Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 8

Leah Patterson-Baker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The frequent deletion of Home and Away-related pages and the quashing of any attempts to improve them, despite precedents being set elsewhere for pages of this type, seems less like an attempt to clean-up Wikipedia and more like a concerted campaign against a long-running and popular show.The page listed above and several others are a valuable and useful resource which I believe should be retained. Skteosk (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Relist after the Episodes and Characters arbitration. This page has deleted a number of times on a wide variety of reasons--there was only one actual discussion [1], I think there is consensus that people do not like them, but there doesnt seem to be much agreement on why. this was even deleted at one point as an A7. I hope the final result will be to merge the material, with reasonably sized discussions as appropriate, rather than the present state where some of the characters have no coverage and some a great deal too much detail. DGG (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Postpone Per the ArbComm injunction, no editor is to undelete or delete any article on a TV show character or episode. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction. At this time, DRV can do nothing. GRBerry 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Postpone Per GRBerry. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I would like to contest the deletion of the page for Dungeon Majesty. It was originally deleted in 2005 due to lack of references and poor description, but the latest entry was re-written ,more references were added as their noterity has risen, but it was victim of speedy deletion without consideration. This entry received a notice that it may provde no meaningful content or history, but that could not be farther from the truth. Dungeon Majesty was one of the first independently produced internet full length television programs to ever be on the internet. They we're part of the birth of the viral video and strived to change the way people watch programming on the internet. Their crusade led them to host several screenings and lectures across the country including "Gaming and New Media" at GenCon in 2005, major gallery shows including one at the Hammer Museum in 2007, and in addition have appeared on G4 television, as well as World of Wonder's show Ring My Bell. In 2005, MTV2 asked them to make 10 shorts which they then put into heavy rotation between music videos. Proving that the internet was now a viable source for the inspiration of television. In addition they have had gallery shows, been written about in several magazines including RES, DRAGON, and LUMPEN as well as a 5 page piece in XTREME Fashion published by Prestel books in 2005. In addition, all 6 episodes plus 10 shorts are available on DVD. To prove the verifiability of this entry I would like to present a few links to it's cultural significance.

References: Hunter, Sandy "D&DIY FILM" Res Magazine May/June 2005 Campbell, Eric "Dungeon Majesty" Dragon magazine December 2004 Smith, Courtenay "Xtreme Fashion" Prestel Books 2005

4 Television Apearance 1: http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/episodes/3953/Dungeon_Majesty_Game_Developers_Conference_Batmobile.html

Geek Girls Play D&D : http://www.spike.com/search?query=Geek+Girls+play+D%26D&s=Search

Headline artsts at Version Festival Chicago 2007: http://www.lumpen.com/VERSION7/index.html

WIZARDS OF THE COAST hosted a contest based on a film by Dungeon Majesty: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20061205a

SPECIAL GUESTS at Gaming conventions: http://www.kublacon.com/guests/sg_majesty.html

5 page write up in the book XTREME FASHION: http://www.amazon.com/Xtreme-Fashion-Courtenay-Smith/dp/3791331752

SCREENING AT HAMMER MUSEUM IN BILLY WILDER THEATRE-March 2007 http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/

Collaborations with Leslie Hall: http://www.willowdontcry.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK9GPTY3dM8

Contributors to Select Meia Festival: http://selectmediafestival.org/2007/

Nuggets from the Net January 8, 2008 http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/tag/138/Nuggets_From_The_Nets.html

Select Reviews and Articles: HACKWRITERS.COM http://www.hackwriters.com/DM3.htm 76.173.98.58 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)}}

• Endorse deletion No evidence of notability per WP:NN, WP:ORG, or WP:WEB. Not sure which one applies best, but it fails all. The arguments for keep in the AFD were all akin to WP:ILIKEIT or "a lot of other people like it" or "among this inherantly non-notable group of subjects, it is one of the least non-notable". JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP How is being written up in major magazines,published art books, and an exhibition at the Hammer Museum not a notable cause for a wikipedia entry ? Telefantasy —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JERRY. Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• RESTORE To deny this entry is to ignore a current movement in art, new media, the internet, and the future of television. Let them have an entry. What harm is it going to do? Tookan — was added at 09:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Relist I think the material here is sufficient to justify another AfD.DGG (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relist seems like the fairest thing to do to see if notability is now established 3 years later and if sources are sufficient. -Halo (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relist; 3 years changes things, and it looks like there may be a case for the article now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; not changing my ~vote, but it was deleted in July of 2006, not 2005 like the nom said, so it's only about a year and a half.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite I came back to close this, but have chosen to comment instead. The AFD deletion was valid. The G4 deletion as a recreation should not have occurred, as the two articles are significantly different (not that I can call the new one better - it is just very, very different). Unfortunately, the deleted article was completely free of sourcing. My preferred outcome would be for an established editor to read the sources and rewrite the article from scratch - or to at least mentor one of the new editors as they follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test and rewrite the article. The most recently deleted article will die at AFD, but the sourcing offered above may demonstrate that the topic merits an article. GRBerry 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rewrite in userspace, using the sources provided here (many of which are from 2007 onwards and thus obviously were not used in writing the original article which was deleted in 2006), and then bring it to DRV. This DRV request is already longer than the deleted article, there's really very little there to be worth restoring and relisting. --Stormie (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The page was deleted because allegedly the sources provided were not reliable, however, not only my main source www.greatworks.org.uk is 'independent of the suubject' 'second party' and 'verifyable' as requested in Wikipedia's policy, buut it is endorsed by no less than the British Library, the UK official institution that presides over all publications [2][3] [4] 'This site was selected for preservation by the British Library and is archived regularly.'

