Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16-31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1-15 2007 Deletion review archives June 1-15 2007 >

31 May 2007

[edit]
  • Allison Stokke – Original BLP deletion endorsed; however, there is agreement -- even among endorsers of deletion -- that a non-CSD A7 stub could exist here. It will need to be AfD'ed, because even I'm not certain whether a national high-school record-holder passes WP:BIO. Per the suggestion of several, including Guy and Chris Parham, the article will be semi-protected for the AfD, escalating to full-protection if necessary. Just as the subject does not deserve coverage of incidental negative publicity, she deserves to have her positive achievements considered for inclusion in Wikipedia, alongside other athletes. – Xoloz 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allison Stokke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Holder of multiple national records in the pole vault, subject of dozens of news stories, at least 50 of them having nothing to do with her recent internet fame, speedy deleted as A7 (article about a person with no claim of importance or significance) in the middle of an AfD. Holder of multiple national records is clearly a person of significance. Requesting overturn to let the AfD run. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. As the creator of the article, I am happy to let it undergo AfD, but it should be obvious that A7 of WP:CSD does not apply here. Lampman 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke by myself and others. If she becomes notable based on her sports achievements at a later date we can create a new article at that time. Burntsauce 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That was an AfD discussion. The arguments brought forth there do not apply here, as we're discussing the speedy and whether A7 applies. Lampman 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they apply. Deletion review is not for restoring pages that masquerade as encyclopedia articles but inevitably belong deleted. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you believe an article on a holder of multiple national records is "masquerades as an encyclopedia article" that's your opinion. My point is that the subject for discussion here is whether speedy was proper procedure, or if the community should have its say. It is hard for contributers to debate the absolute value of the article, since it doesn't exist. Lampman 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What multiple national records has she held? I haven't found that in the links provided. Corvus cornix 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • She holds the national record in pole vault for high school freshmen and sophomores, at 12-8 and 13-5.75 respectively[1]. "Stokke, from Newport Harbor High School, is a pole vaulter with a PR of 13-5 3/4. As a junior, she took second place at the CIF State Championships with a mark of 12-9, the same mark she hit as a sophomore, when she set the national sophomore indoor record. A member of the USA Today's All-USA Girls Track Team as a sophomore, she set national age-group records of 13-5 3/4 at age 16 and 13-4 at age 15. She set a national freshman record of 12-8 and was a Verizon Junior All-American in 2004." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The non-meme links I can see only say that she was a regional high school champion, which clearly fails notability. If she makes the Olympics or wins the NCAAs, then write an article about her as an athlete, but the concentration on the internet meme is a BLP violation, and speedy deletion was proper. (BTW, I am basing this on the AfD discussion and the links provided, I can't see the article.) Corvus cornix 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to AfD. A7 does not apply if there is an assertion of importance, even if the assertion should prove unsourced or insufficient. The assertion of even an informal national record is an assertion of importance. Doesn't prove it, and may not be enough, but no single individual gets to decide that, & I thought that this at least was generally understood. Speedy is not elastic. BLP is not a speedy criterion, and this is not obvious BLP even if it were. Arguments to the contrary, unilateral deletions for BLP can only be justified by imminent harm, and if the story is already out in the web, there won't be any additional imminent harm. Short of that, BLP is not decided by what any one admin or editor wants to call it, but by the community. I would have removed her picture immediately if it had been there, biut the rest is arguable & should be argued. DGG 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion is proper if the bio is non-notable, and/or if there is a BLP violation, both of which apply in this case. Corvus cornix 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No you're wrong; BLP violation is only cause for speedy if the article is libelous, which it was clearly not. NN is only cause for speedy if it is absolutely uncontroversial, but as this discussion shows it is clearly not. But again, it is hard for contributers to assess these things when the article isn't there. Lampman 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you actually think this warrants an article in an encyclopedia? Given that you ostensibly reluctantly "Started page that will inevitably come, might as well make it a good, respectful article", why do you think this page belongs on Wikipedia. Why do you think it could ever be made into anything more than a newspaper article? If you want to write a newspaper article, see Wikinews. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could expain that, but it's not an argument I'm willing to have, because it's a complete sidetrack. The question here is not whether she is notable, that's a question for the AfD. The question is whether her notability was asserted, which it was, and as such the rules clearly state that the article cannot be speedied.
          • The real issue here is whether administrators should be allowed to sidestep rules and ignore community consensus. I for one believe not. Lampman 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy deletion is proper when the article is used solely to comment upon a person's appearance, which is what it was doing (apparently). Corvus cornix 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it wasn't. It was a neutral summary of her records, her achievements, and the fact that she'd gained a notable amount of unwanted lewdness. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will take into account that you have not read the article, but I can assure you that that was not the case. There was not a POV word in the article, there was one short line - not about her appearance - but about public reaction to her appearance. The main focus was on her athletic abilities. If you had been able to read it you could have made an informed judgement rather than rely on hearsay, and that's why the AfD should be reopened. Lampman 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloody hell no. Horrible nasty thing. Keep deleted and monitor all future creations by the author. Gah.--Docg 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Internet memes ARE NOT WORTHY. Sean William @ 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IDON'TLIKEIT is an argument for afd not drv.Geni 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on BLP grounds, but there's no way it was an A7 speedy. EliminatorJR Talk 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right about A7. And BLP does not warrant speedy, only if it's libelous. Lampman 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but on the other hand, if this article stands, is it going to focus on her athletic achievements, or the fact she's been a pervert magnet for half the Internet? While there is the danger of using WP:BLP as a big deletion stick (Another POINTY AfD today) there are plainly some articles that Wikipedia isn't doing itself any favours by including. Fine, relist if really necessary (after all the process was wrong, which is why we're here) but I don't see the advantage. EliminatorJR Talk 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A lot of people make and break records in high school. Even living in California, students break all sorts of school records and barely a peep in the local papers. What I am seeing on Google now is just news about her pictures being used in the blogosphere. Even some of the sites that perpetuated the meme are closing up shop and issuing an apology to her. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • go back to afd Not A7.Geni 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get a life, people. This is a real live young woman we're talking about. I'm the person who deleted the article and closed the AfD. I don't particularly care if A7 applies or not. I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people. There's no grand principle at stake here which says that every article which can be written must be written. Move on to something important. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist clearly not an A7 - there was assertion of notability. (the grounds it was deleted under) Nor is it a G10 (Attack). Also I would like people to remember DRV is about policy, not content, whether you like it or not is immaterial - the issue is whether the deletion was proper under the deltin policy. ViridaeTalk 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse this deletion on the grounds cited in the deletion listing by David.Monniaux, particularly the biographies of living persons policy. The article did not reflect well on Wikipedia. We should be very wary of partarking, or even to appear to partake, of the culture of prurience and cyberstalking that afflicts much of the web. We're different, folks. We don't need this article. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist', improper closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I quote from the deleted revision using my magical admin powers: "According to her coach and her parents Alison has been somewhat disturbed by the excessive publicity." This is a clear BLP concern; we shouldn't be subjecting this girl to further unwanted attention and ogling. Krimpet (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did the Daniel Brandt argument become policy? "I'm my own person, take my article off!" –– Lid(Talk) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daniel Brandt has been an activist for decades, constantly grappling for publicity and press on his endless tirades. All this girl is notable for is being lusted over by a bunch of horny old perverts on the internet, and she was unsurprisingly disturbed by this unwanted publicity. There's a huge difference between the two. Krimpet (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, I'd never heard of Allison Stokke before I heard it mentioned on IRC just now, but this comment is ridiculous. She's clearly of note for breaking some pole vaulting records at a young age. The article that was deleted contained no image of her, was short and informative. I see no reason why it should be removed. She's concerned about negative attention, not an informative article. Her picture is all over the news, FFS, and if she's gonna be an athlete she'd better get used to it. Would you delete the article of Serena Williams if she requested it be removed?! === Jez === 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. WP:BLP supersedes process, as it should. We all know this. Chick Bowen 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? There still needs to be a process to see if BLP even applies, otherwise it's saying 'safety trumps freedom' to justify throwing people in jail without trial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The process is administrator conferral and common sense, and this discussion right here. And never compare an article to a person. People have rights; articles don't. Chick Bowen 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • DRV is here to certify correctness of process, not make content decisions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Screw process. This is a real person. Do you not get the fact that real live people do not give a damn about our silly processes? They care about what's being splashed all over the Internet about them. Anyone who cares more about process than content does not care about the people our content affects. FCYTravis 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There wasn't anything offensive in the deleted article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you don't get why the article's existence was offensive to basic human decency, you have no business commenting on issues affecting living people. You're arguing that for the entirety of her life, the next 65+ years, this woman should have to put up with an "encyclopedia article" which reminds everyone that when she was 18, a bunch of basement-bound bloggers passed her photo around like some piece of meat? You have no sense of ethics. This article has no need of existing right now. FCYTravis 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • for the entirety of her life, no, I'm arguing that an article, four sentences of which are devoted to discussing other achievements and aspects of her life, and three to her internet fame, should be allowed to exist for the seven days it takes to finish the AfD that was already in process. If your concern is about 65 years down the line, why not let us take the seven days to get it right now? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Eventualism applies only in reverse for living people. It does zero harm to anyone to delete the article immediately and then argue about it, and then consider later whether to write an article on her. By leaving the article up, we are continuing to disseminate the harm or potential harm. FCYTravis 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Maybe what's occurring to her is "offensive" to "basic human decency," all subjective terms that have no place in this discussion, but may otherwise. If we were simply plastering the pictures all over the place and renamed the article "pole vaulting vixen," maybe you'd have a point. But none of that is or was happening, nor would anyone let it at this point. But you have to demonstrate how an article that works off of numerous sources does any harm first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No he doesn't. You have to demonstrate why it should be allowed to stay. Quoting from WP:BLP, The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • No, he does if he wants this to stay deleted. The justification for how this does not violate BLP is clear. --19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • Zero harm? You think it would do zero harm to delete every article in wikipedia that any administrator thinks is possibly harmful to anyone at any time in the future, and then only letting people discuss it without seeing the content? We're not throwing around ED-type allegations here, we're simply reporting what the secondary sources said. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's quite simple, really, Night Gyr. By keeping an article on this, we will never allow people to ever forget what happened to this woman. We will come up on their Google for the remainder of their natural-born lives. That is something we must take into consideration. Blogs shut down and disappear without a trace. People forget. But Wikipedia is forever - and that's not always a good thing. FCYTravis 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The issue here is not whether the article should exist forever, it's whether it should be allowed a full deletion discussion. You're ignoring that and strawmanning. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • There's absolutely no point in giving it "a full deletion discussion" if the article is going to die, period. This one was going to. You keep thinking everything is about process. Let me clue you in - real people do not give a flying fuck about our silly processes. FCYTravis 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Well sourced articles that do not violate policy are not "going to die." That does not happen, sorry. I know you want it to, but it doesn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Oh, but they have, and they will continue to do so. You can ask the whole ArbCom to recuse if you wish, but this is the future of Wikipedia - less tabloid, more encyclopedia. Jeff, please, you and I both have better things to do than argue over this. It's happening whether anyone likes it or not. FCYTravis 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, clearly out of process with given no time to have a discussion on the issue, A7 obviously not applying dueto numerous notability claims (backed with sources) and the people screaming BLP need to realise BLP is for the deletion of information from articles, not a reason listed under WP:SPEEDY (except in cases of extreme libel). This recent BLP vs Keep period hs been mind boggling. –– Lid(Talk) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Yeah, I know it was deleted. I don't see, and have never really understood, why it's worth angering and alienating members of the community over failing to allow even a debate to take place, and trusting that a closing admin will interpret things properly. But anyway, this is a NN high school athlete that would have no coverage at all if she weren't a victim of unwanted publicity. I guess I can see why it made the news once, but that doesn't make it a topic we should really have in the encyclopedia. If she becomes legitimately famous for her accomplishments as an athlete, or if she becomes notable in some other way, the article can be recreated, and the unfortunate incident can be covered. But for now she's not there yet. Mangojuicetalk 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would have no coverage at all if she weren't a victim of unwanted publicity" -- Did you miss the 52 news stories I cited that discuss her before the internet publicity? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I meant, no coverage here. It's quite obvious to me, that her track and field accomplishments (though fairly imprssive) would not have led to her being written up in Wikipedia had it not been for this unfortunate internet meme. The edit history confirms this: the page was first created back at the end of April, with "Hot pole vaulter..." as the main point. Mangojuicetalk 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist obviously failed CSD criteria, was already on afd and was headed towards delete, hell the admin even deleted the AFD! Thats just not done. I also feel this subject is notable per her records, All americans are clearly determined notable by consensus as we have over a hundred in Category:McDonald's High School All-Americans.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious overturn; unlike most Internet memes, this actually rated an article in the Washington Post. I'm very disturbed by the new trend of using WP:BLP as a justification to delete articles when the real reason for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Were there unsourced or poorly sourced statements about Ms. Stokes in this article? If so, remove those statements, and start from scratch if needed. If not, then it doesn't fall under BLP. Period. There is no such thing as an article title that inherently violates BLP. *** Crotalus *** 06:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Unsubstantiated rumors about Crotalus horridus would fly under BLP :P Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There would be no need to invoke BLP because such a page would violate WP:V and WP:RS. On the other hand, if a major national newspaper printed a story about me, then an article would be justified even if the subject of coverage was trivial and/or embarrasing. *** Crotalus *** 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • False. That would be Wikinews, which is ----> that way. Having a single article published about you in a major national newspaper or magazine does not make you encyclopedic. If that was the case, I would be encyclopedic, as a 70,000-circulation national road racing magazine published a page-long profile feature on me. That doesn't make me encyclopedic. We do not write "biographies" of every single person who was once in a newspaper. FCYTravis 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome, do not endorse means used to get there or rationale. In the end, this is indeed a 15-minutes-of-fame story that belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. But BLP certainly does not apply here. I looked at the deleted article, and I fail to see any unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, nor any non-neutral language used to attack, nor even any undue weight issues. In the end, I would've still argued to delete on notability grounds, and I think that would have been the eventual outcome. But BLP has got to quit being used as the big hammer when someone just doesn't like it. Sometimes, it will be encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to people. In this case, it's not. But we need to quit overextending BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn notability clearly established. Internet meme or not, she is notable.  Grue  11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for Christ's sake. If the Internets were not circulating pictures and going "PHWOOOOAR!" would we even have the article in the first place? We can either have an article excluding the mention of this ridiculous crap, which is a one-liner but an acceptable stub, and permanently protect it, or we can leave it deleted, or we can redirect to a page on junior US athletics records and leave it at that. Wat is not acceptable is the article in the form as deleted, as should be blindingly obvious to everybody. Internet meme my arse - nice looking girl drooled over by nerds without a girlfriend is the limit of that shit. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, however it is we got there, per JzG in particular. In cases of minor internet celebrities (and she is minor), first do no harm. Process concerns will have to take a number. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the assertion of notability is more about how a website posted a picture of her and then a big pervert furore took place, which is not good - BLP is expressly for this kind of shit. Neil (►) 12:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here’s another couple of articles that should be speedied if we are gonna be consistent: Prince William: the poor kid didn’t ask for the attention and I’m sure he would be happier without it. Notability, of course, doesn’t apply when there are BLP concerns. Star Wars kid: this is pretty obvious – unlike Stokke he didn’t deliberately do anything to get notable, unlike her the attention he got was purely negative, and unlike her he was far below the age of majority at the time.
  • To be honest I couldn’t care less if the article stays or goes. I’ve seen the girl jump and I’m convinced that, come Beijing, there won’t be a power-tripping admin in the world who can keep her from having her own article. What I don’t like is admins playing God. Of those who endorse deletion I’ve seen a lot of arguments about her notability, but I haven’t seen anyone able to explain how this article warrants a speedy. That’s because it doesn’t. Lampman 12:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP. Her only real assertions to notability (to date) was being the subject of a pervertapalooza. Neil (►) 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's simply not true. High school athletes can be notable if they show enough potential. Kevin Garnett and Lebron James were both on the cover of Sports Illustrated while still in high school. But more importantly: WP:BLP is not grounds for speedy! Lampman 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it well sourced? Because if not, you may have been able to delete that portion for the time being. You do realize, however, that she was on the front page of the Washington Post, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Was she on the front of the Post for winning her high school pole vault? Neil (►) 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that relevant? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was better sourced than 99% of the articles out there, with inline citations from reliable news sources. Again, contributers aren't able to make an informed opinion because some admin circumvented the rules, so they have to rely on hearsay instead. Lampman 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how many "high-school champions" are there out there? Just how notable are this girl's athletic achievements? Given that she is so young, it is highly unlikely that she has progressed to the point where she is significant on a global scale, and most of the references to her actual abilities that I have seen were from local news only. If in some years she progresses to senior competition, rather than just fading away into the crowd, maybe we can resurrect this article. —Phil | Talk 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding from the articles I've read is that she's a national record holder for her level, meaning that she holds the record for pole vaulting for high schoolers. It's significant on a national scale, for sure - global, maybe not, but that doesn't really make a difference. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restored a temporary copy of the most recent version of the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31/Allison Stokke Temp in case anybody wants to see the contents. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already deleted for the same reasons this article was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it in one.--Docg 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that the original deletion was inappropriate, however, a histoy undeletion would be useful here. I know you won't do it, but it's worth noting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, instead of Wikilawyering about process and making hysterical accusations, you could address which of the three permissible outcomes you prefer: merge to an article on high school atlhetic records; a one-liner without the perv-o-rama; or deletion until she achieves some more widespread and substantive coverage outside of the athletic achievement. Any of these three would be fine per policy. Do feel free to choose one. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • None of the above. A full article on her and the situation is entirely warranted per all relevant policies. Instead of being rude and accusing people of Wikilawyering, you could admit that maybe, just maybe, there wasn't a violation for anything here. So I pick option four - full restoral. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Apart from this lurid incident and short-lived Internet meme, she is just yet another gifted young athlete. David.Monniaux 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, high school athlete plus some news stories is not enough to overrule WP:BLP here. Kusma (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have obviously misunderstood the argument: BLP policy is not about speedy. The issue here is whether speedying the article was correct. Lampman 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind, also, that no BLP issue has been adequately supported. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, but there was no particular reason to speedy it. It was already listed on AFD, that would have been fine. I don't see how it's an emergency for us to get rid of a sourced article that doesn't say anything not already being said by lots of news sources. In other words, there's no reason to use cries of "BLP! It must go!" in this case. Friday (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist We have an AFD process which works very well, and this article should be judged on its merits. There are a great many newspaper articles which have substantial coverage of her athletic achievements prior to and independent of any internet fame for a photo. If we need a policy provision allowing deletion of articles which some feel might be embarrassing to minors, then by all means add such provisions to WP:BIO , WP:BLP , or WP:CSD. Wikipedia should follow its policies and guidelines, and not the whims of admins who feel their moral compass points truer than those of their peers. Edison 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Blind adherence to process should never outweigh common decency and common sense. -- Donald Albury 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original deletion was appropriate in the spirit of WP:BLP. Wikilawyering over this could well have real life ramifications for the subject of the article, so there is no reason not to stop it early. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabliod. If you want to write a decent article on a meme, Wikinews is ----------------> over here. Martinp23 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins, Oliver Wendell Holmes. That's what we're talking about here. Was the deletion in-process? Maybe not, but I don't care. Was everything in the article accurate, verifiable, and backed up by proper citations to good sources? Probably, but again, I don't care. The point is, Wikipedia having this article may cause harm to an innocent person. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only argument that matters. Something can be 100% right and still be wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion that the speedy deletion has generated here is probably an indication that it's a contentious enough decision that it should not have been speedied - certainly it does not seem to qualify per CSD guidelines. Nevertheless I believe that the outcome would have been to delete this anyway, and to force it back through AfD is a bit too much process wonkery for me. Arkyan • (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a valid speedy deletion. Plenty of neutral reliable sources available to produce article on this subject. Catchpole 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - What on Earth has Wikipedia come to when people are defending a "biographical article" the sum total of which consists of the fact that a bunch of bloggers leered at her photo? To quote CBS News, "Meet the Greta Garbo of the Internet: Allison Stokke. She’s 18 years old, athletic, attractive and wants to be left the hell alone." We're going to leave her the hell alone. FCYTravis 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be terrible. That wasn't what the article was. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not commenting either way on the article, but if "wanting to be left the hell alone" were a criterion, wouldn't we have deleted this article some time ago? Should we revive discussion of an "opt-out" policy for living people? JavaTenor 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more tabloid trash articles like this we have, the more I start to agree with Mr. Brandt. Perhaps we should issue a policy which says we don't cover living people at all. It's going to come to that point if we keep treating the subjects of our articles as if they don't matter. FCYTravis 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We aren't Encyclopedia Dramatica, either. --Carnildo 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Marginal notebility plus BLP concerns = delete. (I am happy to agree that A7 doesn't apply, but that doesn;t decide this case.) Eluchil404 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've emailed the Washington Post writer responsible for the front page article about her; I'll forward Allison a copy of the deleted article if I can get in touch with her. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy. Perfectly valid delete on BLP grounds. Anyone who thinks differently really doesn't understand the intent of BLP and needs to rethink their position. There are many voices here saying that now and it will become increasingly clear that articles such as this will not survive in the end. Having protracted wrangling about it for each such incident is divisive and unnecessary, and will become increasingly clear over time that it will not be tolerated, I predict. Some of the people speaking out to try to save it are making rather shocking statements... that the deletion is the right thing but that we have to have a DRV or an AFD anyway, that BLP doesn't say that privacy and doing the right thing aren't important, or even that if things don't go a certain way that they will contact the media with deleted content. That last matter is gravely serious and shocking, and unacceptable of someone the community placed trust in. "endorse delete" and close this DRV early as being out of order. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, the offer was to email it to the subject of the article, not to the media. JavaTenor 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was valid about it? Was it an unsourced negative page about a living person? Nope. Was it an attack page? Nope. So no, the deletion was not "perfectly valid." Also, anyone thinking of closing this early or in the requisite five days should know that the strength of argument is what's important here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read WP:BLP?: In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.,=. Corvus cornix 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm very aware of it. There's no doubt here. This did not qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article condemns itself: "became an overnight internet phenomenon" == Not notable except for being a meme. "Alison has been somewhat disturbed by the excessive publicity" == the publicity is doing her harm. QED. After paring back the tabloid sensationalism, the fact that people drool over her, there's nothing left. Do no harm. This is an OBVIOUS speedy. Unless this is a project I (and many others, including, dare I say it, Jimbo himself) do not care to be associated with, that is. Perhaps you should fork, Jeff. Your views are clearly far, far outside the mainstream. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow. I'm civil to you and you make an asshole comment in return. Nice job. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • EH? you lost me there. What comment are you referring to? I refuted your statement of "there's no doubt" it did not qualify, by showing that conversely, there's no doubt that this WAS a good deletion, that it DID qualify, as the article itself proves it. And if you don't see that, your views are indeed far outside the mainsteam. And IF your views are far outside the mainstream of this project, forking is the correct thing to do. It's how open source projects grow and prosper, after all. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. The entire project is GFDL or otherwise free content (that's the point after all) so you can start afresh if you so wish, as other forks have done in the past. But I despair of reasoning with you, you seem so devoutly certain that there are absolutely no circumstances under which something might be a BLP issue. Here we have someone non notable who does not WANT notoriety, who has been victimised by having it thrust upon her and you just don't have the common, man-in-the-pub decency to let her be. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Letting the AfD run its course would be less drama and make more sense, as now this DRv is performing as the AfD, which its not intended to do. Then Delete because of the BLP concerns. Regardless of the "vote" total, of course. Unless someone can come up with an argument that trumps that. Who knows? Also: if we cannot get a majority of !voters to support deletion for reasons of BLP or indeed WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY in cases like this, we have a cultural problem that we need to work on. Ham-handed attempts to cut off discussion are not the way to do this. Herostratus 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Ignoring lurid and sensational coverage of her status as an "internet phenomenon", there is very little here. A stub containing just the first paragraph of the last deleted version would probably be okay, but it would almost certainly need to be protected. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until she conquers the world as a vaulter. Passing meme that'll be forgotten about in two weeks. Moreschi Talk 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist on AfD Setting a national record in a recognized sport is normally considerd notable, in any of itself, regardless of any "internet meme". This is true even for an age-restricted record. Unless we ahve changed our inclusion policy drastically quite recently, there should be an article on her for the sports achievements alone. Whether the intrnet stuiff should be there is an editorial decision, ther is enough for an articel even if it is removed. It is all well cited, and does not appear to me to be "negative or controversial". But even if it is all removed, national sports champions clearly pass WP:BIO and surely do not warrent A7 speedy deletes. This is simply absurd, IMO. DES (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and Jimbo's edit. It may be an out-of-process deletion but it embodies the spirit of those two. As Spike Lee said, "Always do the right thing." howcheng {chat} 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Relist - The application of BLP has been a farce of late. Why was BLP drafted in the first place? To get rid of uncited and potentially libelous information in light of the Seigenthaler embarrassment. It has been railroaded into a get out of jail free card for speedying any biographical articles that an admin doesn't like. Just give a shout of BLP and you can be sure of editors cowering away. Yet this is never what BLP was about. FCYTravis gives an impassioned cry of "Think of the children" but this is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is about notability, whether you're notable for being leered over, or notable for filming yourself looking like a clumsy idiot is irrelevant. Wikipedia is for the reader first, the subject's thoughts contribute very little whether we have an article or not; if you want to edit with a "Sympathetic Point of View", then head over to Wikinfo, a mirror more suitable to your tastes. Wikipedia is about neutrality, if a fat Chinese kid is noted because of his appearance, then that's what the article should concentrate on, not how awful and mean his detractors have been, it is not undue weight. And on a slight tangent, although I agree with the recently added "Subject (person's) name may not be the best place to put the article on incidents", in this case, it clearly would. I'm sure some misguided user thinks High School Pole Vault lechery controversy sidesteps BLP issues by not mentioning names, it's not, and anything like that is a ridiculous name for an article.
  • Incidentally, I would vote to delete the article. This 15 seconds of fame crap just doesn't cut mustard, I had never even heard of her until now, and the articles are human interest fluff. Unless this interest persists, it just isn't notable enough (but more so that the web crap which we have), but then again I think the Essjay article is a pointless piece of Wiki-navel gazing. I'm still arguing to overturn and relist this deletion because I can see BLP speedies getting more and more contrived and gregarious. We'll be deleting well-sourced neutral information because an editor thinks sections carry undue weight when they're just biased, we'll be deleting well-sourced biographies because we think the articles existence may possibly remotely harm the subject, rather than how its harming the readers for not being there. As an example of this stupidity, I'll cite the recent Crystal Gail Mangum deletion logs in which the protected redirect is deleted for some really moot Wikipedia essay which seem to be clogging up the project space. - hahnchen 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion on the article itself. It looks like a non-notable athlete but we have lots and lots and lots and lots of articles about athletes I would consider non-notable. The 'human dignity' etc. argument is reasonable (though I note that Star Wars kid is still a blue link, surely a far worse problem in that regard). I rather dislike admins refusing to allow non-admins to see the contents of an article for the duration of a deletion discussion. I also dislike admins making ridiculous accusations such as saying other people 'have no ethics'. If you're going to put yourselves up as the super-reasonable defenders of the encyclopedia then you have to actually be reasonable and able to have a civil argument. Haukur 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. But let parties take this to ArbCom or policy process determine if there are times and places where egregious WP:BLP warrants a speedy. and:
    • Smack closing Admin with a trout for using an A7 justification when the AfD as listed doesn't justify that criteria at all, doubly so because even a speedy doesn't have to be done within three hours of opening an AfD. Even a WP:SNOW justification would have been better.
    • Smack all editors involved with a trout for thinking a) "This must be deleted [or kept] or WP will fall!", and b) for thinking something that's highly covered in news sources and teh internets will remain [or go away] whether or not it's at WP.
    • Smack all with trouts who think that the family itself can't find and use the libel removal process outlined in WP:BLP on their own if they feel it necessary - we don't need to defend them, they obviously can defend themselves.
    • Smack those with a trout who think temp undeletion is a problem in this case while DRV proceeds - again, if it's a properly verified article with no OR, then the information is elsewhere on the Internet, so what's the problem? This is clearly an individual case basis, where viewing the article itself at this time would help understand if a relist is necessary or not.
    • Smack Jimbo Wales with a minnow for bringing to life such a beautiful system where policies collide on such a grand scale that case-by-case determination is necessary.
    • Smack me with a trout for thinking any of this is important.

