Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 6

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

This is a notable software product. See TheGlobeandMail, ITWeek, Netscape Tech 64.178.96.168 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. Not sure what was originally written, but the second speedy was bad anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• very marginal... the first deletion was fine (the article just consisted of an infobox at that point), the second wasn't really valid because prose had appeared by that point. The claim "were recently listed as the 10th fastest growing company in Alberta", but it was unreferenced... vague, unreferenced claims like that are very weak claims of importance. I would suggest writing an article in your user space then moving it to the main namespace when it's actually ready. --W.marsh 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with W.marsh's suggestion--it will be more satisfactory that way. DGG 01:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree put something together with references and citations in a user sub-page for evaluation about inclusion in the article space. (aeropagitica) 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation, but not with current content. After looking at the deleted page, it is clearly a CSD G11. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

People Against Censorship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article about a club or group that does not assert significance is incorrect and therefore censoring and deleting this artice is ridiculous, unfair, and a bit ironic. PLease overturn and place back up Vulpineny 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — Vulpineney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Overturn - numerous notable hits on gnews: [1]. And, to avoid the knee-jerk WP:GOOGLEHITS response I'm bound to get: New York Daily News (Opie situation), entire interview with station. Please, when will we learn that going to AFD does a better job of helping people prove notability that just deleting? The Evil Spartan 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert notability, that meets the speedy criteria. --pgk 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

...which is something that can almost as easily be fixed with the Edit button as the Delete button. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:08, 7 June 2007

Right, well better change the policy then, Speedy Deletion is not permissible if you could do the creators work for them. G12 well that can be fixed, the admin can rewrite it in their own words no needy for speedy. Attack pages, well you might want to research and see if a non-attack article could be written. How about spam, they could be rewritten also, in fact me may as well scrap the delete button all together. --pgk 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• undelete as it makes a tangential claim of importance (creator has appeared on notable shows). But some sources really should be cited. --W.marsh 20:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion doesn't assert notability. Notability by association normally sucks and in this case if the best is that group somehow becomes notable by virtue of the creator somehow gaining notabilty by appearing on some notable shows. I guess we'll start accepting has a "best dad in the world" mug as an assertion of notability soon.(Of course that doesn't mean there is any prejudice against creating a sourced article which does assert notability) --pgk 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible COI issue since the account name of the creator was User:Debbiewolf --pgk 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per W.marsh, appearing on shows to discuss what they do is an assertion of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What!? Oh, my God!!! Corvus cornix 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Corvus, there's no reason to act rude - he didn't say anything worthy of being mocked. The Evil Spartan 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per W.marsh; appearances do count towards assertion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn, not a speedy--A7 was not meant to cover this sort of implicit assertion--asserting the size and the appearances counts; I note the same admin has speedied it twice in a row in spite of it clearly not meeting the criteria for speedy. How I will !vote on AfD may be another matter, depending on sourcing. DGG 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn notability asserted, hence not a speedy candidate. List it at afd if you want it gone. Viridae^Talk 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my speedy as making no claim of notability; this is a group that exists to protest at the sacking of one radio presenter. It can be covered in the article on that presenter, with a redirect if we must. The last version was created by Debbiewolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The article stated: People Against Censorship was formed on April 12, 2007, by Debbie Wolf and Franklyn Strachan, in response to the firing of Don Imus. Most of the content in all versions was by single purpose accounts. No evidence that the people writing the article and agitating about it are any different fomr the people against "censorship" (i.e. sacking of someone for mouthing off), or that these people amount to more than a handful anyway. This article exists solely to promote this agenda and raise its profile (it was created by a single-purpose account only a month after the group was formed), it is a soapbox. "Was talkled to be a radio station once" is not a claim of notability, I know this because I have been on BBC Radio 4's PM and Today programmes (two of the most influential programmes on British radio), and have been interviewed in the studio by one BBC station on three occasions and by phone twice more, plus a scheme I created was features in the national press. I am not notable. Neither is this group, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, seems to be sufficient evidence to show the topic is notable. I would like to think that when it is undeleted, the references provided here will wander their way into the article. If Guy does believe there is a COI afoot, then he can always take it to AFD. Neil ╦ 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Process-wonkery. It's G11 spam as well as A7 no assertion of notability. Plus the requester's only edits ever are to this DRV. Amazing, eh? Guy (Help!) 12:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BCYP Arms.