What more do we want to establish reliability?

This has lead people in the 'delete' party that my source was reliable, but has not been noticed by the admninistrator. Not only, no reasons are given why the spurce does not meet Wikipedia reliability policy, only that the reliability of sources is a problem, with no reference to the policy. I will point out that the British Library has put its official' (invested from the power of HM The Queen's UK Government, one will read in the chart) seal of approval on only 5 websites in the whole world so far, and my source is one of them. How can it be unreliable? There are hardly any other sources as reliable as mine. I will nott add that amongst my secondary sources there were 2 academties and the Guardian as well. I do strongly object6 to the deletion and request a review. TonyBrit (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion British library approval of site certainly guarantees reliability beyond any doubt. Logastellus (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

overturn deletion one doiesn't get more verifyable than the British Library. Deletion was careless at least. There is evidence that the main source provided as well as some of the other sources are official websites, some government run. It cannot be argued that the sources are not reliable. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn delete plenty of evidence from reliable sources. Sestertium (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks, someone has taken the time to chesk the sources. Sources not reliable? I had a list that included the British Library endorsed www.greatworks.org.uk, tthe Open University, some ISSNs, ISBN, The Guiardian, The Scottish academy for the teaching of foreign Languages, all these are monitored by the Government. Yet, 'tagged' unreliable. None of the sources had any relation to the poet. I asked to know why they are deemed unreliable and got no answer, apart from a general, 'probvlem with the reliability of the sources'. Check my list of sources in AfD 31/01/08 and you'll be impressed. I wonder if we presume that Mr Bulla edits the British Library website, the Open University, The Guardian, The Scottish SCIT, Links etc... In which case he would be notable as the editor of most official websites.

I would like some objective scrutiny of my these sources.

1 - http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html It is a very famous poetry website, has a rather comprehensive academic article written by T Harrison on A Bulla, which clearly states that A Bulla is a force in literature to be recognised. User:Paularblaster has not commented on this source at all, yet, it is thee main source fror my article.

2- http://www.greatworks.org.uk/texts.html the same website with a biography of A Bulla, which matches what is in my article.

These two are have the seal of the British Library http://www.webarchive.org.uk/tep/13933.html][5] [6]

4 - http://www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/Languagesnews/TEFL/tefl200381.htm This is the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. It's a National and official website related to the University of Stirling. I have included this reference to prove that A Bulla has status in the academic world, and the article pertains Post-Colonial policies. State funded website!

5- http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4811005-108281,00.html is from The Guardian. Now, I have never said that there are articles on HIM in the Guardian, but BY him, (from my article 'He has also published in 'The Guardian). That article was the featured article of the week. It is there to prove the point that Mr Bulla has credibility as a commentator/critic, in particular with regards to hiis cvontribution to Post-Colonial studies.

6 - 'Openings' 1999, The Open University. An anthology published by the Open University where A Bulla appeared.

7- LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, This is a poetry publication,, it is there to prove that his first publications were in the 1990s, at least that we know of.

Plus of course Bulla's own books with ISBN and evidence that they are available in all major bookshops.

And what is the reason for deletion? Some (vauge) problems with the reliability of the sources? Are we having a laugh?

Prove that all these are unreliable or overturn this unfounded delete.

TonyBrit (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

overturn deletion great sources Superscoop (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by closer. As I said on my talk, there are hundreds of websites archived by the BL, not just 5. This claim by TonyBrit, the opener of the DRV, is patently untrue (not accusing of lying, may be a honest mistake, but it is wrong nonetheless). There are 5 websites in the tiny category of e-publishing trends[7], but over 600 in Arts and Humanities, all of which (at first glance) are archived by the BL or the Welsh National Library. This includes things like Jerry Springer - The Opera[8], Brendan Soul's Family Trees[9], Harewood House[10], Tolkien Society[11] and so on. So on one of the many hundreds of websites about arts and humanities which are archived by the British Library, there is one reader-submitted teview of the poetry of this author. This is not the kind of reliable source we normally look for (apart from newspapers and so on, there are enough established literary magazines to choose from). The other sources are articles he published (not articles about him), an anthology of student submitted poetry, and so on. This has all been thoroughly discussed in the AfD, and apart from your incorrect claim about the 5 British Library endorsed websites, nothing has changed and there is no reason to disregard the "delet" opinions by established users given in that AfD. Fram (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • According to this timeline, greatworks.org.uk was archived as part of a set of approximately 6,000 websites (not 5), in an experimental program to investigate the issues of selection and the technical challenges involved in archiving web content. --Stormie (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Additional comment. I can't help but notice that the four accounts who agree with TonyBrit all made their first edit in the last week, i.e. after the start of the AfD. This may be a coincidence, but I'll let the closing admin of this DRV decide on that. Fram (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, I can't see anything improper here, just what appears to be a single-purpose account and his sockpuppets attempting to (self?) promote a poet of extremely marginal notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • • Comment' Calluing the British Library a suckpuppet to A Bulla is ridiculous. Plus, the above should get in touch with me on my website and I can tell him something about Bulla's health that I cannot divulge here, but that partially appeared as avandalism on his article (mistaken) and that explains why he has not been able to complete his final article and has been away from school for more than 3 months. The only thing I am allowed to say is that A Bulla has well bigger problems in mind than fussing with people on the net. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is Fram is saying that www.greatworks.org.uk is not relaible ortjerwise there would be no grounds for deletion. It looks here that the experience of the commentators matters more than the verifyability of the sites. This does not concern me at all. However, there is a poliy that says that it does not matter who commjents but the content of the comments provided, if I am not mistaken. I keep stating that we have to prove the unreliability of the sources, I do not care whho comments and I stick to the policies set out by wikipedia. If having the backing fof the British Library is not enough to make a source reliable,Fram should explain why. The other sources, as I have said are not as important to my article as this one, however, they are all generally classed as 'unreliable' and include univerities, newspapers etc... Tell me how www.greatworks.org.uk is unrelliable I have been asking this for some time but have had no answer whatsoever. I have provided a link that shows that it uis verified by the most official institution of all, and the only reply I get is simply that it is not reliable. I have also provided the ISSN of a literary magazine, but again, no comments on that. It looks like notability here is a very subjective notion.