- LaughingVulcan Laugh w/ Me or Logical Entries 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist - not eligible for speedy, requires a full debate. BoojiBoy 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for two reasons. First, not notable. If this student-athlete did not deserve an article two years ago when she broke a record of some kind, she doesn't deserve it now because someone posted her picture on a blog and some hairy-knuckled internet wankers drooled on it. Second, violates BLP and What Wikipedia is Not. It is impossible to write a neutral encyclopedia biography when the only thing documented in the sources is "She holds a pole-vault record and is pretty, and when he picture was posted on a blog some hairy-knuckled internet wankers made disturbing comments." Her mom says she is disturbed by the attention but is handling it well. That is not an endorsement for permanent enshrinement in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of cute girls whose pictures get posted on the internet without their permission (even if a newspaper writes about it). Thatcher131 06:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Speedy delete not warranted, notability asserted (Not for the pole vaulting, that - while great - is not notable, but for for the discussion about photo privacy and uncontrollable internet memes, evidenced by this story by CBS news). —Ocatecir Talk 07:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I can see both sides of this and I have sympathy for the new idea that Wikipedia simply should not treat every internet meme as encyclopedic because it got a couple of news stories. I don't, however, think that necessarily applies in this case, and I think the community should be allowed to decide whether it does. To those voting to keep it deleted for (what may be) good reason, the question at hand is not the article's propriety, but whether the deletion of the article was proper. I do not think it was a proper deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Clearly non-notable individual. Google does not show notability, nor does being given 15 minutes of unwanted fame.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist (I need to mention that I have not seen the article in question, all the info I have on this article comes from this discussion, and the afd that was closed.) I came across this article's afd while doing my weekly read through of the afd's and found it interesting that it was closed so quickly not once, but twice for the same reasons that seem to be clearly false. First is the subject notable? In my humble opinion the answer is a resounding yes, not just for the current wave of internet fame, but for the fact that she holds National records for a sporting event. This notability precludes use of the CSD A7 Argument. Second, does the article cause damage to the subject or family of the subject? Again I can't speak directly to this, but unless the article showed personal info (Home address, phone numbers, e-mail addresses) I find it hard to think that a short paragraph on a current news topic could be considered harmful to the subject. So that throws out the BLP argument. As for wiki-lawering and the such I find it hard to stomach that so many people are blindly following an admin or two who clearly have stated that process be damned I'll do what I want. I can't help but think that this would be de-syopable but that doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Also I think it could set a dangerous precedent that its okay for a syop to go and delete then get approval without letting people see it. Finally I am amazed at the MASSSIVE amount of Crystal balling going on here. I gaze into my crystal ball and see this becoming a landmark case in internet law, finding out who really owns the image of a person, and is it legal or an invasion of privacy to pass a picture of a living person around without conscent of that person? Does this argument allow for the article to be kept?? No, but its the same as the endorsers claims that she is an internet phenom that will be forgotten by the end of the month. EnsRedShirt 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the world is catching on regarding our removal of obviously notable articles. Great job, folks, Wikipedia needs more bad press like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary: I predict that the person who wrote that on their web log will be castigated by others in like manner to this, and Wikipedia taking the same high ground, of not hosting a biographical article on a private individual who has explicitly stated her desire not to become known for the things discussed in the second paragraph, as several of the people who have voluntarily shut down their web sites have taken, will prove to be one of our finer hours.

