absoloutely no BLP issues here, and as such it should not have been deleted. Merge and redirect is an editorial decision, one that can be decided upon without and afd, and assuming it is undeleted following this DRV then that discussion can take place then. I would also not be averse to changing the name to a more generic event style one and having her name as a redirect, but that is also an editorial decision - and not one that needed deletion for it to occur. When looking at the debate, I notice that only one person invoked BLP by name, and that was this guideline to writing about people only notable for one event in their lives. That is a suggestion, not policy. I must conclude therefore that the debate was closed by as a delete by a non-admin (a no no) who is heavily involved and has strong feelings on subject of BLPs which may not reflect community consensus (judging by all the back and forth on the policy page) in order to invoke said policy, upon which consensus was that it did not apply in this case. Viridae^Talk 07:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, arguments in favor of deletion were virtually non-existent. If anything, there should have been a merge, and there was no cause to delete the history. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Velvet D’Amour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was previously deleted as article was poorly written and contained no sources; today in process of rewriting and adding sources found article deleted within 5 minutes of post. Would like new article vetted for AfD at least before auto-delete. Would also like to know if there is some existing protocol for adding models and actresses to Wiki, as well as how to ensure that public access photographs don't keep being deleted due to not knowing the correct protocol for copyrighting the images via Wiki tags? AntiVanity 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid A7, unless being in a non-notable movie is an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn "known via the worldwide media coverage she received after her appearance in Jean-Paul Gaultier's 2007 Spring/Summer prèt-â-porter collection shown in Paris in October 2006." is a claim of notability. So is "D'Amour's appearance on a catwalk for a designer who does not currently produce plus-size clothing was widely categorized as a farcial..." (emphasis added). So is "D'Amour also featured in the title role of Avida, the 2006 French film directed by Gustave de Kervern and Benoît Delépine, which was selected for the 2006 Cannes and 2007 Tribeca Film Festivals." It may be that none of these claims would be judged suffficient for inclusion at an AfD, but that is a judgement call. Any plausible claim of notability, whether sourced or not, and whether it is enoug to clearly pass WP:BIO or not, is enough that an A7 speedy should not be used, but an AfD or a Prod, which allows the question of notability to be debated and settled by consensus. DES ^(talk) 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Even if we accept the unsupported hyperbole asserting notability, the article was an unambiguous G11 as spam. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Even if the previous article was deleted as spam, it wasn't salted because there is the opportunity to create a real page about this model/actress (who absolutely passes notability; a quick Google search shows a fair bit of coverage from newspapers). Deleting an article in under 5m simply because the article was deleted before seems very 'eye for an eye' to me; this admin could easily have given the re-creator a half hour to at least get her information organized. Expecting articles to spring forth from editors fully formed or risk deletion seems contrary the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --Thespian 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• That wasn't why it was deleted. It was spam. As in: here's a link to her photographer, here's a link to her agent kind of spam. The type which doesn't seriously try to be anything other than an advert. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Guy, clearly fashion isn't your strong point or you would not mention the Wikilink to Nick Knight (photographer) ('her photographer') as spam. AntiVanity 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• The deletion log entry said, in full "(CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance) " Not a word about spam there. if this was delted as spam, I would expect a rather different log entry. DES ^(talk) 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Which is, of course, my *point*. Regardless of why it was deleted, it wasn't blocked forever; there's absolutely a chance that the new article might have been good, clear and precise (my quick poke showed current news stories and 10k refs on google; a reasonable amount to get a good, solid article from, even if they're 90% fashion blogs). So "Even if the previous article was deleted as spam" there is no reason to believe that, given more than 3 minutes to build a page, the new one wouldn't be better. There was no emergency that made the admin think they needed to take action, 90s after the page was created, to delete it. --Thespian 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Nor do I think that fairly describes the article as it was in the last version before it was deleted. It did list her agent, which i would remove from the restored article. It also discussed the alleged controversy surrouding her appearence as a model in a particular show, and allegations that the designer was merely using her to make a point about "the international model health debate". This is surely a subject that is not without general interest. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn A7 deletion, as there clearly was an assertion of notability. I wouldn't apply G11 to the latest draft. Strike the last sentence, and it would have no spam content, which means that the "fundamentally rewritten" test of G11 isn't met. However, blogs aren't exactly reliable sources, so better sourcing and an improved version are clearly to be desired. GRBerry 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, regardless of whether it should've been speedied or AfD'd, no good sources were provided, I can't find any, and none have been brought to light here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my Google search found links to the Toronto Star, the Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment Tonight, her work on IMDB (the movie, working on Mo'Nique's Fat Chance, etc). It was speedied in under 5 minutes from creation, and seems to have been entirely based on 'we deleted this before'. It could have easily been deleted in an hour if it was obviously going down the same garden path. Many articles about people who could well be notable, verifiable, and more are deleted because of things that have nothing to do with the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia, but instead being deleted because the article isn't suitable. These are good rules, that we need, but they should not be used to prevent the information from ever being available on wikipedia, if someone is willing to do a better, more complete job. --Thespian 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't find any of those with a search for "velvet d'amour". I do find a lot of blogs, and a lot of articles which name-drop her and are substantially about something else. That's why I didn't say I found "no sources", I said I found "no good sources". If you can provide links to your findings, I'd certainly be willing to look at them and reconsider my position if appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask how you're searching? I'm hitting google with "Velvet D’Amour", just like that (with quotes), and the first non-video hit is to a column about the appearance in Gautier's show in the Sydney Morning Herald (the second is to an SMH blog by the author of the column, and I'm wondering if you just assumed they were both blogs). Other stuff is further down; there *are* a lot of blogs, certainly, but it's there. --Thespian 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Same search, I'm guessing you're referring to this one? [23]. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, it's not a substantial source about her, it just mentions her in a photo caption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, no, the first 5 paraghraphs are about her appearance in Gautier's show, with quotes from her and such. (ok, technically, the 3rd paragraph is explaining someone else was there so that D'Amour's reaction to her could be in the fourth). It will take some digging to do a good job with this, but the sources are there. While I don't expect you to do deep on this (I will likely help if overturned, which is why I went further to see what was available), I'm unsure how you missed that. --Thespian 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did miss some there, but that doesn't substantially change my opinion of that one. A few paragraphs about someone in an article which is mainly about something else (the fashion show as a whole) does not make sufficient material for an article. (An article on the show, that mentions her, certainly might work, if there are more sources available about it, and an article about her might work if more material on her over time is available that's more than a quick blurb "X appeared at Y show (brief description and maybe quickie quote)."). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn A7 ~ As the editor who wrote the article I can assure you that I have no personal interest in promoting D'Amour's career or creating spam; the rewrite was simply to allow individual model entries to the article plus-size model remain as brief as possible, with elaboration to be provided separately under the individual's own article, with AfD to be undergone at that level. Principally though, the resumption of work on the D'Amour article was due to continued vanity edits under her name on the plus-size model article which have been difficult to curb. This article was actually the most neutral, least vanity-stricken posted to date. If I am a little zealous with Wiki- and URL- linking associated names and sources it is only because I've been through a few AfD's and the discussions have indicated that over-citing references gets you further along in the game. AntiVanity 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. An encyclopedia is not a repository of every tiny irrelevant blip in pop culture. This individual has not achieved notable recognition. 209.247.5.138 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