I could provide a series of articles backed up by sources that are no where near as reliable as mine, yet, mine are presumed unreliable despite being officially verified. Is grewtworks.org.uk a secondary source, verifyable, inedependent of the subject yes or no? No point arguing unless someone comes up and tells us that it is not and that the British Libriary do a very bad job at checking which websites they endores These are the policy critera for reliability. They are Wikipedia's own plolicies. Policies are policies and should not be up to me to point out that the discussion should stick to them. If the conditions for notability set by Wikipedia are met, then we should presume (Wikipedia policy) the article notable, otherwise not. It's not a matter of the individual editor's opinion. Does the endorsement of the British Library satisfy the reliability of a source? Say no if you can. This is the point. Sources reliable? Overturn. Sources unreliable? Endorse. I am a bit bored with reminding what the policy is to people that should know it better than me.

Another side comment on incorrect information offered. 'Openings' is not published by students but by The Open University, and is produced by its poetry society which includes lecturers alumni, students and a professor. his was justb as ource to trace Bulla's early career, so by no means essential to my article, however, we need to stick to facts.

Now, you want me to redirect you to thje policy?

[[12]]

[[13]]

This states:

'Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.'

QUESTION: have my sources a por reputation for fact checking? NO.

[[14]]

This states:

'Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.'

QUESTION: are my sources by any means 'Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs'. NO. Theay are verified by official institutions.

Explain how my sources are not reliable please.

The reason for deletion was 'the lack of authoritative sources (as the nominator puts it) about the author is and remains a fundamental problem.' [[15]]

This statement is untainable. Don't come and tell me about all minor things. Delete it on minor points and your views if you can supersede the policy. Tis statement violates the reliability and verifyability policies. Sources are reliable, veryfiable, 3rd party, independent from the subject and in a lot of cases extremely prestigious.

Now, from wikipedia on reliable sources, this quote actually would put my main source (and others in my list) as highly reliable one of the very sources Wikipedia prefers....:

'Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. '

Academic, it is, peer-reviewed it is and valued by the British Library as so.

So, of course are my (even if less crucial to the article) likns to universities, important newspapes etc...

I actually think that the quality of my sources does not only meet wikipedia's policies, but is exemplary in some respects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article's deletion is either a gross misjudgement or an open violation of wikipedia's policies.

From wikipedia's policy, definition of consensus [[16]]:

'When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice. '

Are we maybe expecxting Mr Bulla to be published in 'The Sun'? For a very highbrow writer, that would be an outrage. He's been published in serious publications and academic ones the ones peers read and the ones that establish one's literary influence. Notable for his literary influence, A Bulla is and without the shadow of a doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please refer to that framework? Otherwise, things become arbitrary and a policy is in place just to prevent that.

Without sounding rude, nowhere is it written that wikipedia policies can be superseded. Stick to them, thanks. TonyBrit (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The editor of http://www.greatworks.org.uk is a lecturer at Harlow College and Westminster University [17] by the way. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The GreatWorks website is not "academic" or "peer reviewed", it is a website publishing poetry and prose, sent in by readers, which is to the linking of the website's owner/editor. An academic source is a magazine like Nature or The Lancet, where you get non-fiction which is thoroughly sourced and wheer all contributions are checked by scientific reviewers. The British Library does not "endorse" everything they catalogue (they don't "endorse" the views of Immanuel Velikovsky[18] or the "science" of phrenology[19], but they have books by these authors or about these subjects. The BL aims to catalogue as much as possible, and has widened its scope from printed media to websites. GreatWorks is just one of the thousands of websites they archive, that's all. This puts it higher than a personal website, but doesn't make it anything else than a fanzine (or webzine, in this case). It was clear from the AfD that these editors who usually contribute to Wikipedia (as opposed to those just showing up for this AfD) all agreed that the sources provided were not sufficient to keep the article. All this DRV has achieved is to make clear that your claim that GreatWorks is one of only five endorsed websites by the BL is false, making your case even weaker. Again, in this DRV, the only uninvolved, established editor has agreed that the closure was correct. Fram (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Greatworks is academic and is edited by a university lecturer, if that is not a peer...? The British Library does not endorse views, it just endorses the website, in poetry, there is no point in endorsing views. The source was claimed 'unreliable' in the closure (along with the Guardian, Striling University etc) and that simply does not match wikipedia's policies. The policy says that the source should be 'verifyable ' (and it is) 'second party' (and it is) and 'independent from the subject of the article' (and it is).