      Your attempt to raise the bogeyman of "Look! It's generating bad press." in order to sway the argument here will fail (not least because a web log isn't actually a press). I've read some of the comments outside of Wikipedia on this issue, and there is a definite swell of opinion that the people taking down the web sites have led by example in the correct direction. I also predict that this particular cry from you may well backfire on you, personally, from outside of Wikipedia. If you don't want that to happen, please put more thought into your arguments. Uncle G 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could someone please end this? We have plenty of input, and now we’re being ridiculed on one of the world’s biggest sports sites. Opinion seems to be split down the middle, but there’s really only one question that needs to be answered: was the speedy entirely uncontroversial? This is the only case in which a speedy is permissible, otherwise it must come up for AfD (and no, BLP concerns do not allow speedy). A quick look at the above should give an answer to that question. Lampman 14:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. A7 was invalid, AFD closure was invalid and no admin can enforce his/her personal ethics on a project that has millions of users (despite mentioning "BLP" in deletion summary). As for the subject, she is clearly notable as proved by the number of reliable sources. Prolog 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist I fail to see how the subject of a front page story in the Washington Post, followed by a CBS story about the Washington Post front page story can be accused of not asserting notability. I also fail to see where BLP says that sourced content can be speedy deleted. If coverage of this turns one into a "tabloid", I guess the Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Los Angeles Times, NPR, San Jose Mercury News, CBS News, USA Today, and AOL Sports are all tabloids too. I can think of worse company. --Maxamegalon2000 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist While I can think of many reasons to delete this article, speedy deleting it under BLP is not the way to go. While I understand and agree with many of the BLP speedies, this is very much a gray area (as far as policy is concerned) that needs community discussion. I really don't like the direction these BLP deletion rationales are going in. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - seems to be very controversial, doesn't seem to be obviously unimportant, no BLP Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several above have mentioned sources relevant to this discussion, but not all have been linked here. Here are a few: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, Washington Post, CBS News, San Jose Mercury News, among others. For what it's worth, I agree that it's odd to have a biography of this young lady, especially given her stated desire to reduce the level of attention paid to her (I believe we may ultimately end up with some variety of "opt-out" policy here), although there may be something encyclopedic to say in some other article about the nature of privacy in the internet era which could use her case as a case study. JavaTenor 02:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist Twelve hours ago, Google showed 447K hits on her name -- now there are 592K. And referring to her as a "girl" is demeaning -- she is a woman. Please see my other comments on Talk:Allison_Stokke. Bete Noir 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This deletion review is becoming notable. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/01/allison-stokkes-wikipedia-entry-keeps-getting-deleted/ Paxse 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please actually read the discussion that preceded your comment, where this particular "It's generating press!" bogeyman has already been addressed. Uncle G 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This woman has been the victim of some disgusting behaviour by a blogger, and just because some equally disgusting men have chosen to turn this into an "internet meme" does not mean Wikipedia should substantially further that harm by covering the incident. I have zero confidence in the judgement of those (virtually all men, surprise of surprises) who have voted to overturn this deletion, and I'm just disgusted that there would be so many. Rebecca 05:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please desist. Abusing your administrative privileges to reveal personal details about editors will not be tolerated. Bete Noir 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, where on earth did that come from? I said no such thing. Rebecca 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably the virtually all men comment. I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy that takes the gender of those commenting into account. In adition you will note that most of the overturns are procedual at this point we have no idea how many actualy support the existance of the article compared to those who think that the way this has been delt with is unacceptable.Geni 10:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's somewhat foolish, as anyone familiar with the World Wide Web should be aware, to assume the sexes of people that one knows only as pseudonyms on a web site. And it's very bad form for an administrator and ex-arbitration committee member, who should know our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, to take a discussion of the deletion of an article and attempt to turn it into a discussion of the editors that are participating in the discussion. Uncle G 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was simply noting a clearly evident fact; the vast majority of those wanting to keep this disgusting article are men. This isn't about personal attacks; it is about chauvinistic behaviour on Wikipedia, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to criticise it when I see it. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - speedy deletion was clearly out of process. The deleting Administrator may not care about abuse of power by Administrators, but I do. And so should we all. Js farrar 11:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist clearly out of process, no BLP issues or speedy delete criteria as far as I understand, the whole AFD process seems to have been subverted by a single admin. KnightLago 14:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No BLP issues?!?!? This woman has made it very clearly that this mass sexual harrassment is causing her grief. We shouldn't be adding to it; I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case of BLP. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Sexual harassment" is a strong accusation, and being one of the editors of Stokke's article, your use of this hyperbole does not please me. I can't find anything in Sexual harassment about creating NPOV biographies qualifying one for this unpleasant label. Do you know the fable about "The Man Who Cried Wolf?" Bete Noir 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll quote from the article you cited. The first line, indeed. "Sexual harassment is harassment or unwelcome attention of a sexual nature." This entire meme is exactly this. You are adding to that unwelcome attention; you are being complicit in sexual harrassment. Rebecca 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you're being confused by the multiple meanings of the English word "attention"; please see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/attention and study the distinction between entries 2 (the kind related to Wikipedia articles) and 3a (the kind related to Sexual harassment). And please read WP:CIVIL and WP:LEGAL before you accuse your fellow editors of involvement in criminal activities like harassment. Bete Noir 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In this context, the difference is a purely semantic one. To quote from Hemlock Martinis below, "The news stories will dissipate, but this article is supposed to be there for the long haul. That's harm." I'm not going to stroke your ego here - while you can attempt to weasel out of it as much as you like, you are being fundamentally complicit in sexual harassment. Rebecca 07:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Calling the Stokke situation Sexual harassment is an insult to the millions of women -- and men -- who have actually been truly harassed. And I, for one, believe that women can be strong, smart, and tough: Allison will continue on her chosen course despite having thousands of men -- and women -- staring at her photos. A polite article (such as mine) on her amazing achievements of both athletic skill and (relucant) Internet celebrity is not just justifiable, but necessary. Bete Noir 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. While her achievements in the pole vault might at first glance seem to qualify her for an article under WP:BIO, I doubt that Wikipedia already has articles about the girls' high school record holders in the high jump, long jump, etc., or the boys' high school record holders in the pole vault, the long jump, etc. (This is not an invitation for someone to make a WP:POINT by creating those articles now -- I'm talking about whether such articles already exist.) And if she doesn't qualify for an article under WP:BIO as an athlete, there should be less urgency to demand an article about her as an unwilling Internet semi-celebrity (whom I had never heard of before this deletion review). --Metropolitan90 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if we're going to be going by her words, let's think about this quote for a moment: "I worked so hard for pole vaulting and all this other stuff, and it's almost like that doesn't matter. Nobody sees that. Nobody really sees me."[2] Now which is going to help more here, presenting a neutral and balanced article about an accomplished pole vaulter who also became an internet phenomenon, or sweeping it under the rug and letting the lewd blogs hold the top google slots? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither. What is going to help more is recording the fact that this athlete holds a U.S. record for her class in her sport at United States records in track and field, so that when people put this name into Google Web that is the page that comes up. I reiterate an important principle: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. If you want to think about that quotation, think about the part where she says that it is "almost like that doesn't matter" and with that in mind consider how the pole vaulting achievement apparently matters so little to all of the Wikipedia editors employing it as their argument that they haven't actually added it to the article that is there to document such things. Uncle G 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be fair, that article doesn't cover any women and has zero incoming links. That doesn't mean wikipedia places no value on women athletes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a straw man. What I actually suggested that you think about was the fact that a few Wikipedia editors employ the significance of the pole vaulting achievements as an argument, yet their contributions histories show no edits at all to United States records in track and field, to actually write about these achievements in the article that is there for them to be written about. As the subject's quote above said, it is "almost like that doesn't matter". Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this [3] relevant story. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a biographical stub of another notable athlete at Tori Anthony, in case anyone's interested in pointing out what issues apply there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little perspective from a journalist, Randy Schultz: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/06/03/a1e_schultzcol_0603.html --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why you think this article provides perspective but a Wikipedia article giving the same information would partake in a "culture of prurience and cyberstalking"? Haukur 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There is no need for an article on that person right now and we don't write editorials. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That didn't answer the question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly does. Only reason deletion is regarded as controversial at all is because of prurient interest. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it really doesn't, and your second statement is wrong - while prurient interest is certainly a factor, that's not why this is controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, no one's voiced any reason why the article I posted ought to be deleted. you think maybe you're just overreacting the opposite direction? "I don't like her getting this kind of fame, so she must not be notable at all!" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think the only reason this article was deleted was the 'prurient interest'. The way, the truth, and the light 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the deleted revisions, and the deletion log. This article was created in late May by Lampman to document the prurience. An earlier version of the article, basically a nonsense article, was apparently deleted in late April at request of the author. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Created "to document the prurience", perhaps. But I still don't understand why you applaud that when it happens in that article you linked to but decry it when it happens in a Wikipedia article. Mind you, I don't support our article in the state it was when it got deleted - at least the links to that blog and YouTube video should go if it gets resuscitated. Haukur 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good articles are created for bad reasons all the time. There are numerous articles originally created with utter crap that have led me and other editors to consider it a mission to turn them around into quality stubs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the AfD had been allowed to run its course, it would almost certainly, in my opinion (having read this DRV), have resulted in deletion without any of this spew coming out. I wonder if the Administrator who abused his power by speedy close/deleting out of process is satisfied with his work? Js farrar 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist please she is a noted athlete holding many records we can document this at least yuckfoo 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having finally gotten a chance to see the article while it was shortly undeleted (and being able to use Special:Export to save a complete copy), I can't see anything in this article that is causing her harm. Her short-term fame is the reason she's getting attention, and that's just 'cause she's a hottie. I don't think the article is effecting any of that at all. Deleting under BLP is stupid. Deleting it because she's not notable would be understandable (and I'd even support that). However, that is not a reason to just endorse deletion. As odd as it sounds, we need to show that this stuff needs to be taken to AFD, so we can help calibrate what is an appropriate BLP deletion and what is something to go to AFD, as it's getting out of control. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, what the hell? "...and that's just 'cause she's a hottie." I'm disgusted, if not surprised, that this is used as an excuse. This entire meme has been a disgusting case of sexual harrassment, and we should not be being complict in that. To that extent, it's an absolute textbook case of a BLP speedy deletion. Find another test case. Rebecca 05:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rebecca, with all due respect, shut up. Took enough of this crap over irc without you flipping out here too. I'm really getting tired of your over-emotional-reactions, and playing the "she was a victim" card. If the information is encyclopedic, then we shouldn't remove it just because someone is getting unwanted attention for it. That's called being en encyclopedia. However, the article is painfully not notable, which is a reason to delete it. It's just not a speedy deletion, no matter how emotionally enraged you are. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is disgusting. Get rid of the damn thing. If we made a page for every Internet meme, we'd just be another Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Hemlock Martinis 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, and a lot of us agree with that, but it shouldn't be speedy deleted as BLP. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you kidding? BLP is the best god-damned reason that this article shouldn't exist. There's a whole lot of people here who seem content on whining to keep this High Schooler's article up, when you could be doing something useful, like writing on topics we know are notable. Like Economic warfare. Considering how "notable" that topic is, the article sucks. Instead of wasting our time about high schoolers whose claim to fame is a pretty face, let's write an encyclopedia. Sean William @ 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not being notable and just being a stupid meme is the best reason this article shouldn't exist. Why? Lets say she liked the attention, and thought it was all great. We still should delete the article. BLP is being stretched to be some kind of moral code, which is not what it was supposed to be. It's too subjective, and too weak of a reason to speedy delete an article. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is that kind of article that the Biographies of living persons is for. Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering [4]. --Tony Sidaway 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tony pretty much summed up what I meant, just with better form and prose. --Hemlock Martinis 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "harm" is too subjective for a speedy delete. BLP should be a reason in a deletion debate, but it's not something to speedy delete for. I do think there are some that are clear to be BLP speedies, but this isn't one of them. We're not talking about derogatory information, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And this isn't harm? This is Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. What we do is meant to be chronicled in perpetuity, and having a small article about a bunch of jocks lusting over an unsuspecting high school girl at their sports fansite is NOT encyclopedic. The news stories will dissipate, but this article is supposed to be there for the long haul. That's harm. --Hemlock Martinis 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fact that it might do harm can and should be a factor, but how much harm and in what way should play a factor in it being a speedy or an AFD. And even then "harm" might not be enough of a deletion reason (alone, that is). I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it's something that should have gone to AFD. There is no reason that this deletion couldn't have waited for seven days for such a discussion to be completed, even if we decided to blank the article during that time. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing like a blanket accusation of bad faith to cap things off, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, we should respect feelings of young woman victimized by a wanking blogger. MaxSem 07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion A article about a young woman abused by unwanted publicity does not belong on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 12:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted High school athletes are non-public figures; they are children participating in school activities. The horrible way that she has been treated on the internet will not continue on Wikipedia if I have any say about it. --FloNight 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - A lot of eDrama could've been saved by the simple recognition that a speedy delete was improper, given the sourcing and notibility of the subject. Tarc 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the history for Allison Stokke, my edits to that page no longer appear. My own User Contributions do not show them either. I do not believe this censorship/blanking is normal procedure. This has been reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bete Noir 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list on AfD Did not meet speedy criterion since a claim of notability was made. The individual in question would likely have met WP:BIO even without the recent internet meme, so at minimum this needs to be relisted if it isn't an outright overturn and keep as is. JoshuaZ 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list or keep Ye gads, 50 indepedent sources, national record holder? Why is this even an issue? If the meme is a BLP issue, keep it out of the article or severely redact it. Applying the BLP deletion sledgehammer to an actually notable person is taking it way too far. -N 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This is the type of deletionism that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. We are aggressively pushing a particular point of view when we consider that our judgment of notability is superior to that of news organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times. -The Cunctator 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the article talk page" Note, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Allison Stokke was opened and closed as Keep due to this DRV being in progress. If this DRV decides to remove the article, that closure is without prejudice for a deletion of the talk page decided during THIS debate. — xaosflux Talk 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense subpages – Closing this early. First and foremost, DRV is now based on strength of arguments, rather than vote-counting. The basic strength of the argument in regards to BJAODN being a GFDL violation is a simple fact and there is no way to refute it. The suggestion to take the effort to find attribution for all things lacking it is completely impractical, given there were more than one hundred archives deleted. Secondly, if you are going to count heads, as it were, this is clearly starting to become a WP:SNOW case, although that's just a minor thing. – Deletion endorsed – ^demon[omg plz] 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Traditional Wikipedia feature, deleted without ample discussion; has widespread audience, deleted on account of "not following GDFL" due to lack of attribution, but no work at all goes into remedying this attribution problem. I feel BJAODN can be restored and rehabilitated. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted unless we have a group of editors willing to go through and make sure that everything under those 60+ subpages are all attributed appropriatly, which I am in favor of if you actually want to keep it. But I'm sure the majority of editors of this encyclopedia have better things to do than waste our time with this page. — Moe ε 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even a minority of editors is still plenty - this is a large-editorship encyclopedia. Besides, why should we be like all the other encyclopedias? This is Wikipedia. This is a new kind of encyclopedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Good God, this is a project to build a free-content encyclopedia, not manage the rejects! Focusing efforts on a group of pages that ran directly counter to that end (violation of the license so not properly 'free' content, not encyclopedic) is asinine. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of idiocy which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Especially not a copyright-violating collection of idiocy which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Picaroon (Talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid under CSD G12, never mind the BLP problems given some of the unnaceptable personal attacks on living people those subpages included. The content of those pages was not attributed to the contributors who made the posts and therefore not compatible with GFDL. Pooring time and efforts into sourcing those edits would be a momental waste of time and energy - I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia not a collection of bad "jokes". WjBscribe 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would NOT be a waste of time, especially if outsourced to Uncyclopedia. For years BJAODN was an outlet for people who didn't want to contend with just making boring edits. Some of us are trying to build an encyclopedia and a collection of bad jokes. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. It boggles the mind why people are arguing in favor of breaking the GFDL for material which has no place in an encyclopedia in the first place. If you want to write nonsense, or archive nonsense, Uncyclopedia is thataway. Burntsauce 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The merit of archiving nonsense is debatable, but what's not is that it's a GFDL violation minefield. Krimpet (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on the basis that there was no attempt to obtain consensus *BUT* I can see some of these pages getting heavily, heavily redacted and/or deleted once that consensus is established, and I would not at all oppose that. Alternative option - set up a committee to mine the clear non-violators from the pile (while keeping deleted), put those up in an Archive, and set up a new-gen BJAODN with clear rules and guidelines, and reversion of any additions that don't meet them. Minimum standard should be - does not fail BLP, diff included (of course this is difficult for genuinely deleted articles but a link to them should be acceptable with name of user(s)). I would be happy to volunteer for such a task if required, and I'm happy for those who disagree with me to scrutinise anything I think worth redeeming - many of which are *not* GFDL violations as they clearly and unambiguously linked to the diff and username, or version, which contained the information. Orderinchaos 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted this is one time I do endorse IAR on grounds of common sense. The main page is more than sufficient.DGG 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing sysop failed to point out that many of the violations of GDFL involved are reversible. I believe that WP:BJAODN is NOT a violation of GDFL in and of itself; the mere fact that a tradition started of violating GDFL was an innocent mishap and it grew into a custom. I will continue commenting, as I believe and consider it my right to do so. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to re-open this debate as soon as possible, or start a new one along the same lines as before. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The deleted pages were kosher under the transformative-works provision of fair use, and one's right to access the deleted pages is also kosher under fair use. The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense constitute humor and satire, not an attempt to tell the truth; moreover, the works were transformative in many areas, not merely derivative. They transformed the original works. 204.52.215.107 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stephen_Durnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A7_Speedy Delete Captain cannibas75 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still disagree. This is from the Wikipedia Notability Argument page:
  • [edit] Valid content is deleted

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information.

  • [edit] Obscure content isn't harmful

Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

I understand that you may find Stephen Durnan obscure, but I am arguing that there is some interest in him. There is an article on "Durnan" on Wikipedia and Stephen as well as many other Durnans are mentioned in it. Since I have a great amount of information on Stephen Durnan, being his relative, I wrote this article telling his story using verifiable information that I have such as Census reports, Marriage Certificate, and Death records, as well as the Oral History that I have great knowledge of being his distant relative. I make clear distinctions between what is verifiable, those things that can be assured due to evididence, and the oral history. This man would be only a minor footnote if he had only one or two children, but this man had at least thirteen children and his grandson had 19 children and the Durnan family is large enough that a circus tent is involved in family reunions. A search of Genealogy sites shows tremendous interest in Stephen Durnan as there are a great many decendants. I could have wrote about one of his sons, but there isn't as much interest in his son as much more history of the son is known as opposed to Stephen. Stephen appears out of nowhere in the family lineage and for that reason, there has been a great deal of interest in his life by his numerous decendants. Therefore, I am asking you to reconsider as the information contained here is verifiable, as I am his direct decendant, and while his notability may be limited, it is by no means a worthless subject. I also affirm that there is no conflict of interest as I was careful to write the article in a neutral manner and with the hopes that those who search the Durnan surname, can link to Stephen and read more of the story since so many Durnans are direct decendants. If there is enough notability in the Surname, I argue that there is enough notability in the man that is responsible for much of that surname in the United States as well as Canada today. One of Stephen's decendants is Bill Durnan, famous hockey Goal Tender but that is already listed on the Durnan surname page. Thank you. -Eric E. Durnan
  • I provide the verifability in that I am a direct decendant. You cannot say that Wikipedia does not contain ancestry information. While Stephen Durnan is no General Lee, this is found at General Lee's page:
Ancestry

Robert was the son of Maj. Gen. Henry Lee III "Light Horse Harry" (1756-1818), Governor of Virginia, and second wife, Anne Hill Carter (1773-1829). Henry married first, Matilda Lee (1766-1790), daughter of Hon. Philip Ludwell Lee, Sr., Esq. (1727-1775) and Elizabeth Steptoe (1743-1789), who married secondly, Philip Richard Fendall I, Esq. (1734-1805).

Anne was the daughter of Hon. Charles Carter, Sr. (1737-1802) of "Shirley", and his second wife, Anne Butler Moore (1756).

Henry III, was the son of Maj. Gen. Henry Lee II (1730-1787) of “Leesylvania” and, Lucy Grymes (1734-1792) the "Lowland Beauty".

Lucy was the daughter of Hon. Charles Grymes (1693-1743) and Frances Jennings.

Henry II, was the third son of Capt. Henry Lee I (1691-1747) of “Lee Hall”, Westmoreland County, and his wife, Mary Bland (1704-1764).

Mary was the daughter of Hon. Richard Bland, Sr. (1665-1720) and his second wife, Elizabeth Randolph (1685-1719).

Henry I, was the son of Col. Richard Lee II, Esq., “the scholar” (1647-1715) and Laetitia Corbin (ca. 1657-1706).

Laetitia was the daughter of Richard’s neighbor and, Councillor, Hon. Henry Corbin, Sr. (1629-1676) and Alice (Eltonhead) Burnham (ca. 1627-1684).

Richard II, was the son of Col. Richard Lee I, Esq., "the immigrant" (1618-1664) and Anne Constable (ca. 1621-1666).

Anne was the daughter of Thomas Constable and a ward of Sir John Thoroughgood.

  • May I kindly assert the above arguments again that while Stephen Durnan is no Jesus, or General Lee, he is an object of limited notability in the fact that there is a "Durnan" article on this very site that mentions him. I did not create that page/article. I merely attempted to create a page from that page that would contain a link to Stephen for those that wished to learn more about the family and those with that surname. Stephen Durnan may be obscure to many, but the above-quoted argument that I found suggests that obscure is not harmful and I assure that the content is valid. What harm will be done in adding this to the encyclopedia? The fact that Stephen is mentioned in the Durnan article and his name is raised on many web sites dealing with the Durnan surname, tells me that there is some, albeit limited notability. As the argument states, if there is so little interest in Stephen Durnan, then you will not be expending any bandwidth and no one will search for it anyway. I do not believe this to be the case as the article for "Durnan" receives visitors and I believe that the site for Stephen will too. Can this article be put back up and tagged for discussion? May 28, 2007 21:03 CDT
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. —Centrx→talk • 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Senordingdong 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable at this point The information provided was a listing of basic facts about his life and the names of his children, and a unsourced account of his adventures of a farmer, of which the most notable event seems to have been getting a hernia at a barn rising. Somewhat more than this is needed, as we've been consistently deleting local worthies unless there's some actual notability from somethings, and sources to prove it. I don't think the article asserts any reasonable notability, and a speedy was probably appropriate. I will be glad to email the content to the author, --e mail me from my user page so I know the email address, but I do not think that any further work on this is likely to make an acceptable article. DGG 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


He has the material since after putting it up for review, he went ahead and recreated it word-for-word at Stephen durnan. IrishGuy talk 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article is marginally more coherent than the request, but in the end, as it says, "Very little is actually known about Stephen Durnan". Yup. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, while the article was quite long, I don't see a single assertion of notability. Valid A7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That fundraiser page is for the Wikimedia Foundation. The sum of all human knowledge doesn't necessarily have to be all in Wikipedia. Dictionary stuff is knowledge too, but it belongs in Wiktionary. Source documents belong in WikiSource and so on. Geaneology info of non-famous people (or people who aren't known outside their specific field of expertise) belongs at some Wikia project. - Mgm|(talk) 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Sockpuppet cleanup – All of the closes listed herein below are overturned, given the influence of sockpuppetry. Relistings may be undertaken by any nominator at will at the appropriate XfD, with a reference to this DRV to specify the prior listings involved are now void. – Xoloz 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

As pointed out here on the admin board, the following users are all sockpuppets of the same person and have been blocked: Newport, Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, Londoneye, Taxwoman, Simul8, Osidge, Holdenhurst and Runcorn. These ten users were in the habit of supporting each other's comments in deletion debates. As such, I request that the following debates be overturned, because the present outcome is obviously the result of sockpuppet vote stacking. Note that in all cases the closing admin was unaware of this.

Overturn and delete:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Jewish_businesspeople
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Maimonides
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Jewish_scientists
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4#Category:Jewish_fencers
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:Actors_by_religion
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Garron

Overturn and rename:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_20#Category:United_States_National_Guard_officers

Overturn and undelete:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Jewish_Christians

The POV should be obvious. Note that this is not a list of every deletion debate he's participated in, just the ones that would have had a meaningfully different outcome had he not. I have no objection to splitting this debate if some arguments apply to one article/category but not to the others. >Radiant< 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The most recent one of these was a month ago. Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply renominate the ones you still feel should be deleted? For the record, the psychopaths AfD was already endorsed here (I don't know if there was sockpuppetry involved here, but still), and I wouldn't dare touch London N1. I really think these should simply be nominated on their own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have to agree that the most useful procedure would probably be simply to renominate anything that you believe should be deleted. Of course in the nomination you would point out that the prior debate was affected by the sockpuppetry and therefore shouldn't be considered valid. However, I would support relisting anything that was deleted potentially as a result of duplicate !voting. Newyorkbrad 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, renominate these deletion discussions. Better to err on the side of caution.--Alabamaboy 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for any where his votes actually changed the results. After that, if anyone wants to re-open discussion on one or more of these, let them do it according to the regular rules. Od Mishehu 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but only for where it made a difference. There's a list here for any CfD/AfD that may have been overlooked: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2007#Vote and Consensus Frauds. Actually there's a disclaimer there that those are just the most recent. There's probably more from earlier but I'm not sure anyone really wants to have to redo everything. Bulldog123 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is of more concern is any AFD discussions that Runcorn closed where xyr sock-puppets were involved in the discussion. Uncle G 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have listed one of these articles for a new afd here. I suspect most of this stuff will have to be relisted separately... --W.marsh 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this, or maybe relisting in the case of the overturn -> deletes. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a very strong opinion here, but I would think about just relisting all of these. --After Midnight 0001 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the ones where you know what the result will be, there's not much point in re-listing, but there wouldn't be any harm in it, under the circumstances. This is a good reason to remember that the strength of the arguments and the quality of the article are more important than the number of people saying it should be kept or deleted. — CharlotteWebb 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think that any of the AFDs apart from Zsa Zsa Riordan would have come to a different result if the same discussion had been had without the sock-puppet contributions? I think that they would have all come to the same result, for the very good reason that you touch upon: The actual substantial arguments were being made by other editors, and weren't swayed by the sock-puppets, so discounting the sock-puppet contributions doesn't really affect the discussion. I definitely think that we should not run Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1 again, for the simple reason that editors appear to be already resolving it without deletion on Talk:London postal district. Let's not disrupt that. Uncle G 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all. It would be quite difficult to discern a proper consensus from any of these debates considering his/her extensive sway over them. It would be best to give them a fair debate this time. Krimpet (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist separately and of course find any others. The articles are not identical, & the preesence of the sockpuppets so screwed up the debates that I wouldn't attempt to rejudge them hastily in one lump like this. (Knowing this does clarify some earlier unexpected decisions) DGG 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all in order to determine an untainted consensus. DurovaCharge! 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist most of them. The categories all had a decent amount of non-sock support, so I'm not sure if a deletion would've been achieved even discounting them. Relist all cats. Fictional portrayals of psychopaths certainly saw the balance tipped by the socks, though the one major keep opinion was given by a non-sock. Relist Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. Taylor Garron had incredibly low participation, and only one of the sock army posted there; it probably should have been relisted rather than closed as no consensus. Relist Taylor Garron. Kinnernet had a good amount of non-sock support, and may have been a no consensus without them. Relist Kinnernet just to be safe. London N1 is under discussion at Talk:London postal district, so I don't think action is needed right now. Finally, Zsa Zsa Riordan is going through AfD now, and that can probably be allowed to run its course. WarpstarRider 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All categories on here or all categories they've ever participated in where there could have been a difference? Some of it goes back a long time; more than a year. I'm not opposed to the idea but it would relist a LOT more cats and some more articles. Does anyone want them added to this list? Bulldog123 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just referring to the ones listed at the top of this section. I'm sure there have been a lot more XfDs that were influenced by this group; I guess you could bring them here as well. WarpstarRider 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist any discussion in which there's a reasonable possibility that the sock voting influenced the outcome, including all of these, so that a real consensus may be reached. Any relists should specifically note that the previous outcome was influenced by sockpuppetry and should be considered invalid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist all that were closed as "no consensus" and any others where there's any reasonable possibility that the socks influenced the outcome. I think consensus is something that's always worth shooting for, and untainted debate is more likely to lead us to a real consensus even in those cases where the influence of the socks may not have been the deciding factor. Xtifr tälk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are a few others we should consider relisting:
  • Comment: any no-consensus closes more than a month or two old, and any keeps more than four or five months old can probably be relisted without review. Any deletions engineered by this Master of Puppets should probably be brought for review no matter how old, though. Xtifr tälk 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists requires review here, as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination). Discounting the sockpuppets leaves very few actual arguments that have been elaborated in detail. Uncle G 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those that would have probably been deleted under WP:SNOW had sockpuppets not voted. Relist the rest. Whsitchy 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several editors above who have said "Relist all discussions which, upon review, turn out to have property X.". A point that they seem to be missing is that this is Deletion Review. If they don't actually review the discussions, to see which ones have property X in the first place, saying that all discussions with property X should be re-listed is not really much help. Everyone polices Wikipedia. It's everyone's responsibility to review the discussions. I've been labouriously going through the project-namespace contributions of several of the sock-puppet accounts and reviewing the various deletion discussions, and my opinions so far are as above.