William and Mary High School Model United Nations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

WMHSMUN is a major conference on the East Coast of the United States; how is it not "notable"? Also this page has existed for several years and has been updated a number of times; it has repeatedly been contested and revised. I don't understand why it was suddenly deleted (apparently with no discussion since those of us who have been writing it and keeping it up-to-date didn't know it was up for deletion until it was already gone).

• It was apparently deleted under proposed deletion (prod), which means it was tagged for a few days and then, because nobody removed the tag, deleted. It can be undeleted if you intend to fix any problems, just ask. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have Restored the article and associated image as a disputed prod but the image was fairuse with no rational for use so has been tagged as such and is subject to deletion. Please see WP:FUC. Now how do I close this danged DRV? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Louis Jolyon West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Section added yesterday was deleted for no given reason Larryj53 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close Then discuss it on the talk page of the article. Deletion Review is for articles that were deleted, not for content disputes. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

R. Weldon Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No reason given: just poof! Gone ! A full week of gathering info, testing publication, award winning search engine results, edits, code, everything gone. Who will ever know the full extent of the wasted effort. Two administrators took it upon themselves to delete an unfinished work, in the middle of creation. Picaroon9288 will be getting a message from StationNT5Bmedia, but the User_talk at that address specifically says "unavailable" until July. see Picaroon9288 Wafulz deleted another unfinished version of the page. Citing no substantial reason, the User at that desktop began the dictatorial process of sequestoring new knowledge. A message will be soon arriving at that URL also. For more info write User_talk:Wafulz

• Both deletions were under WP:CSD#A7, which means that both admins felt that the article "did not assert the significance or importance of the subject". IMO that is incorrect, at least for the second deletion. The claims might not be enough to pass an AfD, and might well need better sources, adn there does appear to be a possible Conflict-of-interest issue, but IMO this should have been proded or taken to WP:AFD, not speedy deleted. Overturn and List on AfD to get consensus on notability and other issues. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since I deleted this, I won't bother endorsing it. The subject is "Owner/author/editor of StationNT5Bmedia" and the article was created by User:StationNT5Bmedia, which brings up issues related to self-promotion, and the best assertions of notability were reviews by a community newspaper and local radio shows.-Wafulz 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DES. Although at the time of the original construction of the article, few references, if any had been included at that point, perhaps the article was not ready to "go live". However, with the accumulation of the work in progress, now it is plainly becoming visible that this is not the work of a single individual, but a collection of many years of creditable & verifiable references. If the article were published by another volunteer, and the article code referred to the proper search engine find ie. "R. Weldon Smith", then perhaps a larger audience would be willing to endorse it as a Wikified encyclopedic article. I would hate to think that all volunteers and contributions are so quickly discarded without discussion. 72.73.136.108 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The additions to improve the notability of the article can be found at the following: R. Weldon Smith 72.73.136.108 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— 72.73.136.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --EarthPerson 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While in correspondence about this having several other creditable articles that are candidates for encyclopedic content, other than the scientific articles contributed on aspheric lens, non-synchronous transmissions, Immigration Reform, and the PTDA, Wikification for "R. Weldon Smith", the pen name & other folks having made literary contributions should be considered. Before the community reaches a verdict, realize that if the article being constructed is of value to Wikipedia, it's code can be copied from User:StationNT5Bmedia/Sandbox, and re-integrated to it's page.StationNT5Bmedia 00:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pucho & His Latin Soul Brothers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

No discussion, side-stepped all protocols. This never even should have qualified as a speedy deletion, and was deleted anyway by someone who obviously did not check their facts.No explanation. Nothing.(Mind meal 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

• Very strong undelete and don't AfD I'm really surprised this was deleted. Not even close to a speedy cadidate! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I disagree - this is a clear speedy candidate because the article doesn't assert notability. The article does pass WP:MUSIC because a band member went on to be famous but that'd for the article to assert not for the deleting admin to guess. That said, this is clearly a valid article so we may as well undelete to preserve the history. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To the contrary, User:Spartaz, this article asserted notability from the start by stating it was the band of Henry "Pucho" Brown, who is a notable musician. The lack of an article on him certainly does not mean that his leadership of the band does not demonstrate notability. Also, Chick Corea having been a member equally demonstrated and asserted notability. The article is a stub, and I never claimed it to be perfect. But notability was, in fact, established. Also, no discussion was had prior to the deletion; that is despite myself and User:Lior having contested it on the article talk page. The notability was asserted, despite claims to the contrary. (Mind meal 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