Your assumption contradicts the guideline on [[20]]

' Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof. '

Greatworks meet the standards in [[21]]

Reliability of specific source types

'Scholarship Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.'

Unless university lectures don't count as scholarly community.

It is clear that these are the sources that are not acceptable [[22]]

'self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable'

My sources are none of these.

Your comment does not explain which reliability standards the main source - let alone the others - are not met

I'll post them here and I would appreciate a comment to explain how these are not met (from

[[23]] 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]

"Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.'

I remind you that consensus [[24]] in wikipediia is not editors' povs but adherence to policy.

Demonstrate where my sources do not meet these critera, thanks. This is the policy

This is what I've been asking for a long, long time with no answer.

Your argument does not stand because:

1- You say The British Library archives lots of sites. So? Does it mean that all the sites are unreliable or that there are more reliable sites?

2- I provided a list that the British Library (quote) selected [25] to archive, I do not see your list of thousands of webistes, so, again, I provide evidence, you don't, but even if you did, well.... point 1 above stands.

3- You call greatworks a 'webzine'. So what? That's how you call it... I do not read 'webzine' in the list of unreliable sources (above) and I will here post Wikipedia definition of webzine:

'An online magazine is a magazine that is delivered in an electronic form.'

The point is, is this 'webzine' reliable?

Then we go to the reliability guidelines... 2nd party, verified (it matters llittle if it is verified with 4 others or a thousand others, it is verified by the British Library, its logo is ON the website....)

Then we go to the 'preferred sources' i.e. those that have links to academic institutions. Now, greatworks is linked to 2 universities, as its edoitor (there is the peer reviwed) is on the payroll of these two universities. Other sources I provided are academies or hasve the logo of a university non them.

Call it webzine, call it analyn, call it brtopelk, it does not make any change. Is it second party? (3rd legally)? Yes, is it verifyable (yes, and is verified...) is it independent from the subject of the article? Yes. Critera met for article, as stated by.... Wikipedia, not me.

Your argument being, greatworks is 3rd party, edited by a university lecturer, independent from the subject, verified by the British Library, but there are others verified, so it all of a sudden becomes unreliable? And where is it written in the policy?

There is an assumption of non-notability against sources that not only do we have no reason to doubt, but that are approved by institutions like the BL and published by university lkectures, while in WP it simply states that sources should be generally 'verifiable' and sources that should be discarded are those that are known for giving incorrect facts or sources that are clearly linked to the subject.

The policy is there to guarantee that evidence is the basis of articles, not the editors' personal knowledge of the subject.

The assumption of non-notability given relkiable sources is not acceptable acording to the links to the notes on notability above. Change policy or stick to it.

I wish all sources on wikipedia were edited by a university lectures, verified by the BL....

Thanks TonyBrit (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Sources do not meet WP:RS. Nominator should be strongly warned about using sock puppets. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Through mountains of text, I see little evidence this is anything more than a desperate attempt to (self?)promote a person of marginal notability at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The editor that nominated the article for deletion, and some of his cohorts that voted "Delete", have an obvious vendetta againt the subject of the article (based on their history outside of Wikipedia, not because of the nomination or votes themselves - for example, two of the voters belong to a rival publishing company). In addition, the article was voted "Keep" by most participants. The article proves notability on several levels, including newspaper articles written about the man, lengthy TV appearances, photography awards he's won, his photo gallery on a national tour, and the list goes on. Granted many of the "Keep" voters were from the area where Mr. Richards is on TV and radio. I realize this only further proves notability on a local level, but every little bit adds up to a whole. The accusation that somehow Mr. Richards magically has access to dozens of IP addresses to "enhance" voting is patently absurd (most of the votes appear to come from the LSU campus, but some come from far flung locations - all of which make sense when taken in context of the local fan base of a gamer). He has posted publicly on several occasions that he doesn't think anyone in the gaming industry - himself included - belongs on Wikipedia, so I doubt he is involved. To sum up: Notability was proved, through meaningful secondary sources (specifically, newspaper articles from large, legitimate newspaper companies), and the Randy Richards article was voted "Keep" by consensus, which the deleter tried to waive off as hacking by the author - something I doubt he (or myself) is capable of doing. Malakai Joe (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. None of the keep voters provided any arguments establishing any notability, so whether they're single-purpose accounts or not isn't relevant here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. At least two of the "Keep" votes verified the newspaper articles about Randy Richards. Several others mentioned other notability in radio and TV appearances. There is more notability on Randy Richards than many other Wikipedia entries, such as the one I pointed out earlier, like Elizabeth Donald. Precedent has been established for published authors, TV & radio personalities, subjects of newspaper articles, and award-winning photographers. At least two out of the four are meaningful secondary sources, which meet Wikipedia notability standards for Randy Richards. Malakai Joe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn I would like to point out that Percy Snoodle is the one who nominated the article for deletion, and I am the one who created the article in the first place. Our votes, and possibly even our words, should count for little in this process. The article and vote comments speak for themselves. Malakai Joe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as the closer said, "based on strength of arguments". Procedurally correct close, and I also agree with the arguments for deletion. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I believe the comments made about him are true in regards to local articles, events, interviews etc. But, just looking at D&D, the one Randy is most desperate to prove his fame here we find some facts.