    (summary: Most of the discussions wouldn't have had their outcomes affected, for the simple reason that the substantial arguments were put forth by other editors, and would have led to the same decisions on the merits of the arguments even with the sock-puppet contributions, many of which lacked actual arguments of their own and simply parroted the arguments of others, ignored. Of those that wouldn't, one doesn't need dealing with via deletion and is already being discussed on an article talk page, one has already been nominated for deletion, and the two remaining are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination).)

    The way to help this process is for other editors to do the same. (Kudos to those editors who have.) Remember the principle underlying {{sofixit}}: This is a volunteer project; other people aren't necessarily going to do the work for you. If you don't review the discussions, they won't necessarily get reviewed. Uncle G 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would like to respectfully disagree that the outcome of these cases should be determined by simply ignoring what the socks had to say and evaluating whatever is left. That underestimates the influence the socks may have had on these debates. A lengthy, heated debate can actually discourage people from participating (I know it does to me, though I'm starting to get over it). So, the piling on of the socks may actually have scared away people with good arguments to offer. Anyway, consensus is good, so I see no harm whatsoever in relisting each and every no-consensus that was trampled by the sock hordes. You did raise some good counterarguments for a couple of them, but I would still prefer to err on the side of caution, and relist all the no-consensus ones. Don't overturn them. Don't assume they were ok just because the taint isn't obvious. Just relist them. Xtifr tälk 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NWA Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Apparently this was speedy deleted, though the talk page remains at Talk:NWA_Hawaii without any note of speedy deletion. While this page may deserve deletion, I do not think it is/was a candidate for speed deletion and that AfD is the proper approach. Antonrojo 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Have you requested reconsideration by the deleting administrator? Newyorkbrad 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not aware, until now, that I could find that out through Special:Logs. The page had been deleted and restored previously, and the current note states there are very few ghits, when I am finding over 2,500 so I'll ask for more detail on the reason for deletion. Antonrojo 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my deletion summary: Spammy, written by the subject, edit war between subject and detractor, lack of independent sources, fewer than 150 unique Google hits and not a lot in there to work from in neutralising. WP:CSD G11 and A7. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written by subject? What evidence do you have of that? It's not ideal, but there is one independant source mentioned. If there's an edit war the people in it should be blocked. Never take sides (deleting takes the side of the detractor). The number of Google hits is immaterial, it's the reliability and the quality of the content that is important. The thing is officially sanctioned by the National Wrestling Alliance. At least redirect it to the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An email to OTRS from the subject complaining that other people were changing his article. Note that the editor has no significant contributions outside this subject, virtually all contribs to the subject were by this editor or by the external parties with whom he is clearly in some dispute. There are fewer than 150 unique Googles to look through and note that "NWA Hawaii" gets 2640 hits (including non-unique) whereas adding -Wikipedia takes that down to 1710, so it looks like we'r ebeing used to promote something. Hence my strong preference for waiting until an independent party decides to write this rather than a conflicted editor. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Flags of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Procedural nomination by closing admin, following discussion on my talk page with a dissatisfied participant in the May 20 CfD. My reading of the debate is so completely different from that of the objector that I think a review would be helpful to both us. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The closing looks reasonable to me. However, at some point in the future I would suggest a group nomination of this and similar categories, because such countries only has a single flag and is unlikely to have more than that any time soon. There is something to be said for the scheme, but there's also something to be said for not using cats that can only contain a single article. Endorse now, relist at some point in the future when people who care more about this issue than I do feel this is appropriate. >Radiant< 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just on this point, that it would have been better to suggest a group nomination... and beyond the fact that I raised this suggestion in the debate over what wasn't in the end my proposal. I've received this response before, but especially as someone relatively new to these Category deletion discussions I'm reluctant directly to propose mass deletions. See for instance my comments also at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Categories_for_people_comment.2Fquestions. Again, there may be some consensus behind your response, Radiant, (in which case again I'd be happy to be pointed to the relevant discussion) but it seems to make equal sense to try a test case before proposing mass deletions. I.e., in this case, discuss the case of Category:Flags of Nepal on its merits, and should consensus be reached there then apply similar logic to other categories in the parent category. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it certainly does make sense to do a test case before a mass nomination. However, sometimes people will object to the test case merely because it isn't a mass nom (which tends to be spurious with respect to articles, but not wrt categories). That's basically what happened here ("keep as part of the overall scheme"). In such cases one may want to proceed to the mass nom at some point. >Radiant< 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me adapt some of what I said at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl: I'm surprised by the closure of the above category, not least because in the closer's summing up introduced a whole new argument, for which no consensus had been sought or found within the discussion itself. Moreover, the argument is hardly "clear": I'd say it was clearer that when Wikipedia:Categorization, for instance, talks of "large" categories, it means categories with over 200 members, such as for instance Category:Songs by artist.
Dr. Submillimeter now says that he/she had this argument in mind when commenting in the debate. I'm all the more disappointed that there was therefore no response to my specific request for the precedent as to the notion that "putting the articles 'below the line', where [they are] likely to be missed" would "disturb" the "the Category:Flags by country category tree." Had the reference been made at the time, when I asked to be pointed towards some precedent, then there might have been some discussion as to how applicable this guideline may be to the debate.
I should say that I recognize that there was a 6:3 supermajority, though I had understood, contrary to Dr. Submillimeter, that these discussions were attempts to reach consensus rather than votes.
Indeed, the context of my disappointment is less the NPOV summing up, or even whether or not Category:Flags of Nepal lives or dies, but with problems both with the Wikipedia category system (mentioned in the discussion) and the fact that there is such a marked reluctance to engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion (for which I could provide many further examples). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jbmurray, first point: it would be nice if you could assume that I acted in good faith. As the per discussion on my talk page, I don't recognise this repeated suggestion that I "introduced a whole new argument", although I would not rule out doing so if there was a clear wider policy breach at issue (as an extreme example, if all the votes were to keep a Category:Lying evil politicians who eat babies and conspire with Satan to destroy human civilisation, I'd still close the CfD with a "speedy delete" as an attack category). That's part of what jbmurray missed: that a closing admin's job is to weigh the arguments and not just count votes. In this case, the arguments made by the keep voters agree with a current guideline, and there was no significant support for any other position based on guidelines.
The one change I might make I was closing the CfD again would be to note that a group nomination for the parent category and its sub-categories was option, but there seemed to be very support for the proposition that these categories were inherently a bad idea, so I could have been legitimately criticised for following that route. In this case, I do wonder if there might have been less complaint I had made a one-word closure; I hope not, but it would be a pity if closing admins were to feel that closing a CfD with some sort of an explanation was only going to raise the chance of accusations of bias :(
However, the conclusions I draw from this are a little wider:
  1. That it is very advisable for participants in a CfD to cite the policy or guideline on which they base their !votes, so that that the discussion is comprehensible to those not versed in CfD minutiae.
  2. That an explanation of a closure can help (and where a CfD is not overwhelmingly clear in its outcome, I try to close with more than a single-word "keep" or delete"), but that it cannot explain every aspect of CfD policy and practice. In this case, I think that Jbmurray appears to be at a bit of a disadvantage in not being familiar with all the relevant guidance, and I wonder whether we have sufficiently clear explanations of the CfD process?
  3. That people new to CfD may find it a rather bewildering process. To some extent hat's inevitable due to the huge number of guidelines and conventions involved, but I hope that we can all remember that CfD should not be seem to develop too much of a cliquey jargon which could make the rest of community feel excluded from the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for this, BHG. Let me first clarify that I have at no point meant to suggest that you acted in anything other than good faith. If you have received that impression, I apologize. I disagree with the way in which you closed the debate, but I hope I can express that disagreement without suggesting any deliberate malfeasance.
Second, I agree with your conclusions (above, in this discussion) on the whole. I was indeed glad (as I said on your talk page) that you pointed me to WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. I am sure I had read that page, but I had not made the connection during the debate to that clause. I wish that the connection had been made during the debate. I think that would have helped the discussion and the search for consensus. Again, I disagree with your reading of that clause (and therefore the reading that Dr. Submillimeter claims to have implicitly followed), but think that precisely for that reason it should be up for discussion. It seems to me it refers to categories with over 200 subcategories. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, and perhaps it could be clarified further. I am genuinely seeking out (as I hope should be obvious) the reasoning and rationale and precedents behind categorization policy and decisions. Hence I explicitly asked for such precedent during the debate. I admit that I sometimes get frustrated when it seems to me that the answers to these questions are taken for granted and not worth providing. And again, I'm sorry if that makes it sound as though I am not assuming good faith. But once more, often I find in these CFD discussions either that there is little attempt to reach consensus, or that there is little done to point to previous consensus. That may indeed just be an unfortunate impression. But it's why I followed up on this particular closure. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very little discussion has ensued. I've changed the guideline accordingly, until such time as there's some interest in addressing the question. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - and for the record, my reference to the category scheme in my !vote was an implicit reference to WP:OCAT as well; I will endeavour in any future similar nomination to mention it more explicitly. Otto4711 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as reasonable, though not necessarily what I would have !voted.DGG 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I can see with that category, as a vexillologist, is probably two or three articles going into that category; the flag of Nepal, maybe the royal standard and of listing of all Nepali flags in a list. While I do admit this is too small of an article and should be combined with something else, 2/3rds of the people who went there disagree with me, so I endorse the CFD. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Wjhonson/Shawn_Hornbeck (edit | [[Talk:User:Wjhonson/Shawn_Hornbeck|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

page speedied without any valid speedy reason Wjhonson 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Per deleting admins's summary: Someone seems to be making a WP:POINT. If that article is deleted and endorsed then this is inflammatory, if it is not, it is unnecessary. Attempted end-runs around policy and process should be discouraged. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please be so good as to explain in detail how the contents of that page were any sort of end-run around any policy or process. Perhaps you're not familiar with exactly what the page said. Wjhonson 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Policy and process were not followed in any of the proposal, the discussion, or the deletion. This is part of the problem. The admins probably do not understand and certainly do not follow the policies which they quote and link to at every possible opportunity. Smackyuk 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Mispost Meant for the Daimonin review below which has been censored. 84.43.30.186 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, whether or not it's an end-run around process (which, given the contentious DRV on the subject, it very well might be), this was a GFDL violation since no attempt was made to preserve the history, and the nominator did not even make very many edits to the article when it was in the article space. Valid G12 deletion. --Coredesat 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another vote from someone who did not actually read the page that was actually there, but only thinks they know what it said. Can we not have a coutesy undeletion of the last version so we can all see what it actually said? Wjhonson 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm an admin, and I saw what was there. I'm not sure if this can be undeleted for the review given that there are copyright issues involved, and you apparently revert-warred with a user over a {{db-copyvio}} tag on the page. --Coredesat 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - G12 is not a reason. If need be, the relevant non-offending history from the old article can be restored and userfied. We userfy deleted pages all the time on demand. Personally, though, I really don't like single-incident biographies. If this article is going to exist, it would be much better to title it by the incident like "search for Shawn Hornbeck" or something and redirect the name to it. --BigDT 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is yet another tired attempt to challenge the operation of the biographies of living persons policy. The deletion was of course unimpeachable. --Tony Sidaway 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The deleted article was not a biography. The deleted article consisted of one single sentence. I'm surprised that some of you would comment without even looking at what was there JUST RECENTLY. This has nothing at all to do with what was there two, three or twelve edits ago. ONLY with what was there, last. So at least check before you comment. Wjhonson 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. All the deleted version of the page said was "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Shawn Hornbeck"." However, the BLP-violating previous version of the page was still in the history. I think this is best left gone. Neil (►) 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any obvious purpose for this page other than preparation for an end-run around deletion policy. Wjohnson created the article with a single sentence and a link to the deleted WP page, his post to my talk page leads me to believe that tis was done solely to avoid a G12 speedy as a GFDL violation should the deleted content be pasted in. Without the deleted content it is pointless, with it it is WP:POINT. The idea that we should have to follow yet another set of process, rehashing the same arguments between the same people in yet another venue, is just silly. There are ways and means of pursuing this dispute, this is not one of them - the phrase "get a clue" springs to mind, actually. If Wjohnson is genuinely convinced that there is an encyclopaedic subject here, he needs to work with those members of the community who have raised valid concerns with the presentation of it as a biography, rather than appearing to want to end-run round those concerns and take the dispute to yet another venue. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss valid reasons, you need to have some first. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion In the case of BLP, once it has been decided, then it makes sense not to permit the material on a user page, or the whole procedure is a little meaningless. I am somewhat influenced by the fact that I consider this one, as entered under the name of the young victim and in such detail, as the clearest example of true cause for BLP deletion we've seen this week.DGG 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The above comments are quite silly. The page was solely there as an EXAMPLE of how you might tag a page for Verbatim copying under the GFDL. Period. That's it. Nothing more. The page itself had no such copying, it was an example of the TAG. Get it? That's it. All the rest of this is just self-mutilation by those who think the purpose was some sort of end-run which it wasn't. The page had no biographical content. The knee-jerk reactions are really juvenile, don't you think? Wjhonson 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you did. and this version was just a test to see what an end-run round deletion policy would look like if someone chose to do it, right? And you just randomly chose a particularly controversial article rather than an uncontroversial one, what bad luck. How silly of us to think otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've undeleted the page so everyone can see what it actually says. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: I'm afraid that this is a fairly obvious attempt to hide a recreation in the history of a page. A clever attempt to evade policy, perhaps, but not something we should encourage. If the user really just wants to make an example of a tag, he can do so under another page name and without inappropriate history (which can be linked to even from external sites). Xtifr tälk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Daimonin – Speedy close. Deleted via AfD because there was a lack of independent sources. Independent sources are still not given in this nomination. The nominator is also basically bashing admins rather than focusing on the deletion of the article itself. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. – Sr13 07:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Daimonin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notaility not established, no independent reliable sources Smackyuk 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTH was this about? What possible definition of consensus are you using? Half of your own admins had severe reservations about deleting this page. The last admin to post also backtracked on the issue of notability and went for verifiability instead. Now it is deleted (by yet another admin) back on notability. !?!
One thing this 'discussion' has made abundantly clear is the admins notable, to use a much-favoured phrase, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. Just look at the [discussion] for examples of admins bumbling about misunderstanding and misapplying these. 'Final decision based on the merits of the arguments' -- what a joke! The final decision was not even based on the final argument of an admin, noone responded to MT's last comment in more than 24 hours, and the throughout the 'discussion' admins and editors alike had widely differing view -- there was no consensus.
Another point. It is clear that there is a systemic lack of understanding of the realities of OS software development and free software in general within Wikipedia. Perhaps you should consult some kind of encyclopaedia and learn about the concept rather than trying to delete what you don't understand? Do you really think the figures from sourceforge et al are unreliable? Do you really think gamespot and the like are more reliable sources for an encyclopaedia?
To put it in simple terms: perhaps admins should read and learn (and possibly even understand) more, and judge and delete less?
Wikipedia is destroying itself because of its own arrogance and self-obsession. Smackyuk 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Completely shocking. Deleted as if a consensus was reached, and the discussion was completed? Not at all. The admins couldn't even reach a consensus, let alone a consesus of deletion. Encyclopedia? Wiki? Where. This is no encyclopedia.

The issues..'Notability' and 'Verifiability'. (The latter only being revealed around 36 hours ago, if that) Notability was, by the end of it, achieved. Verifiability was, by the end of it, achieved. So what's the problem? Some of these admins shouldn't even be dealing in deletion cases when they don't even understand the guidelines themselves. Faith in Wikipedia is virtually gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.112.95 (talk • contribs) 19:03 (UTC), 30 May 2007

  • Endorse deletion. The issue brought up was a lack of independent reliable sources. There are still no independent reliable sources that anyone has provided. What's the dispute here? -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was one of the major advocates of deleting the article. Amidst all the hype of the discussion, multiple trivial sources, and more, I noted that there were two small sources, Lockergnome.com and About.com, which provided substantial reviews. I don't know if that's significant enough to meet WP:NOTE and WP:V, and haven't had time to make my own judgement about reliability of these sources. I was actually expecting at least the possibility of a relist or no consensus, even though the article itself hadn't been edited to reflect some of the site references in the AfD. Despite the vitriol above I'm not convinced the consensus was delete (though I'm also not interested in challenging the Admin's rationale in closing.) I've also posted my request to content review, to potentially userfy the article. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per BLP concerns. Good call. Nandesuka 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, I see nothing here worth reviewing given that no reliable sources have been presented. Nominator is basically bashing admins rather than trying to address any of the concerns. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. --Coredesat 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

30 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wayne Crookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A WP:BLP delete. I understand that this article is a sensitive one, but it seems to be a clearly notable subject. If WP:OFFICE action should be taken, so be it, but otherwise I'd like to see a process. Rjm656s 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm on the fence, actually. If memory serves it was stubbed after Crookes sued WP, Google, and one other site. He's probably notable, and the stub isn't hurting. Have you discussed with the deleting administrator? Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created as an attack page and was sourced to a wiki, a blog, and some government statistics (original research). If it were re-created with the newspaper stories about the lawsuit, it would be a trivial news report. See also OTRS # 2006072110015911 and [5]. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He may well be notable, but Centrx is certainly correct in that the article was created (and edited after that) as an attack page. On the other hand, could the article not simply be rewritten from scratch (so we can stop faffing about at DRV, just rewrite) citing proper reliable sources in a version that is compliant with BLP? This article does seem to have a history of BLP problems, but could not a valid article be written? Certainly several of the deleted revisions were pretty useless. Moreschi Talk 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this has to come to DR... just recreate the article with some sources. Voila, problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, article as deleted was not a valid G10, and at least unsalt so that it can be replaced with a neutral stub. This man has gotten a lot of press, we can't allow his legal threats to shut down the writing of a valid article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legal threats are the context which warrant care, but I deleted it because it is not and could not be made into an encyclopedia article. Also, "lots of press" does not make for an encyclopedia article, usually the opposite. —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore the stub version in the cache. At least allow a restore, Night Gyr nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've recreated as a one-sentence stub and have unsalted, but in my opinion there's no good reason for the world and his wife to be able to see the history, which contained some pretty awful stuff. Moreschi Talk 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I think we can just close this, the disliked revisions are deleted and there's a stub waiting to be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a joke? The article contains one sentence - "Wayne Crookes is a person", a stub tag, and a "not verified" tag. I don't have an opinion now on whether or not an article can/should exist, but in no way, shape, or form, is "Wayne Crooks is a person" acceptable content for an article. I'm inclined, unless someone wants to put something in there, to speedy it A7 (but leave it unsalted). Again, I don't care if an article on the topic exists, but we shouldn't mock the guy that sued us by having such silliness. --BigDT 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as moot - article has been recreated as a stub. From what I can see the history contains possible libels, and certainly violated WP:BLP. Rather than blow hot air here - go and create a good article from the stub--Docg 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A properly referenced article that probably warrants existence but at the very least should go through AfD. Deleting administrator states "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter" - if it is not by the letter of BLP then it should certainly not be deleted using that (given the conflicted opinions about BLP deletions). Notability must be assumed at least to a basic degree because of the references. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin. BLP is about protecting the dignity of people. The fact that the child in question is dead does not remove the fundamental BLP issues - her family, including her brother mentioned by name in the article, still have every bit as much potential to be hurt by this article as she would be. BLP is our policy about being ethical citizens. This article has clear ethical issues - this is an ephemral case where we do not add meaningfully to the world and we substantively take away. It should remain deleted. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted We are not a newspaper, nor a shrine to the dead, and murderers are not automatically encyclopedic. If it turned out that the killer was a former juvenile offender released with a new identity, that might deserve an article which would mention the victim. Otherwise, keep deleted. Thatcher131 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, cached version was not problematic, notability was asserted with sources, was not a news article as some assert, and, sadly, the subject was dead, so BLP isn't really a useful distinction here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Thousands of people are murdered every year. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was nothing which demonstrated encyclopedic interest. Scurrilous, unsourced and almost-certainly-false rumors about the relationship of this case to another one do not demonstrate that. FCYTravis 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the article was not about this person, the references were not about this person. They both referred to other events. There was no assertion in the slightest of encyclopedic notability (and yes, in cases like these we do have a certain duty of sensitivity etc). Wikipedia is not a news reporting agency, and articles about people should be about those people. Not about other events. Moreschi Talk 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. This seems to be an out-of-process deletion per the edit summary on the speedy deletion: "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter."