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:BCYP Arms.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was speedy deleted by BetacommandBot for failure to provide a fair use rationale despite my having provided a fair-use rationale. As the page was deleted, I cannot repeat the actual text of the rationale, but suffice to say it conformed with image and copyright policies. In addition, I am the person who drew the original picture that was scanned for the image, which I stated in the rationale, yet this fact was also ignored. Agent 86 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the actual text of the rationale was I am the artist who drew this image. This image is not replaceable with free content. The image is used in conjunction for the main subject of the article, being the British Columbia Youth Parliament, whose logo this is. The the image is being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. Fram 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First, it was deleted by Naconkantari, not by BetacommandBot (which can't delete anything, bots have no administrative buttons). Secondly, you claim that is the logo of the BCYP, but when I look at [2], I see a completely different logo. Why should we use your logo in that article? Would the actual logo not be better as a primary means of visual identification? Fram 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this one, but if it's like the one below the fair use disputed tag contains the text "You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern", you added a rationale but didn't remove the template hence it looks like these got caught up in the process. It is important that you read the templates on pages they give important info, like the requirement for the rationales and source information (the latter the one below is missing). I won't restore this image yet, since there seems to be a question about it's use above. --pgk 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The organization uses both logos. They are both used in the organization's publications, all available in the UBC library and BC archives, among other places. Many organizations have a number of logos. This one is no different. Agent 86 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I notice that the current template states "You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern"; however, the version of the template that was on the image contained no such instruction. It said to leave the template for removal by an admin.Agent 86 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Seen that in discussion elsewhere, looks like it's restored now. --pgk 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BCYP Mace.jpg (edit|[[Talk::Image:BCYP Mace.jpg|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was speedy deleted by BetacommandBot for failure to provide a fair use rationale despite my having provided a fair-use rationale. As the page was deleted, I cannot repeat the actual text of the rationale, but suffice to say it conformed with image and copyright policies. Agent 86 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The fair use dispute tag says in nice bold letter "You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern", when you added the rationale you didn't do that. I've restored this. It still seems to lack source information though. --pgk 10:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hunter Street Baptist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted in March 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Street Baptist Church) as a supposedly non-notable church, despite the fact that is the largest church in Alabama or close to it (I'm working on verification of that fact). User:Mailer diablo, who deleted it after an AfD last time, retrieved the original article for me. I added several sources and did some re-writing. The new article is at User:Realkyhick/Userbox. Based on these changes, I'd like to nominate this article for restoration. Thanks! Realkyhick 04:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me ... the AFD was a year old and you have done a good job of finding sources. If nobody objects, I see no reason not to just do a speedy restore. --BigDT 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Much of it still seems unsourced and without a source for the apparent claim to notability (largest in Alabama), which even as a claim to encyclopedia notability some may differ) I would think a speedy restore to be premature. --pgk 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Seems to me that this is substantively different from the unsources thing that we deleted, so wouldn't qualify for a G4. Whether it is notable enough for an encyclopedia is something to be hashed out at Afd. My advice is to see if you can improve the sources a bit further, then restore the article. But be ready that AfD may reject it a second time around.--Doc^g 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GayNZ.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Due process was not followed. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GayNZ.com was to keep. Alan Liefting 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn invalid speedy deletion. -N 02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as AfD consensus was clearly to keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion what a shocker, huh? The article simply had no assertion of importance (and I'm very lenient on that issue) and no sources. That this survived an AFD is kind of surprising but not all that meaningful since the AFD seems to have chosen "lots of Google hits" over sources, which happens from time to time but is still not an excuse to keep an article around perpetually. If sources can be cited to go towards notability, I'll userfy and once added we can move it back to the article namespace. --W.marsh 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Article did not assert notability at time of (speedy) deletion. Naconkantari 03:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy restore/list - An article that has been kept at AFD should never be speedied under A7. It's actually right there in the criterion - "If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." An A7 deletion is out of order for an article that has been kept at AFD. --BigDT 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was an overwhelming consensus to keep at AfD - shouldn't have been speedied. WjBscribe 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of this article which had no sources and contained no assertion of notability. I will userfy it to add sources if you want. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And had been overwhelmingly kept by consensus prior. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Consensus does not trump policy. WP:V is policy. No sources violates WP:V. Endorse deletion, allow for recreation as per Guy. Corvus cornix 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Deletion review cannot trump policy. WP:CSD is policy. A prior AfD invalidates an A7 CSD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • A prior AfD which was closed as keep in violation of policy is not valid. Corvus cornix 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No, it's still valid until it's overturned. A second AfD or a DRV of that AfD would do that, not a unilateral speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • • Are you really so enamored of process? What if this were listed at AfD as a copyright violation? Would you demand that it be restored to run five days instead of being speedied, even if the only possible policy-driven result could be deletion? Corvus cornix 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Not at all, copyvio isn't a situation that's analogous with this. Right now, we apparently know the article doesn't meet WP:V. That doesn't mean it can't meet WP:V, and verifiability issues were not brought up at the AfD (only notability ones), so there's a decent chance that, perhaps, a discussion at AfD on the article may be able to fix it if the article should be deleted. In cases like this, I am very enamored of process - there's many reasons why a) A7 isn't used for articles kept at AfD, and b) we don't speedy delete unsourced articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Well, unsourced articles do get speedily deleted, but they should not be. Neil ╦ 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, according to WP:DEL speedy trumps AFD. Please make a new version that does assert notability and has sources. >Radiant< 08:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you point out where it says that? And even if it's so, WP:CSD A7 clearly says that if an article has been kept at AfD, it's not eligible for A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't say that: However under the heading of Reasons for deletion we see "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed". The bold is mine to make it a little cleaerer for you... Now, if you would have a look at the afd, you would notice that someone provided some reliable sources. Aww shucks I don't think that deletion reason applies. Viridae^Talk 00:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep deleted, not endorsing deletion Yes by a strict reading of the A7 criteria this was an unacceptable deletion. However, deletion was clearly the correct thing to do and a second AfD in which people are now paying attention will almost certainly result in deletion. I'm more than willing to change my opinion and go for relisting or simple restoration of sources can be provided. JoshuaZ 13:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy/endorse original keep: the AfD gave us an assertion of notability and sources sufficient to satisfy numerous established, experienced editors at that discussion. Someone may have dropped the ball on merging those sources into the article, but in any case, a speedy after an AfD keep is utterly inappropriate. If you want to challenge the keep decision, bring it to DRV! (And I would still endorse the keep decision if that had been done, so this is not process wankery.) Xtifr _tälk 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment None of the sources given are more than mentions, nothing is a non-trivial source. One of the sources isn't even a reliable source but is merely a press release. There's simply not enough reliably sourced information to write an article. JoshuaZ 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not what the AfD found! This is a review of the deletion, not AfD round two. And WP:N doesn't say "multiple non-trivial" any more. That standard has been rejected. Xtifr _tälk 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - invalid speedy. If it survives AFD discussion, community consensus is to not allow speedy. The argument that it didn't assert notability is an overly rigid interpretation of a7 - if it's notable, it probably shouldn't be deleted simply because it doesn't assert notability. If this were the case, then it would be terribly WP:BITEy to all the new users who create stub articles and don't know enough to use the words. The Evil Spartan 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I repeat: Consensus cannot trump policy. WP:V is policy. It is the burden of the person who claims notability to provide proof of it. Corvus cornix 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It didn't trump policy. Policy was completely ignored as well: WP:CSD#A7 says directly: If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. At the risk of upping the ante, it's wikilawyering to require a page specifically state so and so is notable or delete it - the spirit of A7 (i.e., the other half that wasn't ignored by the deleter) is to delete something that is actually non-notable, not just somethign that doesn't claim it. By that argument we could never get a valid stub started (e.g., the first stub on Paula Abdul). The Evil Spartan 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So in other words, even though the policy page at WP:CSD specifically says Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject., if, somewhere down the line, at some vague point in the future, somebody might just possibly come up with an assertion of notability, and provide a source for the assertion, we can't possibly ever delete anything? Corvus cornix 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • It wasn't "somewhere down the road", it was right there in the AfD! Assertion. Sources. Accepted by established editors. XfD regulars for the most part. I really don't know what else you could want! Ok, I can see why it was speedied, and I certainly accept that it was an honest mistake and a better call than most improper speedies (A7 would have applied if not for the AfD), but it still should be restored so that the sources that were found can be added. Xtifr _tälk 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Restore A speedy after a keep decision at AfD is putting oneself above the community. If one thinks the decision was in error, then one should renominate after a few months. The reason I and Jeff and others argue for process is not a fascination with legal codes. Its because process serves to prevent unilateral action based on one's own individual feelings. I don't accept that my own are better than the community's, and I equally don't accept that any other individual person's is. DGG 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Dear god restore like it or not that was a clear Keep consensus. What DGG said. Viridae^Talk 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah and why does everyone suddenly think that articles not compliant with WP:V are suddenly speedyable - first a incredibly liberal interperetation of BLP and now WP:V. They are not speedyable, never have been and its likely they never will be so wrong on two counts of policy - 1. Deletion policy (speedying an article that had previously been kept at afd) 2. WP:V = not a speedy issue. Viridae^Talk 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not what I said personally. This meets A7 because the article just described the website, it made no claims of importance, and there were no sources that could also be claims of importance (in that, the source wrote about the site). As was, the article fit the exact profile of the kind of website-description article that gets created and speedy deleted 20 times every hour. --W.marsh 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to recreation with reliable sources cited. AfD consensus cannot and does not supersede basic encyclopedic policy. As with Guy, I will undelete and userfy upon request to my talk page. This is not punitive, just encyclopedic. FCYTravis 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Afd consensus is one part of the deletion policy, hence it over-rules certain parts of other policy, because as stated, this is simply not speedyable under deletion policy. Viridae^Talk 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If an AfD consensus completely ignores an article's fundamental failure to comply with policy, that "consensus" is invalid. FCYTravis 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Simple as this: WP:V is not a speedy reason. Deletion policy prohibits speedying articles that have previously been kept through afd. End of story. You don't like it, either fix the article or renominate it for afd. The consensus is not invalid - the vast majority of articles on wikipedia are not fully sourced - does that mean we should start speedying everything we see? No, afd is the formal deletion process. It is there for a reason - no need to circumvent it, creating a very shoddy precedent - hell I might just start deleting everything I see that doesn't stack up to WP:V. It would certainly cut down on the backlog of unreferenced articles - I will even remain within part of the deletion policy that has been violated here - I won't delete anything that has been kept at afd. The is wikipedia, by the definition of the word it is a collaborative exercise so articles evolve - that's why we have different levels of articles - FAs GAs normal and stubs, that's why we have a multitude of templates to indicate cleanup/referencing required. You are very very wrong when you say that a lack of references trumps the community consensus in a deletion debate - especially one as clear as that one is, afd deletes articles that are unverifiable, and occasionally it deletes unreferenced articles - speedy does neither of those. The rules of speedy deletion are very specific and very narrow. WP:V is not one of them (nor might I add is hoaxes, cutting out the unverifiable part). No admin is entitled to override the community consensus in this way, ignoring the result of a valid afd and making a judgement entirely of their own - that much sis set down in the deletion policy. Once an article has gone through afd and been kept, it may be assumed that any speedy will be challenged, and therefore it cannot be performed. Viridae^Talk 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - if you think it lacks references, {{sofixit}}. Failure to comply with WP:V is not a valid reason to speedily delete an article. Neil ╦ 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So... it went through AfD, where despite the lack of sources, it was kept. That's a fundamentally mistaken closure. I'll be happy to userfy so that the article can be sourced, or alternatively, to undelete with the stipulation that it be sourced within an hour. FCYTravis 