Ironically, its the local articles and media that prove his notability by providing meaningful secondary sources. Malakai Joe (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• As a man in his early forties he has not generated any articles, reviews or bodies of works outside those listed. There are huge gaps in the time line where he has no involvement with the hobby whatsoever. He is no longer associated with Grayhawk, even though groups are still active on line. He is no longer active with those people listed in the Grayhawk organization, (if he ever was) and they can’t seem to remember there involvement with a national group with thousands of members or Randy for that matter.

Many of the conventions he is involved with are through him volunteering his time; many receive compensation via free access to the event, not pay as shown. I do the same on the west coast. If he had a level of notability he would have had an ongoing presence at Gencon, which he has not.

• Coastcon is notable in such he held a major position to in the organization, and was removed due to his belligerent attitude.
• Necromancer games, the group Randy approached with a manuscript, both failed to notice his so called fame, even though there active with all levels of RPG society. During the book review they noticed IP drawn from the Grayhawk setting and rejected the material and Randy.
• Spellbinder Games, a supposed book publishing company that has no influence on the gamming culture of the area, even though they had a book store and is supposedly involved with the local conventions. No locals have ever seen this store and Randy has resisted publishing an address. The store was destroyed by Katrina but never rebuilt, with no explanation why and the whole company instead is bent to publish Dreadmire, a book that can not conceivably support any one let alone a company. As having only one product there is no way spellbinder can still be in business. And now Randy apparently bought the company though he will be unable to produce any records of the sale. Evidence shows the company was his from day one, created to self publish the edited book, removing many IP violations in the process. No agent of spellbinder ever arrived at a convention to sell the book. The only people who do are Randy and his wife. Spellbinder has no presence in any organizations that publish books, no yellow page listings from before the storm and the local business administration has never heard of the store, nor its destruction, even after documents from the net were turned over to them to investigate the claim.
• Oddly, Elizabeth Donald. Who has had a focused, fruitful career in writing is being held out as someone less deserving, even though she has a body of work, a strong net presence, a strong convention presence and has awards. The constant attacks and comparisons are strange, as she was contemplating working with Randy to produce a book. With so many RPG writers to example, why hold her up for ridicule.
• As vendettas go. Randy had one for Necromancer games, making ridicules claims in regards to his book, trying to re-write history. He has attacked Quode, not because I’m a stalker, but because I had created a review, granting him a “C”. I did this as the book failed to meet any other criteria, being a sophomore effort at best. It’s interesting to note, he sold me my book from Amazon marketplace, and in the Necromancer archives notes that he has both my credit card info and my address, and decided to use this information to substantiate a claim against me. I never met the man, I was asked to review the book by members of the discussion board. And his attacks were only designed to discredit me, which he laughingly failed to do.
• In those interviews, Randy claims a glory he has never earned; his continued assault of WIKI will not end till he achieves his goal, proven by the material posted at the D&D Wikia site, a place of lesser standards of notability and verification.Quode (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining fiction - all of which has nothing to do with this discussion. Malakai Joe (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per the AfD, which was validly closed. Proponents of this article seem to think that the way to "win" on Wikipedia is to bury the other side under mountains and mountains of text, when that simply isn't so. I'd like to point out that accusing Percy (or whoever) of having a "vendetta" and conspiring to get the article deleted for business reasons is a very severe accusation, well over the line of being a personal attack Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack if its true. From what I understand from others, this has been going on for years. Malakai Joe (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of coubt it, but if you really think Percy (et al) are involved in a conspiracy against you, you should use Wikipedia's dispute resolution to resolve it, not DRV. The bottom line here is that whatever the motivations behind the nomination may have bee, the community very clearly agreed with it, and calling "CONSPIRACY!!!" here is highly unlikely to change anyone's mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a conspiracy - more like "passive collusion". Malakai Joe (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The only claim of the nominator as to why this should be overturned is because of personal animus. Not a reason to overtun. The AfD was closed properly. Provide some reliable sources, recreate the article in your user space with the reliable sources, then come back here for a new discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sensible advice I've received from a Wikipedian. Thank you. I believed the sources were reliable, and I still do. I will continue to look for other reliable source. Problem is, not everything that occurs in real life is reflected