    As for "No assertion of notability": WP:CSD#A7 refers to "Unremarkable people" and "An article about a real person [...] that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I haven't read the article to ascertain its importance or significance, nor can I because of the deletion, but continuing: "If controversial, [...] the article should be nominated for AfD instead." I would say that the reactions here (and other articles) constitute controversy.

    While "poor taste" may appear in an essay or in discussions, I'm not familiar with any policy or CSD that makes any reference to it. It strikes me as a very POV interpretation, and not grounds for deletion of an article.

    "WP:BLP" seems to be a primary point of contention both here and at other discussions of recent OOP deletions; but as Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu isn't an "LP", that seems patently inapplicable.

    I don't have any vested interest in this article, and don't particularly want to argue the merits of the article itself as (aforementioned) I haven't/can't read it. But AFAIKT, this seems to have been a sourced and verifiable article that, while possibly meriting a deletion discussion, did not qualify as a speedy deletion as was implemented. There is no CSD for I don't think it's encyclopedic. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, redirecting to the article on the murderer (which still exists) may have been appropriate, to avoid redundancy, but this article did not fit any speedy criteria. C'mon people, take these to afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn for process --the BLP concern can only be about the accused, who has pled not guilty, and the article about him remains on WP. The N consideration for speedy is no assertion of notability, and that was not the case, for if the possible murderer was notable, it is reasonable to think that the victim might be. Not that I would necessarily agree in the end, but it was not a speedy. It is clearly not an uncontroversial deletion, and needs a open discussion. The discussion should be taking place at AfD, and not here. There have been too many examples lately of IFEELITINMYHEART as a reason--one way or another. I would have done just what Night Gyr suggests. DGG 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the content, that attitude positively disgusts me.--Docg 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I find myself in agreement with the comment by closing admin above. ElinorD (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is dead. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - unencyclopedic articles with little or no meaningful content directly related to the subject must die. This stays deleted. Nick 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion look folks an article (with a picture) about the horrific murder of a little girl. Stop and think please. This is not in the least encyclopedic. And since it narrates her kid brother finding her - it is most certainly a BLP issue. This isn't a game. We are not doing this.--Docg 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per User:Phil Sandifer. The people screaming for overturn are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in their quest for rationales, not to mention indulging in a fair amount of pot/kettle behavior ("Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong" nearly made me spit up my coffee). If they have a point to make, make it elsewhere and not at the expense of Wikipedia and the poor bastards, thrust into the public spotlight, who have have to suffer so some people can make some kind of point, whatever the hell it is. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - this is a very sad case but the girl is not notable and we have a long established policy that being a victim in a notable murder does not make one notable. Any encyclopaedic content in this page is already included at Dante Arthurs. TerriersFan 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There is no assertion of notability in this article, as it's been shown many times that being a victim of a murder does not make you inherently notable. BLP concerns are quite obviously irrelevant, but A7 is reason enough for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion because it fails A7. Not because of BLP, which has nothing to do with biographies of dead people. The "L" stands for "Living". Neil (►) 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. She's dead, true, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is a news story, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikinews is the next office down on the right. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion', primarily per Doc and Lar. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Let me get this straight, now BLP is used to delete articles about dead people??? Wow, this idiocy has just reached a new level.  Grue  19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse deletion per Amarkov and Neil, with the emphatic provision that this is not an appropriate exercise of BLP (for various reasons into which we need not to get here [but surely have addressed and will continue to address elsewhere at DRV]); the underlying article, though, cannot, I guess, be understand as asserting notability (I should say that I continue to believe that a declaration that an individual was a victim of a notorious crime is an assertion of notability, such that speedy deletion should be inconsistent with A7, but that I recognize that, BLP aside, there is a clear consensus for the idea that A7 should apply to such declarations and that, even as policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive and even as consensus can change, it is not appropriate for us to overturn that consensus at an insular AfD or DRV). Joe 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify that although the deletion wouldn't fall under BLP's purview, it would fall under "common sense" and "human decency". I said A7 as it'll satsify the process wonks. Neil (►) 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your clarification. To be clear, my thinking, then, does not appear to follow precisely that of Neil; I, for one, as a few others here, I think, would most strongly object to deletion if the underlying article made an assertion of notability, not only because I would find, absent A7, no justification for speedying but also because I could not imagine BLP (even if one tries thence to apprehend some moral spirit) to extend quite as far as others might seem to think it to extend, and surely not to permit deletion before discussion. Joe 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some abbreve-itis here. It's easy to throw around BLP, but if you know it stands for "Biographies of Living People", it's impossible to apply it to a dead person. - Mgm|(talk) 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse Deletion: The AfD from March was closed as a Keep, thus I can see the rationale for bringing this subsequent un-debated deletion to DRV. However, ultimately I agree with TerriersFan, in that the relevant information is already contained in the Dante Arthurs article (which has itself survived several AfD attempts, and fact of which was noted in the AfD for this article), and notability has not otherwise been asserted sufficient to maintain a separate article. Given that the review appears more controversial than the original deletion, I feel we should let it remain deleted; it can be re-created later, in the "organic" way that new articles are created all the time, if the circumstances then warrant it. — digitaleon • talk @ 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anna Mae He (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with no process at all, citing WP:BLP as the reason. The article was well sourced, including citations to multiple national news stories. There was and is no BLP issue here, not by the current terms of WP:BLP at least. And if there were, that case could properly be made in an AfD where the matter could be discussed, changes to the article proposed, and a proper consensus on whether the BLP policy calls for any modification of this article, rather than its being deleted by one admins unilateral action. This was in no reasonable sense an "attack page". There was no need for a speedy deletion here, a delay of a few days to let the matter be discussed at an AfD would have done no serious harm, and IMO the proper policy based result of an AfD would have been "keep", perhaps with some editing down. Overturn and let anyone who wishes nominate for AfD. (The deleting admin has already been notified that other editors disagree with the deletion, and has declined to undelte said he would undelte the history, (but implied only as part of a merge) if consensus developed to do so.) DES (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. No legitimate rationale for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps not under your apparent ethical system but I am not sure everyone else would agree. I think many would say that deleting this is the ethically correct thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD, whatever BLP issues there are are probably not bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, since the article was sourced. List it at AfD since there are potential problems here with notability, among other things. --Coredesat 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Yet another in a series of tabloid articles attempting to document in excruciating detail for all eternity every single child who was ever temporarily in the news. This page was not a biography, but instead a 20-paragraph report of every single twist and turn in the court case over her custody. Part of it could be merged into a broader article on child custody, but beyond that, the details of the case are hardly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps so, but that could and should have been discussed at an AfD where options such as merging, or rewriting could have been discussed and tried. Or the editor could have been bold in editing and edited down to a stub while discussing on the talk page. Speedy deletion should be the last resort, not the first. DES (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for goodness sake! There's a civil discussion going on on my userpage - during which I've indicated a willingness for undeletion to be considered. But alone comes DESiegel, doesn't bother discussing anything or entering into that discussion, and plops it here. Can he please provide evidence for his assertion that I have "declined to undelete". No. Please try using discussion rather than process next time.--Docg 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. To claim that the administrator has declined to undelete when discussion is on-going hardly seems accurate. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, biographical articles should only be speedily deleted if an article is both unsourced and negative in tone. Editors may disagree with whether or not it is negative in tone, and I personally do not think so, but it is a fact that the article is well-sourced. And to respond to User:FCYTravis - if you believe the content of an article is not notable or not encyclopedia, I believe the correct process is to list it at AfD, and not speedy delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This article reads like a tabloid, not a biography. Heck, the first line introduces this person as a victim of a custody battle. There is no reason for this article to exist. Sean William @ 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per HongQiGong. Some endorse comments read more like delete votes at AfD and that's where this should be. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion BLP allows for bold action in cases like this, not to mention that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a branch of Wikinews. If this person is notable a year from now, then a short, encyclopedic (not 'blow by blow story retelling') article might be appropriate, but this is just tabloid-surfing and an AfD is unnecessary before-hand. If DrV consensus is to run it through AfD, then it should after the fact without foul, but there would have to be an acceptance of the decision. BDJ's participation above should remind us that endless DRV-AfD cycles are a possibility and consensus should reflect awareness that at some point, the discussion has to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP only allows for speedy deletion if the article is negative and unsourced - not if an admin thinks the article is not unencyclopedic. The article is not a hoax or an attack page, suggestions on how to improve it or even proposed deletion using the "prod" tag would have been much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading BLP right now, I see nothing to indicate that this is permissable. Also, I have no clue why you're tossing my name out there in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that the family troubles of this person have been so well documented that for the rest of her life, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of her private life, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT makes it clear this sort of article is no longer appropriate. If process demands that it be kept, then fuck process. Thatcher131 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be that the article should be renamed to one about a courtcase or a custody battle, and this incident is notable because it reached a state Supreme Court, with the Embassy of China sending representatives to listen in on the case, but I don't believe "fuck process" is a legitimate reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any idea how many custody cases reach state supreme courts each year? Hundreds if not thousands. Unless a case leads to an important precedent, I find little reason to consider any particular custody case encyclopedic, and the fact that this article would enshrine in perpetuity not just the subject, a minor at the time, but also unproven allegations of abuse against the parents, argues for me against inclusion. Thatcher131 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The incident has also appeared in a whole lot of press coverage, including multiple articles on ABC News - to link a few[7][8][9][10] - would you not say that makes the incident notable? As I've said, maybe the article needed to be renamed, but there's nothing in WP:BLP that warrants its deletion. You said earlier that it is "sad" that this person's custody battle is documented here, but the article only reflects existing sources. If something is inaccurately reflected of our sources, we can improve it. That you think it's "sad" her custody battle is documented is not a reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WIkipedia is not a newspaper. Lots of things that get lots of newspaper coverage don't belong in an encyclopedia. And as far as I can concerned, respecting basic human dignity is a reason to delete an article, especially one about a little girl who did nothing wrong but which will ensure that she will forever be known primarily for her family's problem. Do you understand the level to which this article invades her privacy, and will continue to invade it for years if not decades? Never mind ECHELON or Warrantless searches in the United States, fear Wikipedia. Thatcher131 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Under that rationale, any number of WP articles could be deleted, and huge chunks of an article like Iraq War can be removed. I understand your empathy for the little girl, but our job as WP is only to reflect the sources. And one can also argue that she "deserves to know the truth" - we can go back and forth forever with these types of rationale based on personal preference forever. What we need to do is stick to policies, they're there to give a semblance of order. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Poppycock. Most of the sources for Iraq war are newspaper articles because it's an ongoing event. In ten years there will be books written about the war, and in 20 years there will be revisionist histories criticizing the first wave of books, and so on. A war is an encyclopedic event; a child custody battle is not. Thatcher131 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • And that's a notability issue, that's something that should have been discussed at an AfD. WP:BLP only allows for speedy deletion if an article is negative in tone and unsourced, not because it's "sad" that a person's custody battle is documented. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after EC) Whether it should be kept, or in what form, would IMO be better discussed with the article at hand for all to read, and edit. That is what an article talk page could do after a stubing edit, or an AfD discussion. "It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident" we have many articela about hsitorice figures notable only for their participation in a single incident. not all articles named for a person need be full biographies -- indeed not all can. Yet there is no rule sayign that we msut have either a full biography or nothing at all. Maybe we should ahve a policy to that effect (although i disagree). But we don't yet. If this deletion is undone, that does not for a moment mean the article will never be deelted, much less never drastically rewritten or merged. Why are people being so much in a rush to delete? Would a few days discussion in an AfD have been a major problem? DES (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jimbo's edit does nothing of the sort. A neutral, encyclopedic article is not only possible, but existed at the time of deletion. Nothing said in the article was not already a very high google hit with or without us. It's time to kill that "top ten website" red herring for good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could anyone please comment on WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event? It seems to me that it would qualify, but I'm open to persuasion. --Ishu 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. When you write an article about a certain person, you are expected to write about that person. This was not an article about her in the slightest. Possibly an article that complied with BLP and was actually about her could be written, though I would prefer not, as as far as I can tell she is a private individual. Not an article we need. This custody battle may well be notable. She is not. Write an article about the custody fight, then, not this non-biography. Moreschi Talk 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: per Thatcher131. You have got to be kidding me. There was a lot of ink used on one incident? Gee, what a surprise. We have tabloid press gossip even on notable papers - I'm um, shocked? No, actually, I'm not. What I am wondering is why we're wasting time on a process-wanky Drv for an article about someone which is so clearly not an encyclopedic topic. This is not only Articles about living people notable only for one event, this is not even remotely a Significant one event. I'm sure I can find lots of ink on any number of completely nn people, based on one incident which the press picked up and ran with, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Article is ethically bankrupt. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, Seriously, speedy is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions and you HAVE to know that deleting well-sourced articles is going to be controversial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A controversial speedy is necessarily an incorrect one? Not seen that before. Be nice if the article was actually about the title, at any rate...Moreschi Talk 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of speedy deletions is to accelerate the pace of eliminating narrow classes of material that almost everyone agrees should be gone, as the rules say: 'These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be used instead.' It's not supposed to be unlimited power to remove anything an administrator doesn't think belongs. 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 May 2007
      • (after EC) From WP:CSD "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be used instead." That at least strongly suggests that deletions known to be controversial should not usualy be speedys. DES (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's come to my attention that editors like User:Badlydrawnjeff and User:Doc glasgow for some time now been involved in disputes about biographical articles, what to keep, what to delete, and how to apply WP:BLP. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I just became aware of this and have no opinion in the overall matter. But I honestly feel like the Anna Mae He article in question here just became a careless casualty in this "war". The article was not an abuse of process, this was not a case of multiple AfDs and multiple DRVs - the article was simply speedy deleted even though it was sourced. The article may have problems, but it was a work of good faith attempts to have a good article. I have no desire at all to be involved in these ongoing disputes about biographical articles. I would really appreciate it if deletion was overturned and suggestions are offered as to how to improve the article, or even have the article go through an AfD process, instead of just speedy deleted. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe it needs to be trimmed down, maybe it needs more sources. It's more than a little disheartening that good faith editing is just speedy deleted because of an ongoing dispute about biographical articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the article certainly reads like it belongs in one. --Carnildo 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD - This DRV is looking too much like an AFD. All uncited information and information cited from unreliable sources should be removed before that though. I think blanking the page for the AFD and having users go to the article's history to view the text might be appropriate though, as it is a tabloidish story. Wickethewok 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This article was not a biography, it was sensationalist journalism. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. -- Donald Albury 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Others have said it better: this is not a biography, it's an unencyclopaedic account of a messy custody battle and a millstone to hang around the neck of a child who has no say in it. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to offer a substantive opinion on any of this, but I do think a speedy deletion was uncalled for. While it's true this was an unencyclopedic biography of a living minor, the custody battle seems notable enough(sadly) to at least merit a discussion of its inclusion. Also, I really hope this: [11],[12], doesn't go any farther, but if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, we may actually be forced to include it.Lindentree 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Court declined cert. End of case. Just one of thousands of contested custody cases. Thatcher131 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, although I think the Anna Mae He Act might be worth a stub. I must note, though, that the Elian Gonzalez article also seems to cover the controversy far more extensively than the person, despite purporting to be a biography. Despite the obvious notability difference, he too is still a minor. Could somebody please clarify for me why it cannot be speedily deleted to protect him? Lindentree 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that Anna Mae was the subject of an international diplomatic incident, or that her case was covered by press on four continents. I could be wrong about that. The Gonzalesz article is largely about the case, perhaps it should be moved to Elian Gonzalez custody dispute or some such in order to clarify that it is primarily about the incident not the person. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for discussion There are possible BLP concerns, since the subject is a child is a custody battle, but the article has existed for over a year, and should not be deleted by unilateral process. AfD is the place for discussion. It is frequently said here in denying overturns that only process is relevant here. An incorrect speedy is process. N was asserted by the article. If one disagrees, that's what AfD is for. DGG 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per FCYTravis and per Thatcher131. ElinorD (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion We are not doing this to a child. We are not restoring a horrible, intrusive, mess in order to satisfy process wonking. No.--Docg 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. Given that this child may have a state law named after her, I think there's a good argument that a) Wikipedia should have some coverage of the case and b) Wikipedia is not substantially increasing the profile of this individual, although a potential rename of the article would probably be appropriate. Endorse Wow, I hadn't actually seen the deleted content before making this statement - I had just looked at the sources via a Google News search. I think the case itself may be worthy of an article, but the deletion of the (pretty awful) content as of the Google cached version was appropriate, as any article on the case would require a major rewrite. JavaTenor 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep deleted or restore to a different name - if the article is about the custody battle, call it Hae vs Baker custody battle or something - don't claim that the article is a bio of the girl. And there's plenty in there that is unsourced. --BigDT 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: Not everything that appears in a newspaper appears in an encyclopedia. This is a classic example of that. Danny 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - this is the sorta shit WP:BLP was made to keep dead - David Gerard 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no place for any article like this on this encyclopedia. I therefore express relief that it was deleted, an act that I would have been urging on any administrator within earshot, had I known about it before Doc. Needless to say if any administrator restores it I shall call for him to be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - truly awful article with an almost non existent amount of encyclopedic content on the actual subject. Don't get me wrong, there's sources and such but none of the content is encyclopedic and none of it is about the subject - sourced butn unencyclopedic content must die. This article stays dead. Nick 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion largely per Thatcher. – Steel 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per my comments on the 5/28 DRV log, just change the background and the names, but the principles are substantially the same. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the article; the word that comes to mind is "grotesque". It's not about the child except in the most indirect of ways, and this isn't something that we should be covering. Endorse deletion. DS 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - the BLP parts are unsourced so this article has to go on policy grounds. There is significant sourcing on the custody battle so an article on that is possible but if one is produced it must be written without the objectionable content. TerriersFan 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Look, just because people are doing inappropriate BLP deletions doesn't mean you can start contesting all of them. And this is clearly appropriate. An article on a living person must be about the person. It's certainly a BLP violation to define a person through one negative incident, like this article did. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This article is full of crap and non-notable.--Certified.Gangsta 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Changing my mind after thoroughly reviewing the article at home and not hurriedly in an airport. The article is rubbish and the biographical sections do violate WP:BLP. --Coredesat 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. Some say that the article doesn't fit the letter of the policy as written, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. This long drawn out discussion is itself doing harm though and we would be better served by less knock down drag out fighting about this stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. Alternately, delete this version without prejudice and create a better sourced version that focuses more on the timeline and cross-national implications. Calwatch 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD Then interested editors can argue why it should be kept or deleted. Instead, there was a speedy which did not meet any criteria for same, followed by an acrimonious and rambling pseudo AFD here. If new grounds for Speedy need to be established, then go to WP:CSD or even WP:BLP and add a criterion allowing admins the latitude to remove what they feel is distasteful. Edison 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I can only speak for myself, but I am going to support overturning every single speedy delete that uses WP:BLP as a rationale. I don't care how poorly worded they are, how unbalanced they may be, how sad the circumstances, but this has to stop. Instead of deleting them, stub them, note why they were stubbed in the talk page for the article and list them for AfD, if they are not notable. This deletion spree has spun so far out of control that Monica Lewinsky is in range of the BLP cabal, and it's only a matter of time before Jeffrey Dahmer becomes eligible for this bizarre form of parole. (Oh, by the way, he's dead, so ordinarily BLP wouldn't apply, but that was under the rational rules that applied in the past. Death is no longer a disqualifier for BLP.) Horologium t-c 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments will be ignored. Check the recent changes to the deletion policy made by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Tony, please check those recent changes - claims of BLP with no basis in reality will be ignored. Meanwhile, since he has adequately shown why the deletion was improper, his will have more weight. Thanks for noticing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll soon find out whether we're dealing with reality or jeffipedia. In reality, protest votes made to express dislike of a policy aren't arguments to overturn deletion of seriously damaging content. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt, go with the cliche, right? In reality, comments that display why an activity was improper are better arguments than attempts to justify improper activity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called hyperbole, Tony. A quick check will show that this is the only BLP CRV I've participated in this week. You know, unless you have actually read the BLP policy (something which you emphatically asserted you had not read last week), I have trouble accepting your references to it. Additionally, there is a little thing called "Courtesy Blanking" that can be used if there are concerns about content; a courtesy blank and an AfD are a much better combination than deleting and then having a review. Vaporizing the pages means that the unwashed masses who are not admins are not able to view the article to make an informed comment, which really goes to the heart of the matter. What's the point of editing if your contributions are vaporized and only the admins can see what gets speedied? Why not just cut regular editors out of the process and have the admins do all of the writing? FWIW, I am fairly deletionist (as a review of my AfD positions would reveal), but I have an issue with the current incineration-fest due to alleged BLP violations. Under ordinary circumstances, Jeff and I would probably be opposing each other, but he and I share a common disdain for out-of-sequence deletions. Horologium t-c 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Tony, I can't speak for anybody else but myself here - I voted to overturn not so much because I felt the article was in a good enough state, but because I would have appreciated suggestions to improve or rename the article, or even an AfD. A lot of people felt that the article was not biographical - that's a problem that's easily solved by renaming the article and refocusing its topic. Also, I am not involved in this apparent ongoing war concerning WP:BLP and how to apply it, and I have no opinion on the matter at all, but I really feel like this article became a careless casualty of this war. I started the article, but it was other editors that edited it to turn it into the state it was in before it was deleted. It needed improvement, but it was still the result of good faith editing. It wasn't an attack page and it wasn't a hoax. It would have been great to be given a chance to improve it instead of having it speedily deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jurassic Park IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It should be deleted because because the article is very similar to the deleted page Terminator 4.both are possible continuations on a film trilogy, both films are well sourced on places such as IMDB, both have been talked about being produced since the release of the previous film by both actors and producers, and both have been given an approximate release date by officialls.For fairness Jurassic Park 4 should be deleted, because Terminator 4 has had several deletion discussions and so it should be the result to use to the Jurassic Park 4 article. Rodrigue 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion review is for articles that have been deleted and you think were deleted outside of the normal deletion process. This article has been to AfD and survived only a few months ago. Anyway, you are in the wrong place. Leebo T/C 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually that isn't so, If an editor thinks that an AfD with a "keep" result was closed improperly, that also can be reviewed here, and in rare cases, such a review results in overturnign the clsoe and deleting the article. DES (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, my statement above is incorrect. As far as I can tell, he's not requesting a review of the previous discussion. The proper way to say what I wanted to say would be "Deletion review is for reviewing deletion discussion decisions, not starting new deletion discussions." Leebo T/C 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Griswold Frelinghuysen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable and referenced by current standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