• Er why are you arguing with me when I agree that the article should be undeleted? The point is that the article needs to unambiguously assert notability and I can understand why the deleting admin saw no evidence of this. I have never heard of Mr Brown so his name means nothing to me. You are clearly going to get your article back - just be patient. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• List on AFD It's clear from the discussion that notability is just this side of borderline. That's why God created the AFD process. :) YechielMan 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • They have 25 albums, notable members, loads of mainstream press attention, a 50-YEAR career, and Pucho is one of only 2 black people in the International Latin Music Hall of Fame (along with Dizzy Gillespie)! This is not even close to borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete per Starblind. AFD on someone in a music Hall of Fame and with a large number of published albums is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I was the admin who made the deletion, and as it stood there was absolutely no assertion of notability. It just said it was the band of some Mr. Brown and Mr. Corea. And since notability is not inherited from association, this does not qualify as assertion of notability, which made it a valid speedy candidate. But since notability has been asserted here, it can be overturned. --soum ^talk 08:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Since we seem agreed on this, does anyone object if I just go ahead and undelete this bearing in mind that I commened on the discussion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)@
• Comment: If the article was so sparse that it was deleted as A7, is it actually worth undeleting? Or might it be better to recreate from scratch? I can't see the undeleted article, so I can't judge. But an A7 is no bar to creating an article that does assert notability. And if there were a good new article, that would make the debate academic. Xtifr _tälk 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if the content is essentially going to be a recreation of what was there before the GFDL more or less requires a history undelete so we may as well go the whole hog. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lingleinauguration2002.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

I'm having a hard time understanding why this was deleted. The deleting admin even voted keep in the discussion and agreed it was fair use. I removed this image from 3 articles it was not fair use in, but it was definitely fair use in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. It showed an unrepeatable historic moment, Linda Lingle's controversial taking of an oath upon a Tanakh in the time period when taking oaths upon non-Bibles erupted into social controversy in the United States -N 16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the admin who deleted it. Yeah, I thought that the images was (barely) acceptable in the article it was in. However, it looked to me like the consensus was against me and N, and the most knowledgeable policy-wonks thought the image violated NFCC#2 and possibly #8 as well. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Request for this to be relisted for consensus to be obtained (unless you want to go on the two people who have already commented, one of whom is the deleting administrator who believes it was fair use). -N 02:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Good article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|TfD|DRV#1|DRV#2| DRV#3|DRV#4)

The GA process has been improved since it was discussed during the template deletion discussion in March 2006. As for some editors who oppose having metadata templates in Wikipedia, it is already widely used and accepted such as Template:Cleanup, Template:Administrator, and many others. I think it's time to reconsider the deletion of this template. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Links to previous DRVs added. This is not just metadata. Templates which use absolute-placement code to add icons to the upper right corner in article space are routinely deleted at TfD, such as S60C and Page subtitle. Gimmetrow 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Gimmetrow makes a strong argument. I'd err on the side of maintaining status quo. YechielMan 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Your arguments provide no reasoning to why this template should be deleted. Yes, we don't need a symbol to show that the article is part of Wikipedia's coverage on a television show and text shouldn't be up there either. Are our readers going to be shocked and disturbed by a green symbol at the top? No. Provide some arguments on why this specific template is a bad idea. Psychless 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't intend to provide any specific reasoning, I intended to provide information the opener omitted. The original TfD and the first two DRVs contain plenty of specific arguments. The third and fourth DRVs were basically speedy closes based on the first two DRVs. Also, please note that template "Page subtitle" was being used mostly to put a GA icon in the corner. Gimmetrow 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me ask something... is the policy always keep until proven delete or always delete until proven to be kept? The most important point is that people disagree on the GA assessment system because it was faulty when this template was deleted. But now it is improved, so this template deserves a chance to be undeleted. This was the main point of discussion in DRV 1 and 2. If metadata templates should be removed, why delete a small icon on the top right corner when there're ones that are right inside the articles? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I still think the GA process is badly flawed, and there is no comparison between GA and FA status so no compelling reason to restore this mainspace template. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Simply we don't need little signs to indicate good articles. Its just clutter - anyone interested can find the information on the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you are wrong there. I have discussed Wikipedia with a number of fairly casual users who are not editors, and one complaint that several made is that they have no way to tell much about the quality of an article without following reference links and in effect verifing its content for themselves, which is not what tbey expect of a reference work. The use of the talk page is not at all celar to many casual users of Wikipedia, and having this kind of metadata on the article iteelf is IMO a very positive thing. The precise design of the template might will be subject to change, but I think that having it on the article proper would be an improvement. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unless you are "in the know" its just an image. I guess that most people should be able to tell whether the article is any good or not based on how much it sucks rather than needing someone else to tell them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This may not do the job then, but soemthing should. I find that quite a number of people I describe/demonstrat wikipedia to want some assurence that an article has been double-checked by someone. Not a guarentee that everyhtign there is perfect, but that there has been some validation, that it isn't a piece of subtle vandalism, or soemoen who doesn't really know the subject blowing smoke that looks like a plausible article, but is in fact wildly incorrect. And you know as well as I that we do get those kinds of things. Not long ago i reverted a change to SOS which had inserted an urban legend origin story in place of the correct origin of the distress signal. The vandalism ahd been there for weeks, and it looked reasoanble, unless you knew the answer or did research to verify sources. I already knew the answer and it took me quite a while to restore the article to proper shape -- and it would have taken longer had I not known how to use the history tab or if the correct info had not been in an earlier version. Maybe nothing but "stable versions" will really answer this need, but the need, or at least the desire, on the part of users, is there. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion — "Good article" is sufficiently informal that it doesn't deserver a metadata template to go cluttering up articles with. --Cyde Weys 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But it at least checks for prose, NPOV, and image copyrights so they are in fact, checking the articles if it obeys MoS guideline and copyright policy. If you think GA is not informal yet, take it to the project page, and not using this template as a punching bag. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion' as per Cyde. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