on the Internet. For example, how do you prove a newspaper article exists when there is no web-based archive for such? If I scan the article and post it myself, thats a copyright violation. Now what? Malakai Joe (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything doesn't have to be online. If you can cite issue date and page number, somebody somewhere will be able to gain access to back copies, on microfiche if nothing else. Corvus cornix_talk 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article contains the type of references you describe, citing issue dates and name of articles/newspapers. And someone, somewhere - indeed several someones - did find them, and reported this on the article's Talk page. So how do I improve these properly cited, independently verified, offline references? Malakai Joe (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not being an admin, I can't see the version of the article which contains the sources you claim it had, but the cached version that I can see doesn't contain any such references. Corvus cornix_talk 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does have a few articles, but if we look at the last 10 years alone, they are both very few and far between, there is no pattern of ongoing involvement, and the articles are random, and some came about do to Randy approaching the paper, not visa versa. The point is there are not enough articles, interest in him or his works due to his lack of involvement and dedication to meet the criteria for WIKI. Quode (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no vendetta here. How silly of me. Malakai Joe (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I see we will be stuck with this article no matter what. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malakai_Joe" Quode (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just following instructions. Malakai Joe (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be there, it should be at User:Malakai Joe/Randy Richards. Your Talk page is for other editors to communicate with you. Corvus cornix_talk 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it as suggested. Please check the references in the article. Thank you. Malakai Joe (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; once we disregard IPs that have little to no history on Wikipedia, there was very little support for keeping the article in any form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on another users input I believe the "IPs that have little to no history on Wikipedia" came from an accidental trail of links, not intentionally (as puppets, as was suggested). But why would we ignore information from new users? I thought anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and consensus - provided they are not puppets, of course. Malakai Joe (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, right. Multiple users just happen to wander by right when the AfD is going and leave their two cents. Even so, new users will have no understanding of WP:N, WP:V and other basic policies, nor is it important to give a voice to someone with no history of work on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they did not just happen to wander by. The unintentional link chain is listed on the original Talk page of the Randy Richards article: "Comment THAT is the key piece of information i needed. i promised myself i would stay out of this fracas because randy richards belongs to my science fiction group. i got here by following the trail of links. someone from the d&d wikipedia e-mailed randy a link to the same article over there. then he posted it to the star one delta yahoo group. i followed a link from there to the spellbinder games message board. from there it mentioned this article and its deletion discussion. there was no link so I googled it and found this. the s.o.d. group is based in baton rouge. it makes sense to me that most of the ip's would be from the same general area. it doesn't prove anything but it makes more sense than randy as a master hacker. 72.151.2.155 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)" So, promoting D&D Wiki article led to the unintentional promotion of the Wikipedia article. Malakai Joe (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The link in question sends us to the D&D page, not here. The original wiki posts are long dead, and the Delta Flyers group is staying out of this, going so far as to ordering you not to discuss this on there thread on yahoo groups. So there is little logic for anyone to come here, even as “Randy” states that he does not care about it, after spamming numerous sites to tell everyone how much he does not care but BTW here is a link. It’s all so funny how we get the IP explanation, with perfect timing. I to can do this, create clusters of IP by going to book stores, internet cafés, libraries, and work. But I prefer to be me, makes it easier. Quode (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As to WP:V, it would seem even seasoned editors are not familiar with it. It states, "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." It also states, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." These citations were provided, and independently verified, and yet still the article does not qualify? Malakai Joe (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the issues is that you, Randy, failed to lead a focused life. Your D&D involvement is sparse and broken. The articles random, we have info on Bebelcon, your photography, the storm. All bits and pieces, no focus, dedication that would bring you in to WIKI. Look at Gygax, his entry. Here is a focused life, he builds on his TSR days, and he has written books, created numerous adventures, has done numerous interviews. All based on his dealings with D&D and fantasy RPG in general. This is what WIKI is about.