  • The only AfD I see is from two years ago and was entirely proper. Unless I'm missing something, why not just create an article? Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorce deletion but with no prejudice against creating a new and sourced article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Totally inadequate AfD, only three people, 2 against and one for., argument for nom "and a President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is," when it was a linked WP article. Argument for 1st delete: even though he had an Arboretum name for him (that was also N enough to have a WP article), argument of 2nd delete: "nn" I dont know what the standards were in 05, but this discussion doesn't meet any reasonable standard today. The existing article is a good stub as it is. DGG 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Obviously not available through Google cache after all this time, but, as Mackensen says, why not just create the article? ElinorD (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article was deleted almost two years ago. No one's stopping you from creating a new one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I remember this article (I was the sole "keep" vote) and have sometimes thought of digging it up and bringing it here. Ideally I would have liked to find a little more about the guy. But yeah, I think he meets our notability standards--a current president of one of the largest breweries in the US would surely be kept. Our presentist bias is it work here. If Richard can (and knowing his work I'm sure he can) provide references for the info in the article I think it should absolutely be allowed. Richard, if you want me to copy it to your userspace so you can work on it, let me know. Chick Bowen 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna restore and userfy, I don't think there'd be any objection if it has more sources/claim to notability when it comes back to mainspace. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfied to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Griswold Frelinghuysen Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This category was merged into Category:Songs by songwriter as a result of a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_7#Category:Songs by composer. Unfortunately, the person who proposed that merge did not have the courtesy to notify me that this was being discussed, as suggested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Howto#Notes_for_nominators, so I only discovered that this was done after it had already happened. It seems that there are some people who think that, just because there are few people who nowadays write just lyrics or just music, that the distinction between lyricists and composers is useless (see Mike Selinker's comment on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter), but I think that this decision should not have been made without allowing those of us who are primarily concerned with older music to disagree.

Postings which have been made by Johnbod, both in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter and directly to me in User talk, seem to imply that he thinks all one needs to do is recreate Category:Songs by composer. It is my understanding that that would be a violation of Wikipedia procedural rules, so I can't see my just going ahead and doing it. And at least one other user, InnocuousPseudonym, agrees with me that what was done was a mistake. So I wish to reopen that discussion. -- BRG 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first debate was a rename, not a merge. The nominator commented: "For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution." He pointed out that a great number of the people categorised wrote both words and music. I personally feel that the decision there did not rule out the re-establishment of Category:Songs by composer for pure composers (musicwriters) only. The lyricists already have their category, which is not involved in these debates. Classical music is unaffected by all this btw, that has different categories. It is clear from two later debates on May 18 and the abortive one onMay 17 that the songwriters category has good support, for people who wrote both words and music. I think BRG should be asking here for confirmation that there is no block on creating a new Category:Songs by composer for people who only wrote the music. I would support this. Johnbod 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As BRG says, I strongly support the re(?)-creation of a "Songs by composer" category. The composer-lyricist distinction was the norm for at least the first half of the 20th century (encompassing the bulk of the Great American Songbook) and applies to at least a portion of more recent songwriting teams. InnocuousPseudonym 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my case, I don't think the previous decision should be overturned (and there are many editors I'm sure who would agree), but I think the closing here should confirm that a re-creation of the "vacated" Composers category would be ok, so there are 3 categories: by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist. Johnbod 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse renaming. Seems like the debate was pretty clearly for renaming. I'm not sure what my comment about composers and lyricists has to do with the validity of the closing decision.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about composers and lyricists clearly indicates that you think most people do both and that is why you wanted the rename. As InnocuousPseudonym and I have tried to make clear, there are a great number of people who did one or the other nearly exclusively. -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I could be wrong or I could be right. But it doesn't change the validity of the closing, which seems fine, and which I would have supported either way.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We may not always need to split cats into finer detail, but in this case we certainly do. Normally, in fact, Wikipedia uses narrow cats and a hierarchical structure. Why should this not be such a case? -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also the songwriters cat is enormous & a split would make both easier to use. Johnbod 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a participant in both debates, I would like to say that, in the first debate, I found the nom's suggestion that three cats might be overcategorization to be somewhat persuasive, but on reflection, I'm not so sure. In the second debate, I objected to the use of a horrid neologism, and also to the effective removal of the just-created by-songwriters category, but never really addressed the question of creating three categories, except by reference to the previous debate. So, for the record, I'd like to say that whatever I wrote in those debates should not be read as opposition to the idea of having three cats. In case that helps. :) Xtifr tälk 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer. There were no procedural issues with the original CFD nomination and BRG and Johnbod both have good arguments for the categorization scheme. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer, per my comments above, since I haven't put it in bold yet. Johnbod 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Cool Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Improper closure of an MFD discussion. This page was a redirect from an old userpage to a new one, and one that contains over 2,000 incoming links. The page was originally deleted at the request of the user, User:White Cat. The deletion was seem as unnecessary and made things needlessly confusing for edits both editors finding Cool/White Cat, and for users following those links. I recreated the redirect, per Wikipedia:User page. White Cat tried to place the speedy delete tag on the page once again, but it no longer qualified for speedy delete. It was then taken to MFD. Two admins have attempted to close the MFD, both on incorrect grounds. The first admin was reverted by myself, with support from other users including at least two other administrators whom felt taking it to DVR wasn't necessary. It has since been speedy closed again, but now the page has been protected.

Speedy closed as "user request" (WP:CSD#U1), however U1 states that if U1 is contested it should be taken to MFD: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page. "

Improper close, plain and simple. Even if you don't feel such things are necessary, they are supported by policy and guidelines, and by several people from the MFD. Something to note is that even if the MFD got speedy closed that still won't prevent the user page from being recreated. Recreating pages is not a 3RR violation, as some people have suggested, especially since there is no consensus or policy that requires the page to have been deleted. This is normally not even an issue we face, because long before that we take such situations to XfD. If you feel this redirect should be deleted, then all the more reason to continue the MFD, which would create a consensus to keep deleted.

This isn't even a big deal, but it's somewhat bizarre that both White Cat and the deleting admins feel so strongly about deleting the page. No reason has been cited for deletion, and there would be nothing to gain from it, and it would only inconvenience and make things confusing for others. Keeping a redirect hurts no one, and shouldn't be a controversial issue. But, for whatever reason, it is controversial, and that's what we have the MFD for.

Also, no one is saying anyone has to have a userpage, that is not the function the page is having at this time. Rather, this page is now pointing users to the new user name that Cat has chosen. White Cat has made it very clear that he did not change usernames to vanish or start fresh, and has been completely open about who he is and was (complete with links on his current user page). Of course users can have their own pages deleted, but that's not the issue here. It's a redirect, for the sake of a great amount of past discussion and many incoming links. It actually benefits White Cat (which makes the situation even more bizarre).

I'd like to quote something David Levy said it to Newyorkbrad (the final admin to close the MFD):

"No offense, but I don't perceive you as a neutral party (to any greater extent than I'm a neutral party). You didn't weigh the arguments and arrive at a consensus-based decision. You threw them out and substituted your own judgement for that of the community (instead of simply expressing your opinion in the discussion). —David Levy 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