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the closure was wrong, you bring it to DRV. It doesn't matter if the AFD was "flawed". That's what DRV is for; to assess the validity of a process such as an AFD. You don't ignore the AFD and merrily delete it anyway. Neil ╦ 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It went through AfD, where established, experienced editors (several with a long history of deletion nominations, and all with a wide history of well-reasoned participation in XfD debates, and none with any obvious tendencies towards inclusionism) agreed that there were reliable, third-party sources. And looking at those sources, I agree. There were reliable, third-party sources. Looking through google results, I see many more reliable sources. Yes, many of them are passing mentions, but WP:V doesn't say, "the article must be deleted if reliable sources only make passing mention". It says, "if the article has no reliable third-party sources", which is clearly not the case. And WP:N was recently modified, after extensive criticism and lengthy debate, to allow broad-but-not-necessarily-deep coverage. This site seems to be involved in a wide variety of judicial and legislative matters, and has gotten broad press coverage for it. They're even syndicated by Google News (something I've never encountered in an AfD or review of a website article before), which indicates an above-average level of notability, and even suggests that the site may constitute a reliable source itself (albeit a primary one in this case). If this were an equivalent site in the US or UK, I don't think there'd be any argument about keeping, which suggests that systemic bias may be a factor here, and I'm also starting to have some suspicions about plain-old bias, given the site's subject matter. Xtifr _tälk 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Speedy The AfD was flawed; the article meets the criteria for A7. Guy has suggested userfying it so that some sources can be added, which I'm all for; while I think the speedy was fair, we should also be willing to have another decent article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually it doesn't meet the criteria for A7 because: "If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." is part of the criteria. Viridae^Talk 00:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy per EVula. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD per CSD A7. Some sources were bandied about at the previous AfD but unfortunately do not appear to have been added to the article. Tim! 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I have to agree with Guy here. WP:V also trumps WP:CSD 100 times out of 100. It doesn't matter if sources were talked about in an AFD, it is the burden of the writers to put sources in, not the other way around. If you want it to be kept, you need to do something about it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to point out where in policy that is written? I can point out where it says that articles that have gone through an afd and been kept must not be speedied - someone quoted it up further. WP:V is a content policy, it instructs you to use reliable and accurate sources when writing an article. WP:CSD/WP:DEL is deletion policy, it instructs on what articles may be deleted and in what way. There is no trumping going on - WP:V is simply not a speedy deletion criteria, and does not instruct on what may or may not be deleted. Perhaps everyone should familiarise themselves with the relevant policies befroe wielding them as if they knew what they conained. Viridae^Talk 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed. I extrapolate that to mean that if a whole article is not sources, then the whole article can be removed. And just so we're clear on the issue here, the afd was in February, and the deletion was on June. If there were sources to make it notable, it wasn't enough for any editor to put them in in the 3 1/2 months after the afd. Over 3 months is considerable time. You can't hide behind an over 3 month old afd for a speedy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, if you believe that the AfD was closed improperly, bring it here. Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article is not policy, it's an essay.--Rayc 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But WP:V is a (if not the) policy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This was proposed as an extension to the WP:V policy, which mandated the speedy deletion of any article that did not have sources. The proposal was rejected. If WP:V states that articles with no source can be speedied, why would someone propose an additional policy that says the same thing? --Rayc 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Deleting after there was an overwhelming "keep" at an AFD is certain to cause feelings of ill-will. I truly don't understand why there is so much effort put into deleting articles like this. They don't mislead, they might be useful, and their deletion takes much more collective effort than finding a verifiable source. I can understand deleting things that are bad, that mislead, that are erroneous, that are spam. This is none of those. Wikis work best when people improve on what is there. That is what AGF is about. That is why the default for all xFDs is "keep". The burden of proof for deleting is that there is harm in keeping. I think the previous AFD shows that this was not the case. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, the afd was over 3 months ago. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article clearly violates WP:V, and had 3 months to be fixed. Bye bye. Nandesuka 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Should not speedy delete what was Kept at an AfD. Not all AfDs will reach well-informed decisions, but respecting them is a good idea. (A mistake at one AfD can be corrected at a later one). The alternative to respecting AfDs seems to be non-terminating DRVs that just go on and on. EdJohnston 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)