Let’s review your references. Dragon con. Two visits in 8 years. No information about these appearances, no articles etc. Gencon. This link is to the current site. Not a past reference. And you were there, once, 10 years ago. The picture tells all, your badge color is wrong. Gary’s badge is yellow for quest speaker; if you were in a panel with him yours should be yellow as well. The other cons clustered around the Dreadmire book release. “Richards is active in the gaming industry, giving seminars and hosting panel discussions at conventions throughout the United States.” The local cons listed do not support this statement. Most of the rest of the links are based on your work after the storm, and Dreadmire. For a man in his early forties you do not have a long, connected record either in photography, tv or writing. The articles are just about Randy, the guy that did some stuff. Long accolades, published works spanning a decade, Gencon involvement every year for the last 10 years would have helped. Yes you have references but as a sum total, they do not match people like, say Elizabeth Donald. Your list of published works, shows two yet to be released. Youre in one local commercial and one tv interview. Two news paper articles in one year. “I decided to start writing on a regular basis” No evidence of this at all, one article, one book in 10 years. Elizabeth Donald our produced you. In fact, why try to get her to write a book, why not do it your self?

Points to consider. Quode (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, despite numerous attempts at disruptive anonymous edits, the consensus of the AfD was extremely clear, and no problems with the AfD closure are being presented here, just accusations of vendetta. Wikipedia is not here to serve as a promotional medium for you, Joe. --Stormie (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to promote myself. And Randy Richards is being promoted only inasmuch as anyone else on Wikipedia. But this is all irrelevant - the article contained over almost 20 citations, and meaningful secondary sources WITH independent verification. What more could anyone want? Malakai Joe (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article [26] contained nearly 20 citations, and at least 2 meaningful secondary sources WITH multiple independent verifications for notability purposes. What more could anyone want? Malakai Joe (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Endorse Deletion" I've been informed by numerous e-mails that this article was on Wikipedia, and that it is being deleted. I reluctantly decided to come check it out. While I appreciate the effort everyone that worked on the article has gone to (and the local "Keep" voters, which I did not ask to come here), I want to say for the record that I do not believe I am famous or celebrated enough -- either in the gaming industry OR as a photographer -- to be listed in an encyclopedia, even if there were 50 newspaper articles on me. In my opinion, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, TSR, Wizards of the Coast, and D&D itself all deserve entries, and not a single other person does. Now having said that, I can confirm that Quode is an ex-girlfriend of mine who became my stalker, and is now attempting to harass me on the Internet. Anything she says should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there are people who hate me, and yes there are people who love me. There are all types of people in the world, and not all of them are going to like me or my personaility. Some oppose me, because by doing so they gain the spotlight. Others are simply envious of my success. There is no sense in attacking them back, because thats what they want. Just let them have their say, perhaps releasing one official statement explaining the other side of the accusation, and let it go. There is no sense in arguing, as it diminishes your position by bringing you down to their level. They say the best revenge is "to do well" and I believe this wholeheartedly. I will continue to do so. In closing, I endorse deletion of this article on Wikipedia. I do not mind it being on the D&D Wiki, because thats where minor (very minor) celebrities in the gaming industry belong. Good luck to you all, and have a nice week. Randy C Richards (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not helping. Thanks for your input. Malakai Joe (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, im a 47 year old man who has learned what it takes to oppose you and your lies. BTW, how is the IRS these days? Im also looking forward to attending Babelcon this year, we can have a photo-op. This has all been you. Trying now to save face against your loss. D&D Wikia is next BTW. They to have standards. And give my best to Andrew, looking forward to meeting the man behind the voice. Yes we spoke of this stalker issue, in fact I'v been in contact with a few people in your region. All this because I gave you a C rating in Dreadmire. In my heart I pity you, but more so the people you hurt, likeElizabeth Donald.Quode (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent. Malakai Joe (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Please restore this article and relist at AfD. The article didn't get that much attention at first, with established users like Corpx "voting" delete without really considering the thing in depth. As the nominator of the original AfD, I believed that Mark Prindle was non-notable, although the AfD was apparently linked from a 4chan post. I believe that the closing admin Coredesat made the wrong interpretation of this strange AfD (due to its unusual structure). People from 4chan (they're not all just internet trolls, you know, sometimes even /b/tards can do a good thing) who "voted" keep in the AfD actually gave me reason to believe that Prindle is genuinely notable, given the mention of him in several books, the fact that his reviews are cited widely, and his site gets many pageviews, and he's been online for over 10 years... h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Assuming that Corpx didn't "really consider the thing" is speculative at best (unless of course you're a psychic) and bordering on a personal attack. Stuff like pageviews and being on the internet for a long time have no relevance, and the bottom line is there's nothing here that would lead us to overturn this very clear debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely don't want to make personal attacks, and certainly wouldn't intend to do so. I wouldn't say what I said there would be strong enough to violate WP:NPA - because I am always assuming good faith on the part of experienced editors. What I meant was that Corpx left only a short deletion rationale, and may not have taken the time to give it a great amount of consideration. Of course he was right that there were no references to reliable third party sources in the article at that time, but to be honest I just think that the IP editors who gave mention of Prindle in books etc had a good point. I don't think this is a clear-cut debate at all, because there do appear to be offline sources about him which I can't access.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you didn't intend your nomination as a personal attack, why did you start it off by accusing Corpx of commenting without considering the article? Unless he actually told you he did so, which I doubt, how could you possibly know? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant speak for Corpx, but I would regard criticism of myself as "voting ... without really considering the thing in depth." as reasonably polite comment and well within the permitted scope of discourse. To say someone didnt consider something carefully enough is not an insult. We are none of us perfect. I have no opinion on the issue involved, but I think Andrew is over-reacting. DGG (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion on balance of arguments presented, our new friends' opinions were unpersuasive and thus ignored as usual in such cases. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion, there was a solid consensus to delete if you ignore the 4chan SPA flood. --Coredesat 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse non-notable Charles Stewart (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above. Hut 8.5 12:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

DELETE_REASON- Lacks notability; no meaningful secondary sources available in any number; wikipedia os not a directory of all Irish athletes

• Speedy close as requester failed to articulate any argument for overturning the determination of consensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Virtually unanimous consensus on the AFD, with a very strong argument (national champion) to support it. This is not AFD round 2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep That's about as clear an AfD consensus as we ever see. Notability is subjective, sure, but it seems pretty clear the community disagrees with you on this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

DELETE_REASON- Lacks notability; no meaningful secondary sources available in any number; wikipedia is not a directory of all Irish athletes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.71.53 (talk • contribs)

• Speedy close as requester failed to articulate any argument for overturning the deletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note when I left the above comment the afd link was red, and the article link was red, with a speedy deletion in its history. It appears that the AfD link has been fixed, and that the requestor is asking us to oveturn the keep decision at the AfD. I have no opinion on that at this time. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse This is not afd round 2 as said on above deletion review, no real explanation why the AFD was closed incorrectly. Clear consensus that the article met WP:BIO from established editors. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse afd decision to Keep per Davewild. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep AfD looks clear, and come on... participating in a world championship is basically automatic notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep; clear consensus at AfD, nominator brings the same arguments they opened the AfD with and that were widely rejected there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep, closing admin made a reasonable decision in my mind, no real argument based in policy was made for deleting the article. Consensus was very clear. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