And having said all that, relist MFD -- Ned Scott 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted - the old talk page is still there. Anyone looking for the user can easily find him. I don't know or care why he wants his old page deleted, but as someone who has been harassed before, I can certainly understand that there might be a good reason. At any rate, unless there is evidence of bad behavior or some such thing, we delete user pages on demand. Five admins have deleted this page. One person has recreated it four times and reverted an admin's close of the MFD twice. Something is wrong somewhere along the line. --BigDT 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the MFD discussion itself. The closing was improper, regardless of how you feel about the situation. Also, even if I was the one who recreated the page and reverted the closure, others (including two administrators) supported that. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other people have not re-created it in order to allow the discussion to proceed and be well-considered, but that was truncated. The fact that more people were edit-warring to achieve a certain outcome does not mean that outcome is right or better. No reason whatsoever has been provided by User:Cool Cat for deleting the page, and if the reason were harassment, the effective way to end harassment is to actually create a new account completely severed from the old one. If there were harassment, migrating all his contribs and making 10,000 edits to change his signature advertising the change to everyone with a watchlist would be the least effective way to end it. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ned, you and everyone else would be much better off if you would let Cool Cat (or whatever he wants to call himself) be and move on to other things. Seriously. Chick Bowen 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted This is grossly unnecessary. --MichaelLinnear 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. While I agree that this closure was improper, our ultimate goal is to build consensus (not drama). I've been discussing this matter with White Cat, and he has expressed a willingness to work toward some sort of compromise with the community (beginning with the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat pending a long-term solution). Therefore, I urge you to withdraw this listing (at least for the time being). —David Levy 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Users can have their own user pages deleted for any reason - end of story - thats why they are user pages. There shouldn't have even been an MFD. The amount of time/text wasted on this already is pretty ridiculous/hilarious/sad. Wickethewok 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how many times I have to quote this: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Your reason for keeping it deleted is not supported by the deletion policy, which directed us to an MFD. You can disagree with that all you want, but that's the way it is (for now). -- Ned Scott 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, that presumes that the account's contribs remain at the same username. In this case, they were all moved elsewhere, which without a redirect would be mysterious. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reminding everyone that this is not a vote. It's been shown that this has been an improper closure, and unless you can show otherwise then how you feel about the deletion itself really isn't relevant to the MFD being relisted or not. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any admin can speedy any page that falls into the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that there was an MFD going on changes nothing. This was not an out of process deletion - it was a legitimate speedy deletion. --BigDT 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I've looked at WP:CSD#U1, and the history back through April, and cannot find what Ned Scott quotes above. U1 reads: Personal subpages, upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. Also, sometimes, main user pages may be deleted as well. See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines. Also, relative to the Right to Vanish, I know of nothing that would require White Cat to have a redirect from his old name. The original deletion seems proper, and I don't see any need for it to have been at MfD in the first place. I'm more concerned about Ned's actions in this, the extremes to which he is forcing this issue. --InkSplotch 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on the linked page with full instructions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines." As for my actions, I would not call what I am doing an "extreme"... I do get worked up when I see people side step discussions and force an issue, though, but who wouldn't? You're basically asking why I care. For one, he's using this deletion to justify changing his old sig in talk archives, which he was forced to stop, and was reverted on. Second, and probably the bigger motivation, regardless of what the MFD is about the forced closure was totally unacceptable. It's alright if other people don't care, and if they think it's silly, but that's no reason to throw other people's valid concerns out the window. No one is asking that anyone cares about this, we're just asking for a simple discussion on the matter. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, it's a stronger argument now, but I'm still looking into things...particularly this bit about Cat updating his old signatures. If anyone has a link to the discussion on AN, I'd appreciate it. At this time, I'm letting my vote stand. CSD is a policy, the supporting User Page is only a guideline. Ned, I called your actions extreme because you seem to be the only one carrying this torch, and it seems more disruptive to me than just letting Cat fix his old signature links. I referenced Right to Vanish, and I still feel it applies here...'Vanish' isn't just leaving Wikipedia, it's also a right to a fresh start. You're causing a lot more drama for Cat trying to do just this than is at all necessary. I'll keep reading up on this, but for now my comment stands. --InkSplotch 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm bringing this to DRV because I think the actions of the closing admins was completely inappropriate. I'm more concerned about this affecting future MFDs than I am about the redirect itself. Keep in mind, from my point of view, I was simply making a redirect. Undoing the admins incorrect actions was easy, justified, and allowed a consensus building discussion to continue. The early closure of the MFD is what escalated the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert waring is never right and is never justified and is to be discouraged. If you disagree with a deletion you take it to deletion review assuming its worth spending time on it. Pointlessness of your policy-lawyering is simply jaw dropping... -- Cat chi? 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? Nothing I've said is even close to policy-lawyering. If the closing admins disagreed with the MFD they should have brought it up in the MFD. Blatantly incorrect actions are ones we should simply fix. A revert is not always a bad thing, and was only done because... policy and guidelines backed me up, others involved (including other admins) felt speedy re-opening was ok and DRV was needless, the speedy close was a disruption, taking it to DRV would only cause more disruption, and the rationale thing to do was simply continue with the existing discussion, and I could go on and on. I have done nothing wrong with those reverts, and rather, it was those who speedy closed who are in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I know what I am talking (typing) about? I am pretty certain I am or else I wouldn't be putting anything here. You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL. Have a read of it, then reread it.
    The procedure in correcting "blatantly incorrect actions" is clearly laid out with WP:DR. Unless the edits are destructive compromising encyclopedias quality that require urgent action (such as vandalism, blant copyright violations) you have no reason to "revert" much less revert war. I see no evidence of a compromise in encyclopedias quality with the deletion of a non-critical userpage redirect which in your words is a "trivial situation". See WP:3rr#Exceptions for when "revert waring" is fine - even then it is more than discouraged. So, since it isn't critical, you are expected to take it to the person's talk page you are disagreeing with at a minimum. In this spesific case that would be me and each admin that has deleted the page or closed the MfD. Speedy close was well inline with WP:IAR if nothing else quited qualifies such as WP:CSD#U1 or WP:CSD#G7. Further revert waring against multiple admin closures is again disruption. You have border-lined violating WP:3rr by doing so if not crossed it. Waisting the communities time by forcing a trivial matter to the point of a MfD and later a DR is disruption and to be blunt quite dicky.
    -- Cat chi? 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Ned Scott, thats a combative mentality frowned upon on wikipedia. -- Cat chi? 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Improper close, plain and simple. He was trying to short circuit a fight that was getting pretty nasty, but speedy closes only throw gasoline on that fire. Better to give it the full five days to burn out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion, m:Right to vanish, valid U1 - the page has no apparent need to be retained, and an existing MFD does not disqualify a speedy by any means if the page meets one of the criteria; in this case, the page was {{db-user}}'d, etc. Stop forcing this issue; apparently it's not enough to edit war over whether the redirect should exist. Furthermore, you should not have reverted the MFD closures at all, as you are not an admin; if you had a problem you should have brought it up with the closing admin or came here first. --Coredesat 07:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user does not wish to vanish, it has nothing to do with the right to vanish at all. Second, being an admin or not has no bearing on being able to revert a closure. Being an admin does not give one more authority, it just means they are trusted with admin tools. Reverting the MFD was an attempt to make the issue less of a big deal and to not waste people's time. Reasons for retaining the redirect have been provided. The U1 CSD says specifically to use WP:USER for detailed instructions, where it says that an MFD does disqualify it from being a speedy. Disagree with that all you want, but that's what it says. It is not a valid U1 deletion, and that's a fact. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endose I closed this MfD as a speedy delete and was reverted for some reason - Brad did the right thing. Now, go do something useful.--Docg 09:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Get on with life. Trebor 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In other words... you revert warred with 5 admins and the user owning the userpage. -- Cat chi? 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    -- Cat chi? 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse per some prior DRV discussions where it's better to overrule policy for common sense. – Chacor 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The page was deleted in accordance with common sense and policy (I can't believe I said that). CharonX/talk 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I'd make a fuss about how, once again, "I know best now shut up" has been a fellow admin's response to a discussion he doesn't agree with, but, really, what's the point? Neil (►) 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse - if it isn't U1 it would be G7. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean G8? :D -- Cat chi? 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted I am more and more convinced that Wikipedia is (collectively) insane. What possible reason is there to not grant this user the courtesy afforded to any other user who asks it, including a number of notable pests? This should never have been at MfD in the first place. Thatcher131 14:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is the other users' contribs were not moved, thus severing the user account from its history. There are also no personal information or harassment issues, because the user has kept all his contribs connected to his new account. —Centrx→talk • 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted echoing Thatcher's concerns above. White Cat has been extremely cooperative in keeping links to significant elements of his previous identity on his new userpage (including the block log). This seems to me a straightforward CSD U1 request and NYB was correct to delete it. I remain unpersuaded that the deletion of this page is harmfull or that White Cat has to prove it is beneficial. Deletion of userspace is performed on request except in exceptional circumstances - this seems fairly mundane to me. WjBscribe 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the deleting administrator or I should say from one of the five admins who deleted this redirect. I re-deleted the redirect by request of the user involved. Simply put, the idea that this trivial matter warranted a five-day community-wide discussion is inane. I do not understand why this matter is being pressed so vigorously—or indeed, at all—and no one has been willing to tell me, which I find extraordinary. I respect our deletion processes and yet, there comes a limit to the extent in which we should engage in process for its own sake and it is submitted that with all respect we have reached it. Editors interested in debating policy issues have several hundred more productive discussions in which they could participate to choose from. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply, if someone wishes to find the contribs that used to be associated with User:Cool Cat, or to contact that user, they are going to spend time finding the new account, and then rather than making everyone waste that time create a simple redirect which there is no reason to delete. This is not process for its own sake; the discussion is supposed to get understanding on the issue, which apparently none of the five admins who deleted it have. —Centrx→talk • 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a trivial situation, but it was required if Cat wanted to get his userpage deleted. He was the one who wished to press the issue in the first place, and he could have easily just let it go. I haven't let it go because of how inappropriate it was for you to just throw out the active discussion, incorrectly citing policy, when in fact you were just applying your own rationale. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Overturn - as this redirect is useful and valid and the closure was out of processes. Week because... who cares? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Technically Ned Scott is correct: WP:USER#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? does contain the text he quotes. it also says "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted" and the clear implication is that such pages are normally deleted on request unless ther is a good reason to retain them, and the primary reson cited is "evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. which i gather does not apply in this case. The early close was IMO unwise, given that at least one editor was so striongly pushing for retention of this page -- as so often, a speedy clsoe made things worse, not better. But in this case i can't see any likelyhood that a resumption of the MfD would result in the page being kept, so unsually for me endorse, despite improper process. DES (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of people on the MfD said it should be kept; in terms of numbers it is evenly split and the people saying it should be kept have good reasons to do so, so where are you getting your evaluation of "likelihood"? —Centrx→talk • 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On rereadign the MfD it seems that soem users on both sides of the matter were being rather WP:POINTy about the issue, but it was not as clear as my earlier hasty scan indicated how this would come out. I'll change my view to weak overturn, to let consensus form. I express no final opnion on whether deelting this page is or is not a good thing, i donm't see it as a vital issue either way, and not of the reasons cited at the MfD strike me as showing why it is so important. DES (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsing this as a matter of course. If there is much more of this disgusting hounding of Cool Cat, as his mentor I'll raise the matter with the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Telling Cat that he can't just throw a fit and get his way is 'not "disgusting hounding". I don't know why he over-reacts like he does to such minor situations, but that doesn't give him a free pass to fuck consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse and I seriously question the motivation of the nominator, who has a history of tensions with the individual in question. bastique 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Thatcher131. Why not afford the user the ordinary courtesy granted to other users? Also, why make an issue of something that really doesn't matter? ElinorD (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • U1 is there because it's almost always non-controversial, for normal situations there will be no issue and no one will care. It is not a right, and I suspect the people who think it's a right is nothing more than a misconception developed because we lacked situations such as this one. It's not a right, it's just something that is ok for 99 percent of the time. And the ones making an issue over this are the closing admins, who've been far more disruptive than the MFD itself. When I'm acting with our guidelines and policy backing me up, I don't see that as me acting alone. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah! Ned Scott should have let this slide; but, when he didn't, admins should have followed the rules carefully. This conflict would have been over by now if either party had behaved well. —SlamDiego←T 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No, right now we would be in the second day of a pointless 5-day MfD, quite possibly followed by a trip here to DRV anyway, all in the service of nothing in particular. And in the meantime the user in good standing who, for whatever idiosyncratic reason, didn't want the redirect there would be annoyed by having content on his own (ex-)userpage against his will. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? The correct thing, regardless of how you feel about the situation, would have been to let the MFD run. It was no longer a speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how stupid it was, the closure was wrong. This is not a vote, and the issue is very clear here. We relist XfDs that are both improperly closed and controversial (at the time it was split right down the middle). You will not be allowed to ignore our deletion policy twice. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Your fervent insistence that we must continue to discuss a dispute of this nature, no matter how trivial the dispute may be or how misbegotten the nature of your concern with it, simply because there exists a rule that arguably authorizes the discussion, is without merit. Frankly, at this point my only regret at having speedy-closed the MfD is that it disqualifies me from being the one to speedy-close the DRV. Newyorkbrad 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • MFDs shouldn't always have to be a life or death situation, and many of us felt it was still worth discussing. At this point, it's not worth the effort, but that is because of your doing (and Doc's technically speaking). You forced it closed, demanding that anyone who have a problem with it to take it to DRV. When I did.. you complained about that. What gives? You are to blame just as much as I am for making this a big deal. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it is so trivial then there should be no problem with leaving the redirect in place. —Centrx→talk • 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I've always seen deletion of pages in userspace as a right (in fact if not in name), unless deleting the page would serve to obscure a history of disruption. Even if Cat has done some bad things, deleting his (her?) old userpage doesn't obscure that very much, so I see no reason not to allow it. -Amarkov moo! 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please understand that this is the DRV. You are expressing that you feel the deletion is correct, which would be an appropriate comment for the MFD. The DRV is discussing if the closure was correct or not. Regardless of how you feel about this being a right or not, the instructions on the matter says that other users have a right to put this up on MFD. While I do think there is a history of disruption, that's not the only reason for which one can contest a userpage deletion. For one, Cat is using this deletion as leverage to continue his sig changes, an attempt at validating the action, which he was forced to stop doing. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But your contesting of the deletion is based on CSD U1 not applying. I'm saying that I believe it does, and if a speedy criterion applies, the closure was perfectly correct. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not in plain english? -- Ned Scott 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: That's about the userpage content itself, not a redirect page created and insisted upon by someone else. This is ridiculous already. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't say that at all, brad. It makes no distinction between the function of the page, and only says that if others feel there is a reason it should exist then it should be taken to MFD. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ned, you left out the previous sentence. "If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information." That passage you keep quoting is talking about a need to retain the page because of disruptive behavior. There is no evidence of disruptive behavior in a simple redirect, thus an MFD is out of order and it is a valid U1 deletion. --BigDT 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The page content can be speedy deleted if there is no evidence of disruptive behavior, but that is not the only reason such a deletion can be contested. It's Wikilawiering to suggest that the paragraph is encompassing any and all situations that could possibly apply. "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page" doesn't say "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page for evidence of disruptive behavior" -- Ned Scott 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And keep in mind that U1 is assuming it's a normal user page, and not something like a redirect to a new user name. You are over-extending the rationale of U1 to a gray area, where it no longer becomes a clear criteria being met. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is no gray area. Cool Cat is still his user name. It's still his user page. I'm not required to have a user page. You're not required to have a user page. That paragraph you keep quoting from talks about disruptive behavior before the sentence you quote and it talks about policy violations after the sentence you quote. The logical assumption in my mind is that your sentence is talking about a need to retain the page because of policy violations. Any time that a deletion is contested, deletion review is always the proper course of action. When someone keeps recreating an article that is speedied, we salt the thing and tell them to take it to DRV. DRV, not MFD, is the correct process for contesting deletion and I have seen before and see no readon now to override his right to delete his own user page. --BigDT 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Straw-man, I'm not saying Cool Cat has to have a userpage, I'm saying the benefit of having a redirect to his new account outweighs his desire to have a redlink (for no reason, whatsoever) on his old account. Deleting user pages has never been a right, it's just been something that is normally uncontroversial. Do not confuse the two. Deleting the redirect was a WP:POINTy move by Cat to justify his sig changes, and only causes confusion and negative side effects to those trying to follow past discussions. And if the only reason for retaining the connection between the two accounts is disruptive behavior, Cool Cat has fulfilled that requirement, and I've said so since the start of this whole thing. It's a very gray area, because none of the policy was set up for this kind of situation, and it's anything but a clear speedy deletion criteria. You might feel strongly about this, but your feelings are not backed up by policy, and you should have brought your thoughts to the MFD. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • How does it cause any more confusion than for anyone else with no user page? His old talk page is still there and is a redirect, so if you click on the redlinked user page, you would see a blue linked "discussion" that will then redirect you to his new talk page. That's exactly the same number of clicks that it takes to get to anyone else that doesn't have a user page. --BigDT 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We're not talking about people who don't have a user page for the current account they are using. Regardless of how many clicks it takes to get to his userpage, speedy closing the MFD as U1 was improper. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving all the contribs elsewhere changes the situation. Normally, if someone deletes their user page, all the contribs would still be in the same place, and the user would still contactable on their talk page. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, if someone would mark the MFD as something like "no consensus" or "no one gives a fuck", I'd be content with that. People are right, it's not worth this utter bizarre resistance just to help improve things for other editors. I no longer seek a relisting, but the closure is still improper and not supported by policy (as it was claimed). I don't know how the others who are supporting relisting feel, but I suspect that they wouldn't object to this. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I hope that anyone who knows my work on this site realizes that my goal here was to put an end to an unnecessary and bitter distraction from our main goals, not to perpetuate one. I still think my closure was proper, and am sorry you disagree, but if changing the wording of the close would reduce discontent I'd be happy to do that. Newyorkbrad 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inquiry: Wouldn't any non-keep close rationale be cited as referance on similar future cases? -- Cat chi? 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • We don't keep "precedent" files on matters of minimal importance, and hopefully there won't be any "similar future cases." If I am able to get this resolved please don't complicate it further. Newyorkbrad 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What will happen is about 3 months from now someone will find a comment by User:Cool Cat and wish to contact the user, but he will find there that the user page is gone and all the user's contribs have disappeared. Then, he will find the username he changed to and contact him there, while doing the polite thing and putting a redirect on User:Cool Cat so that other user's do not have such difficulty. If your purpose is to dispose of the issue so summarily that you have done so arbitrarily, then you may as well have done so by leaving the redirect in place. Since you think the issue is so trivial that the outcome does not matter, then the easier route to dispose of it would be to take the course of action that will not result in an endless stream of innocent people innocently re-creating the redirect, which will then either be let to remain, in which case your MfD decision is null, or it will be re-deleted, citing the MfD as precedent. —Centrx→talk • 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, if the user types "User:Cool Cat" into the search box, as of this moment, the redirect still comes up (because there is one at User:Cool cat with the small "c", even though User:Cool Cat is a redlink, which makes this issue even less important than when we started. I feel brain cells dying off every time I think about this issue and how many words have been spent on it. I plan to say nothing further about this matter. If I start to change my mind, stop me. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I strongly believe people will have better things to do in three months than meddle with my userpage. You cannot really have a second guess as the deletion rationale. -- Cat chi? 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                • They are trying to contact you, or investigate the mystery of the missing contribs, and then after going through the trouble of finding it out, they create a redirect, which requires about 5 seconds of time, and saves anyone else the future trouble. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brad, "user request and precedent" was cited for the closing rationale. "precedent" I think should go all together, since this situation is not the same as the others cited on the MFD. If "user request" could be note that the U1 application was disputed by others, I'd be happy with that. Something like "It was disputed if U1 applied or not, but the matter has been dropped to de-escalate the dispute". -- Ned Scott 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I feel that much of the discussion on this page could have been avoided if the MfD were allowed to run its full course, I also feel that similar discussion would probably have taken place over there if not for the speedy close. I don't have strong feelings about whether or not the close was improper. Let me just point this out: if anybody stumbles upon the User:Cool Cat page, they can find the connection to User:White Cat by either clicking on "discussion" or viewing the activity logs for the Cool Cat page. Yes, it's more inconvenient than a simple redirect but not terribly so. --Kyoko 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy - allow discussion. But more importantly, get a life and get back to writing an encyclopedia - let's not argue about how many angels dance upon the tip of a pin, OK? That being said, Cool Cat, why in the world do you have to create needless controversy with this kind of nonsense? With all due respect, this is far from the first time you appear to be climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. The Evil Spartan 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am White Cat not Spider Cat. I dislike climbing german parlimentary buildings and I do not do cosplay. -- Cat chi? 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletionEven though it shouldn't have been improperly deleted, the reasons for its deletion remain: it's his userpage, and he should be able to delete it at his own will. hmwithtalk 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. His userpage is deleted. Putting a redirect there for easy navigation doesn't change that. It has so many incoming links that having a redirect is necessary. Why is he even resisting a redirect if his talk page redirect is supposedly so easy to find? - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not point. I do not want "what links here" show my non-current edits. That way I can more conveniently follow references on me. -- Cat chi? 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    So it's better to inconvenience the community on the whole for something so painfully minor? -- Ned Scott 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your argument so weak that you have to respond to anything and everything I respond to? -- Cat chi? 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just because I respond to you doesn't make my argument weak at all. It's called a discussion. But hey, I like how you avoided my question and tried to turn it around on me (in a way that.. doesn't make any sense at all and only makes you look stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat). -- Ned Scott 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at MfD These four things I know are true: (a) It is eminently clear that, in the absence of some profound new argument, MfD will counsel deletion here; (b) It is, to me, quite plain that deletion is appropriate here inasmuch as we do not proscribe editors' rendering their signatures as redlinks and inasmuch as User talk:Cool Cat, a tab for which one reaches when he clicks on User:Cool Cat, redirects to the new talk page (which redirection may not be obligatory; (c) It is well settled, the occasional recent DRV notwithstanding, that where a non-trivial amount of editors suggest that a criterion for speedy deletion does not apply to a given page, even where the number of those reasonably suggesting a criterion to apply are sufficient to suggest the presence of a consensus for the application of a criterion, inasmuch as speedy deletion commands the support of the community as policy only to the extent that it means to effect relatively uncontroversial, pro forma deletions and since it is always better to permit discussion, even that which one sees as fruitless and unnecessary (exceptions may apply where discussion is particularly disruptive, but disruptive does not equal consuming the time of certain editors who might, I think, be better served to spend their time otherwise), where the curtailing of such discussion is likely to engender more trouble (if a full MfD had been completed here and had borne out a clear consensus for deletion [or, really, since relative to a userpage a presumption is in favor of permitting a user to delete his page, OWN notwithstanding, other than a clear consensus for keeping], Ned and David, et al., would not, I imagine, feel compelled to consume the time of the communtiy with the issue; and (d) DRV (almost exclusively) about process (I suppose that process may not be of paramount import where an overturning of a particular decision at DRV should produce unnecessary disruption and ultimately a disposition identical to that which preceded DRV, but I recognize that the disruption of this page's being relisted will prove less severe than of this DRV's affirming a closure that some think to have been out-of-process); hence, overturn. Joe 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that this multiple page debate is over a "#redirect User:White Cat" content. I do not understand why people are thinking so hard about it. -- Cat chi? 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could not the same be said for.. you..? -- Ned Scott 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, dang, Joe, that's freaking art (meaning: well said!) -- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, if the user wants his/her former userpage deleted, keep it deleted per CSD U1. Let's get back to work since this is an encyclopedia. He still lists his logs on his new userpage and also his old talk page is not deleted. Terence 07:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • U1 says a user can have their userpage deleted, yes, but it doesn't say anything about preventing anything from being there (such as a redirect). I can't help but think that, logically speaking, U1 was about the content of the page itself, and not about the title. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Existing policy can be followed now, and amended for future cases. I believe that many of the people who are now insisting that policy should be followed would accept it also being amended. —SlamDiego←T 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existing policy wasn't designed to work for these kinds of situations in the first place. The idea was that such deletion requests were almost always minor, non-controversial, and where it was removing content that the user themselves had generated and wasn't required to fulfill any particular function. The policy even says for more details to see WP:USER, where it's suggested to take such things to MFD. I do wish to expand on U1, and help clarify situations for the future, but what it says now is not in conflict with contesting U1 on MFD. -- Ned Scott 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but presumably you would insist that you are trying to get policy (ill-designed or otherwise) followed. So long as there were no ex post facto application, would you object to amending policy so that, in future, a request such as that by the Cat could be honored without the sort of discussion for which you now argue? —SlamDiego←T 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (I ask because I am somewhat sympathetic to each side here. I'm inclined to believe that the rules were and should not have been broken, and I'm inclined to believe that the rules should allow a user to get his page truly wiped.) —SlamDiego←T 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as one of the deleting admins, I really don't understand how such a simple request got as far as DRV. This is ridiculous. Yonatan talk 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it was an improper closure? It doesn't matter if you feel it's a silly issue, multiple long term editors in good standing raised questions regarding the issue, including if U1 even applied or not, especially given that we don't anticipate U1 ever being controversial, is all the more reason to have allowed the MFD to continue. As one of the deleting admins, you've one of the reasons this has gone so far, and why it went from a simple MFD to a larger issue. Let me ask this, why be so insistent that there not be an MFD? Why do the people supporting close continue to insist that having an MFD is the big deal? Maybe you don't understand the situation because you don't have all the answers, nor are you the "judge" of such situations, the community is. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An interesting thing happened, Cyde Weys, unaware of the MFD/DRV, recreated the redirect for User:Cool Cat. An understandable miscommunication, but it does give us some interesting insight from someone who hasn't been apart of the discussion so far. I'm not trying to pull Cyde into the debate or anything, as I doubt he feels strongly about it one way or the other, but I felt it was just too interesting not to note.
    "It's not about what you desire though, it's about what is most functional and useful for the whole of Wikipedia. Your bizarre and unexplainable desire to not even have a redirect from your old username is not outweighed by the very pragmatic usefulness to everyone else, especially those unaware of your name change, of having such a redirect. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)" [13].
  • Full text at User talk:Cyde#User:Cool Cat. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg – Fascinating legal discussion. Established Wikipedians advocate each side of the issue, and the merits are the points raised remain uncertain. What is certain is that the underlying IfD did provide a consensus to delete, and more discussion by all involved will help resolve the issue. Undelete and relisted at IfD; actually, Howcheng is probably the right person to relist this, as he can provide the fullest deletion rationale. – Xoloz 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This image was used in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu article (a featured article) to illustrate the three top commanders at the battle. The image was listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 7, where it had unanimous consensus to keep it (the nominator not withstanding). User:Howcheng deleted it, claiming "it was never explained in the deletion debate exactly what is so important about this specific image", when in fact that was explained in the previous deletion debate. There is clearly not going to be a free replacement, and the image is necessary to illustrate the commanders at the battle. Also, to respond to Howcheng's question, this specific image is necessary because it illustrates all three top commanders planning their battle plan. Raul654 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Overwhelming consensus that the image isn't replaceable or decorative, considering the article passed the FA wringer and there was no consensus for deletion at the IfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at IfD Whilst I think it exceedingly likely that a consensus will develop at IfD for the image's being kept (and properly so, IMHO), I would suggest that the original IfD ought not only not to have been closed as delete but in fact ought not to have been closed at all (were closure to have been undertaken, no consensus; hence keep would surely have been the appropriate disposition); although the discussion bore out what one would imagine to be all of the relevant arguments, there was not really sufficient participation from which to divine where the consensus of the community lay. Joe 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that "consensus" is the gathering of valid arguments, and not the counting of votes. The keep votes on the ifd failed to address the concerns raised on the nomination, and as such, don't form consensus. --Abu badali (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that your definition of consensus is quite right. Whilst it is true that a consensus at a particular insular AfD cannot override policy to which the community generally have acceded, a consensus at a given XfD as to the application of a given policy is presumptively correct. If, for instance, an editor nominates an image for deletion in view of its being inconsistent with our non-free content policy and eight of ten who partake of the IfD suppose that the nominator is incorrect, it is not for the closing administrator to substitute his own judgment for that of those participating in the IfD except where the reasoning of !voters is so plainly capricious as to be unlikely to command the support of any non-trivial number of editors; the latter situation is surely not present here. Where an XfD suffers from low participation, relisting may be in order; where there is a plain consensus amongst those participating at an XfD for an interpretation of policy that others suggest may be plainly inconsistent with the wishes of the community, an admin (adminship is, after all, ministerial) must close the discussion in accordance with the consensus interpretation. Other editors may, then, challenge the decision taken as plainly inconsistent with policy, and those participating at DRV might determine that, although the closure was proper, the discussion failed to consider certain issues, such that relisting is in order. XfD is not a vote, but neither is it an invitation for a closing admin to substitute his own judgment, or that of a few participants in a given XfD, for those more prominently expressed where the latter are not facially contrary to policy. Joe 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you read the ifd in question, you'll see that the keep votes didn't addressed the policy. They simply repeated that the image is necessary to illustrate the article, without explaining why. One editor said "it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article" and other said "(it) depicts the command of one side of the very important battle", but both of them failed to explain why the Dien Bien Phu article needs an illustration that "depicts the command of one side of the [...] battle" to begin with. It's not obvious to me why, in order to be understood, an article about a historic battle needs to be illustrated with a picture showing three men pointing to a map. The ifd closing was correct. --Abu badali (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. And I have to note that of the three editors who contributed to the discussion (Raul654, AnonEMouse, and Zeus1234), none of them are regulars at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The NFCC is one of the most arcane portions of Wikipedia policy, so it's not surprising that they don't really grasp it entirely. Abu's arguments were the only ones that addressed all ten points of the NFCC. It's my prerogative to disregard those comments which don't take into account or misrepresent the entire policy. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is only the closing admin's prerogative to disregard those comments that are entirely inconsistent with policy, not those that offer plausible, if dubious, interpretations of policy (since adminship is ministerial, discretion is, or ought to be, rather limited). If an admin confronts an AfD in which deletion is urged by eight of ten !voters solely on the grounds that the subject is a bad guy, he is compelled to discount those !votes because they are not consistent with any interpretation of policy (he ought then to relist to generate more discussion). Here, though, the keep !votes can be understood as advancing an interpretation of policy (those !voting keep don't ignore NFCC's criteria; they ostensibly construe and apply them, and it is not for a closing admin to consider how well they apply them, only that purport to apply them), and that interpretation's being different from that of the deleting admin does not permit the latter to substitute his judgment for that of those participating in the XfD. Where a consensus appears to have developed at an XfD for an interpretation of policy that an admin thinks to be entirely at odds with policy, he ought to raise that issue in the XfD or relist to generate a clearer consensus. At the very least, relisting was appropriate here to provide other editors the opportunity to suggest why an article about a historic battle needs to be illustrated with a picture showing three men pointing to a map; a failure to relist and to delete without sufficient community involvement is itself a procedural problem the presence of which merits an overturning at DRV (if only to permit another discussion). Joe 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, obviously. Consensus can't trump copyright law. Think about it - suppose Encyclopedia Britanica wanted to use this guy's photo and not pay royalties. His estate (or whoever owns his photos) would sue. Fair use isn't "this looks pretty and I don't feel like paying royalties so I'm going to use it". To use this photo under a claim of fair use, we would need to be offering some kind of critical commentary about the photo itself or a discussion of the topic would not be complete without including the photo. For example, when you see Kent State shootings, you instantly think of the Pulitzer photo. No discussion of that topic is complete without the photo. But this one? There's nothing iconic - it just happens to depic the topic. We cannot use this image under the law. Any consensus to the contrary is invalid. --BigDT 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a fair use justification, there's no apparent legal issue. Our policy is much stricter than the law for short-sighted, pragmatic reasons, and it seems like a lot of people think this image still makes the cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This image probably does meet our policy. It unquestionably does not pass the legal standard, though. You can't use someone's photo simply to avoid paying them royalties. That's why we don't use news media photos. The fact that this photographer privately sold his photos to books instead of calling himself a journalist changes nothing - we can't use this photo legally without paying royalties. --BigDT 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair use standards are different for nonprofits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's true, but keep in mind that we have commercial downstream uses. Everything we create needs to be GFDL-compatible and the GFDL permits commercial reuse. If this image would not be legitimate to use commercially without permission, then we can't use it either. --BigDT 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And the policy allows for fair use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither policy nor consensus can trump law. Nobody anywhere outside of Wikipedia would try to use a news media photo under a claim of fair use. It just doesn't make a bit of sense - it is inviting a lawsuit. --BigDT 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • And, again, this is not legally problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How? Saying it doesn't make it so. The fair use doctrine lets us use a screenshot from Star Trek when talking about Star Trek. It lets us quote from Rush Limbaugh when talking about him. It doesn't let us use Joe Schmoe's photograph simply because he happens to have taken a photograph of the subject of the article. If Joe is selling rights to use his photo, then our use of it is infringing on his right under the law to make money from his intellectual property. There are three DRVs right now basically on the same issue and this applies to all of them. I'm going to say it in big letters - FAIR USE IS NOT A LICENSE TO USE COMMERCIAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. If our policy doesn't adequately recognize that we cannot use these images, then our policy is broken and we need a Jimbo ex Machina or some such thing to fix it. --BigDT 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This image doesn't meet our policy. It fails item #2 (in that it's a non-iconic from a news agency used in an article about the event depicted) and item #8 (in that it doesn't help the in the articles comprehension). We don't do with non-free material what we can do without it. And this article doesn't need an image of 3 men pointing to a map. --Abu badali (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the photographer and where is this image sourced to? Kotepho 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source is http://www.indochinawar.com/image3.html. They give the photographer as Georges Boudarel. (See fr:Georges Boudarel.) I don't read French, but from the google translation, it looks like he served with the French during Vietnam and later wrote books critical of the war. The book that published his photo is not one he wrote, so presumably he licensed his photo to them. --BigDT 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BigDT, that is one the wrongest statements I've seen in a long time. Fair use IS, under every definition in the law, a license to use commercial content without paying for it under particular circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False. Fair use is a defense that you can use in court if you are sued for copyright infringement. No court would ever recognize use of some random news media photo as a fair use. --BigDT 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Raul.  Grue  19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the ifd, this is not a vote. Endorsing an argument doesn't make it stronger. --Abu badali (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, yeah it does. We're trying to build consensus here, not to compete in Who Comes Up With The Longest Way To Say "Copyright Paranoia Sucks".  Grue  19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't "copyright paranoia" -- it's about following WP:EDP, and calling it such only mocks the Foundation policy. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Fair use is indeed a license to use content without paying for it, or in the face of the opposition of the copyright holder. See Fair use. There are several aspects of the fair use test, and no one of them always controls. One aspect is whether the copyright holder would suffer any economic loss, and that test always considers the commercial market for the work, if any, and how it would be harmed by the use. Another aspect is the amount of the work used. Yet another aspect is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". In this case, what wikipedia is doing is commenting on the historical events, events which are depicted in the photo. This makes at least a reasonable claim of fair use, and would for downstream reusers, at least for reusers who are mirrors or forks, even commercial ones. But no fair use claim is ever identical to any other, and unless we remove all images used under fair use claims, any downstream reuser must make an indpendant evaluation or be at risk, at elst theoretically, of suit. This image is no different. DES (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the article is "commenting on the historical events, events which are depicted in the photo." I did read Battle of Dien Bien Phu, specifically the "Lead up to Castor" section where the image was located. Nowhere in there is there any description of what is depicted in the photo: these men sitting around a map. To be absolutely clear, there is no commentary on the image whatsoever. Let me put it another way: We normally disallow magazine covers to be used when the cover itself is not discussed. This is exactly the same. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why should any AP photographer ever take a picture of a news event? If anyone (including commercial entities) can just use it and call it fair use and refuse to pay royalties, what's in it for the photographer? --BigDT 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Becauawe one photo, of an event several decades ago, may be usable under "fair use" by some but not all reusers for some but not all purposes, it does not follow that all news photographs may be reused by anyone at all for any reason whatsoever. Fair use is all about making those distinctions. Also, as a practical matter, most AP photographers are either on salary, or are paid for the inital uses of their photos -- the fraction of their income that comes from reprints 30 years later is effectively zero. If this were a photo of an event last week, the case for fair use would be much weaker, in part because the potential commercial market would be much larger. I again suggest that you read our article Fair use, it explains what the legal rules are at some length. DES (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incorrect. History books or ...encyclopedias (!) are still potential customers to AP. Your argument would imply that it's ok to pirate old (but still copyrighted) movies, just because the bulk of their revenue came from the ticket sales. --Abu badali (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted our use does not appear to be transformative. There is no critical commentary of this image and it is used soley to identify these people (them looking at a map is not something that needs to be illustrated). Kotepho 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: I'd like to point people to the newly rewritten WP:NFCC #8, which I believe is more in line with Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (full disclosure, I wrote it a week after I proposed it, during which time it received no objections). So with that in mind, since Raul states that the image is required in order to show "all three top commanders planning their battle plan", here's my follow-up question: What information can be gleaned from this picture that can't be adequately explained in words? It's just a picture of some people sitting around a map. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - despite my recent rampage through the fields of Wikipedia fair use with a machete, this is precisely the sort of thing fair use is for - David Gerard 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The "three top commanders planning their battle plan" is not an information that asks for an illustration in order to be understood. The threshold for using non-free material is that it's necessary for the article comprehension, and not that it's simply useful. Showing three men pointing to a map doesn't help an explanation about a battle nor about the strategies or tactics used in this battle. --Abu badali (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It meets all of the Non-free content criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hop (drug) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