While I respect the right of admins to delete (and to protect) their own user pages and even talk-page archives, the deletion and protection of his talk page makes it tough to communicate information to the user in case there is an emergency, or in case he goofed, especially since he is still showing signs of being an active sysop. That is the reason why I'm questioning the deletion and protection of his primary talk page. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1. 07:59, 23 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson"
2. 16:47, 5 June 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson (Talk | contribs) protected User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson ([edit=sysop:move=sysop])

• Agree I think deleting his talkpage was acceptable (right to disappear and all that) but keeping it protected is inappropriate if he's going to continue making admin actions. Suggest bringing this up on Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Done - it is now on Requests for unprotection. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn while you do have the right to disappear, if you're still here deleting the talk page seems wholly inappropriate. If it contained material that shouldn't be viewed individual diffs could be deleted. -N 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment deletion would have removed the protection listed above, it's actually protected by cascading protection from User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson/Finally_I_am_able_to_keep_my_userpage_from_being_edited_AND_keep_it_a_red_link,_too._Thank_you,_cascading_protection! --pgk 16:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I wonder how ethical cascading protection is, anyhow. It's probably fine if it is being done for artistic purposes with no harm done to communications, but when it shanghais communication... — Rickyrab | Talk 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Although I am unhappy with the restoring and unprotection of a page without discussing it with the deleting/protecting admin (especially in a non-urgent case such as this) there doesn't appear to be any way to get in touch with Jeffrey for discussion. He has disabled the "E-mail this user feature" and is not as far as I can see to be found on IRC. Jeffrey has continued to carry out admin functions so it does not appear he has left.... WjBscribe 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

No consensus for deletion on AfD, nomination improperly extended (should've been closed as keep after 5 days passed).  Grue  12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon me, because I don't do a lot of DRV, but I really don't get it. Basicpally you're suggesting that the three last votes to delete should be discounted on procedural grounds because they were ineligible - the admins already had enough information to close as "no consensus." Am I the only person who is thoroughly baffled by this reasoning? Endorse. YechielMan 13:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The last three votes don't matter. They were after the deadline, and still hasn't changed consensus in any way. There is equal number of keep and delete !votes. Also, keep !votes thoroughly debunk every argument for deletion that was provided. Deletes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is obvious that the closing admin did a mistake.  Grue  07:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse (Keep Deleted) per YechielMan. Correct procedure that the nominator thinks was wrong? Baffling indeed. --tennisman 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sad endorse Sad because I have very fond memories of this great game, but the AfD was handled correctly. Each of the early keep votes was convincingly rebutted, so extending the debate was the correct thing to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse can't see anything wrong with the close and if there are no sources the information can't be verified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the AfD discussion? Because there were several reliable sources mentioned.  Grue  06:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• There were several sources mentioned but they were all subject to concerns raised in the AFD, so no, there does not appear to be multiple reliable sources for this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)