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

Discussion had 4 5 keeps and 4 5 deletes and so seems much more like a no consensus. Plus, we are still clarifying at the arbitration case to what extent character articles are affected by the injunction and while discussions at AfD seem to be okay to continue, deleting the article and closing the discussions do not seem to be something everyone is in agreement on. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (as closing administrator)

Keep

1. Mizunoryu
2. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (4 edits)
3. JunKazamaFan (7 edits)
4. Angie Y.
5. Pixelface

Delete

1. Judgesurreal777 <nominator> (2 edits)
2. Sting au
3. Doctorfluffy
4. Addhoc (4 edits)
5. Beeblbrox

Valid delete arguments

• no assertion of notability
• in-universe plot summary
• redundant to Tekken 6
• notability not inherited
• no secondary sources available
• fails WP:FICT
• contrary to WP:NOT#PLOT
• lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject

Non-valid delete arguments

• video game characters are ususally not notable
  • WP:BIAS

Valid keep arguments

• character is notable

Non-valid keep arguments

• new character and deserves to be known
• articles do not have to "prove" notability
• the only inclusion criterion is verifiability
• WP:OSE
• WP:ALLORNOTHING
• main article does not have enough room for information about this character
• notability is undefined for this subject
  • WP:FICT
• article is written well
• article subject to ARBCOM injunction protecting it from deletion or merge
  • does not apply
• notability is inherited
• deleting this article does not improve wikipedia
• deleting this article will reduce the sum of human knowledge
• if we delete this article what will its editors do?
• this new character is central to the plot of the notable game
• fans of the game will like this article
• wikipedia does not have any policies about what can be in it except vandalism or false information

Summary

The raw !vote count was actually 5 to 5, not 4 to 4. But AFD is not a plurality vote system. In determining rough consensus, as closing administrator, I must follow the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators in which !votes that are made in bad faith, based on factually flawed logic, or are not based on any articulated policy, guideline, or precedent must be given less weight. In this case, the consensus for deletion was clear to me as delete. As for the ARBCOM injunction, this article is not covered by that, as it very specifically says "television fictional characters and episodes", which Newyorkbrad described in his vote to enact as "Added "television series" to prevent this from conceivably being quoted out of context." Application of that injunction on this article would clearly be out of context, as the subject of this article is a game character that to my understanding has never been part of any television production, aside from possibly appearing in commercial advertisements for the associated game. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • In this instance wouldn't a redirect/merge to Tekken 6 be at least a fair compromise? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge was not deemed appropriate, as the participants stated that the target article already contained adequate material, and no content at this article was absent from the target except for inappropriate content (own research). A redirect would be appropriate, but does not require a delrev, and I will do that immediately. Perhaps you would consider withdrawing this request? JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to withdraw for a redirect as one should always be willing to compromise. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per JERRY's excellent summary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn It would have been helpful if Jerry had given his rationale when he closed , instead of saying just "Delete". Jerry's evaluation here seems to have been affected by his own views Otherstuff is a valid argument when the other stuff is good. If the debate does not seem to have a consensus, that should be the close. DGG (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The exact statement that I chose to summarize as "other stuff" was:

"why is it okay for Bob, Leo, and Miguel Caballero Rojo to have articles about them, but it's not for Zafina to have one? Even Azazel has an article, and we barely know anything about him other than how it fights, what it looks like, and that it will be in Tekken 6!"

This does not seem to me to read that other stuff is good. It sounded more like:

"this other stuff is also bad, so why not let this stay too?" JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The argument summarized as "main article does not have enough room for information about this character" is potentially a valid one according to the current discussion and revision of WP:FICT. This is due to issues of splits for WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY removing the protection of WP:NNC. -Verdatum (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Delete was a perfectly reasonable close based on the weight of arguments. Nothing at the AfD suggests that a redirect would be inappropriate though. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, closing admin made an entirely reasonable call in my mind. AfD is not a vote, and in any case many of the Keep votes had poor or flawed rationales behind them. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

One Fine Day! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

New References

• Two new references have become available for this article, a print article titled "One Fine Day!" in a magazine known as The Talking Stick (January-February 2008 edition, vol 25, number 3, on page 11) and a small Daily Harold Notice available at [27]. There are a pdf version of the Talking Stick article is available at [28]. Also the question of the existance of the Melissa Merli article from the News-Gazette can be verified in a pdf found at [29]

-Fkick

• Endorse deletion looks to be a student video so non-notable it isn't even on IMDB, and the "new references" are the very definition of trivial, non-reliable, or both. Strongly suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (films) and consider withdrawing nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per lack of convincing justification by requestor and per comments by Mr. Lenahan. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• A pdf of the OSTN One Fine Day! broadcast schedule is available at [30] for review. 128.174.12.149 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Fkick

Endorse deletion irrelevant article Superscoop (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, perfectly proper (and having a free blogspot blog as your "official" website is prima facie evidence of non-notability). Guy (Help!) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)