why I think it should be undeleted:

1) Very well documented, including journal articles and OED references. Cited journal articles are not found in the OED reference.

2) While the term is no longer used in contemporary language, it survives in important American literature, such as "THE ICEMAN COMETH" by Eugene O'Neill and "THE THIN RED LINE" by James Jones. Thus, in my opinion it still lives on and is important information to document. When one reads about a "hop dream" or being "hopped up", the context often doesn't give enough information as to the meaning of the term, especially in literature prior to the 1960's when talk of sex and drug use had to be written in less explicit terms.

3) The article content was not *just a definition*. It gives an etymology with references and several examples. Please read the actual content before judging second hand from the AfD note of one person. Moreover, the content was not and is not in wiktionary.

4) Many other slang terms are included in wikipedia: Cracker_(pejorative), White trash, dork. Why do they exist and not this?

Repliedthemockturtle 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. According to the AfD, the article was just a definition, and one that said it was slang for opium. There's no reason given why the AfD was wrong, so... -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking a second time, it turns out that I misinterpreted the comment on AfD; it was referring to the Wiktionary article. Could we get this temporarily undeleted for review? -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore There is decent content in the article. Even if it is a duplicate of the Wiktionary entry currently, one can imagine some further expansion and at the very least it could survive as a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, then expand encyclopedically (if User:Repliedthemockturtle volunteers to maintain non-dicdef content), then relist at AfD for a new consensus on whether it's non-dicdef enough for a Wikipedia article. I can't see the article and its refs (I'm not an admin and Google cache doesn't have it), but I trust the judgment of User:Pascal.Tesson on the content. Wiktionary, besides the two-word description at "hop" number 5, has the phrase hopped up with slightly more content and a sample usage, but no connection to the term's use in twentieth-century literature (William Burroughs is another influential example, cited in Opium). Phrases with the term "hop" also took on significance in jazz and blues that are probably more documented than "just another slang name for a drug". WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary tells us that

    it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

    If the article and its sources satisfy the AfD's closer that it's more than an expanded dicdef, then it should be relisted. The consensus may or may not find the article to be more than just a minor cultural-linguistics essay. Normally I would expect AfD to reach a decision to merge this into one paragraph in Hop, but that's a disambiguation page with no parent better than this one. It points to Opium but that article doesn't mention "hop(s)" nor "hopped up" nor use in jazz or blues. Barno 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment on the nominator's point 4: besides the guideline that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for this article to exist, the other slang terms may or may not have been debated on AfD and found to be "essential" enough or to show well-documented significance that passes WP:ATT. You're free to nominate-for-deletion any of those articles on slang that you don't feel meets the policy WP:ATT or the guideline WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you do, check its "AfD history" link first. Barno 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have doen a temporary undel so that the history is visible to non-admins. DES (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD was reasoanbel, and the statemetns made there were not inaccurate. no process violations that I can see. However, do not salt, specifially, there should be no bar to creating a new and more encyclopedi article on this topic. allow the history to be userfied if anyone wants it as a basis for such an expanded articele, and if it is used, undelted the history if such an expanded article is created. DES (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I am not an admin nor an expert on the workings of wikipedia policy, but it seems that it is very easy for an article to be deleted but very difficult to have it reinstated. My main point here is that if precidence (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a sufficient reason for inclusion of an article, why should we rely so heavily on the decision of the orginal AfD? Shouldn't this be evaluated anew, instead of leaning so heavily on the original AfD decision ('no process violations' seems to me to be a decision based on precidence)? My secondary point is that I see the delete/undelete arguments to be somewhat overtechnical and knee-jerk reactionary ('dicdefs don't belong here') My personal guidelines for inclusion are these: 1) does the article provide (and will it continue provide) useful information to people? 2) is the topic important enough to justify inclusion in an (extensive) encyclopedia on general knowledge 3) is the article factual and researched well? As far as wiktionary versus wikipedia, I think that any article that can benefit from the wiki process of elbaoration and research belongs in wikipedia. A dictionary is a place where people go to look up a definition, not a place to collect extensive etymological knowledge on a word. Take a look on the entry for the term OK. This is a fascinating and useful article on a slang term. It never would have gotten to its current state if it was deemed a dicdef. Lastly, in the spirit of democracy I think it's best to err on the side of including material when at least some segment of the wikipedia community find it useful. What is worse to loose knowledge or to have a little extra trivial knowledge? I lean towards the former being worse. Seems like we have wasted much more time, energy, and disk space on discussing this deletion than if we just executed the 'sin' of leaving the darn (rather harmless) entry in place. These are my thoughts...take them as they are...Repliedthemockturtle 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there doesn't seem much to be said about this, but it seems like it would do fine as a couple sentences in the main opium article, which already uses the term "hop fiend" without much explanation. Why not just redirect and leave the history behind it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Really, this article was deleted almost 2 and a half months ago. It looks like a dictionary entry and would probably be better served by a mention in a relevant article. Other than that, this is DRV, which reviews process not content (if anyone's forgotten that lately). Process was fine and fair. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but allow recreation. No problem with the result, and it does read like a dicdef, but that's no reason to disallow a possible better article in its place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Could someone please explain to a relative beginner what is the practical difference between overturn, and endorse but allow re-creation? DGG 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • History undeletion, probably. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • More specifically, i would say that if deletion were overturned, the previous article would be recreated, to be expanded or not in the normal editing process, with the implication that the existing form is acceptable id not exactly FA matériel. Endorse but allow recreation means that the old article will be deleted, but when and if a reasonable article on the subject is created, a) it won't bee subject to speedy deletion under G4 (recreation of deleted content) and b) the old article will, on request, be undeleted as part of the history of the new one. But nothing will be there until a new and better article is written by someone. DES (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the new article is substantially different you can't speedy delete it as a G4. - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion Administrators have discretion to end discussions they think are getting out of hand. [Good thing I'm not an administrator... :)] I see no reason to overturn. YechielMan 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I haven't seen any evidence that process was not followed in the AfD or subsequent deletion, which is what we review here. Heather 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, merge and redirect. There was far too little participation in the AFD and no one even considered merging it into the opium article which would seem like a sensible solution to me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2007

[edit]
  • uSwitch – Overturn deletion. Does not appear to be spam however the current version does resemble an advertisement. Participants of this discussion are requested to help improve the article. Also OwenBlacker is reminded to adhere to WP:COI while editing this article. --Srikeit 07:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
USwitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page speedy-deleted for invalid reason: page was listed as db-spam, yet was not unencyclopædic OwenBlacker 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as a violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #5, on the theory this is a non free press photo of a living person. However, that guideline also states "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g., a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in related articles." This image depicts the Zimbabwean opposition leader brutally beaten for political reasons. The image appeared in the relevant article. It is therefore a newsworthy photo not just being used to show what a living person looks like and proper fair use. -N 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initially quoted articles to give the historical context. However if you look closely you will see that I listed many article that later on in the discussion that did have the photo. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: The image wasn't deleted "on the theory this is a non free press photo of a living person". It was deleted because it was a non-iconic unfree picture of an important event used to illustrate that event, in direct market replacement of the original purpose this image has to it's copyright holder (a news agency that makes a living out of licensing images like this for, among other things, websites like this). --Abu badali (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete this photo to begin with. Additionally the photo itself was newsworthy was iconic.. The picture is of Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the MDC (the opposition movement in Zimbabwe), showing his appalling injuries after he was tortured very badly by the Zimbabwean government. This obviously is not reproducible at any later point. The issue is a big one both politically and in the human rights community. The government there often denies doing this kind of thing and this photo is one of the few times that it can be proven wrong. This has caused a big international uproar. Here is the original photo or similar image used in context around the world: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], Here is an article and under the caption reads "Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world" - see here [27], [28], [[29], [30], [31], [32], [33] Thus it is very notable and qualifies under fair use. Please, before you judge this, learn about the recent History of Zimbabwe. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I showed many articles with the exact same image. The point was to show that the image of his injuries was a big deal. The BBC article had a different picture of those same injuries, but the tagline saying they that pics of his injuries went around the world implies that any pic of his injuries at the time was notable. It was a big deal politically. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the problems here is that this photo is too recent -- it's just from two months ago and it hasn't had the time to make a similar cultural impact with the ones I listed above. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - we absolutely cannot use news media photos. Press agencies make their money licensing those photos. If we use them without paying license fees, that's a huge potential liability when we get sued. --BigDT 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Custodiet ipsos custodes makes a good case for fair use justification within policy, as far as that policy appears to be explained—it does not appear to be true that "we absolutely cannot use newsmedia photos" according to WP:NONFREE. A free content alternative is simply not available, and that image seems to be of iconic import to recent Zimbabwe politics. Is the scope of that importance notable? WP:CSB. —pfahlstrom 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - We can use news media photos to illustrate articles (or sections) about the news media photos themselves. But we absolutely cannot use news media photos to illustrate the articles (or sections) about the news events they depict, which is the case here. --Abu badali (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments only for now. First, I don't know what the hell "iconic" means in contexts such as this; I suspect it's just "very well known" but amn't sure. If it means "very well known", let's say so; if it means something else, let's say so. Secondly, whether or not WP can use news media photos, it does use them. Here's an example. (NB I am not putting forward the use of this photo as a reason to use the photo under deletion review, merely remarking on WP as I see it.) -- Hoary 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll define iconic as "well-known enough to be recognized by a large number of casual readers". Maybe it's systemic bias to say that a photo from Zimbabwe just doesn't have the same reach as the photos I listed above (which with the exception of the Reichstag flag were all widely circulated in the U.S.), but until there is literature about the image itself (for example, the book Flags of Our Fathers is specifically about the photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but we don't need to have an entire book) then it's a non-notable picture about a notable event. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy. As far as I can tell it meets all ten points of this policy which incidentally mention significance rather than iconicity. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy can't override the law. Think about it - if Encyclopedia Brittanica decided to use news media photos without permission, what would happen? They would get sued. As a non-commercial entity, we may be able to get away with some things they can't, but we do have downstream uses. We absolutely cannot use news media photos - it's just asking for legal troubles and they should be deleted on sight. --BigDT 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it can, but you appear to disapprove of any form of fair use alltogether even if both policy and law allow it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it fails to meet "2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - by using the image on an article about the beating, we are basically competing with news media outlets who might use the image commercially for the same purpose. Megapixie 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original market value was to be used as news. The news cycle is very quick and after 24 hours it starts getting old. After weeks and months have passed its primary market is not damaged. It does have a secondary market, however this is something the courts have given much more leeway on. Let me quote from a recent court of appeals opinion:[35] and [36] 'Were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder.' Additionally Wikipedia is a non-profit and an educational forum. Fair use really does work here. As I have tried to stress many times before, each case is individual and it is erroneous to assume a blanket legal rule against one type. I have actually spent many many hours researching this. At this point I could write a long sourced article about it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So in essence, you're more arguing against the policy itself, not in its application, right? The non-free content policy here is intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. copyright law allows because its primary aim is not to keep us from getting sued, but freedom instead -- the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with the content. Every piece of non-free content is a hindrance to that goal. Now we are not going to go the German route and ban all non-free content, but we can limit its usage to only what's necessary. You might find other examples of improper usage of non-free images, but that doesn't mean we allow more. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well I was addressing the issue of those who said it was a straight out copy violation. However I understand the Wikipedia policy allows fair use on some limited occasions. This implies some degree of commercial loss by "secondary use". Otherwise we would never be allowed to use a copyrighted image in Wikipedia (i.e. even a magazine cover in reduced pixel form could be licensed by the copyright holder, yet Wikipedia sometimes allows it). So for the same reasons as above, one must logically interpret the rule to apply to primary and not secondary loss of commercial use. Thus even according to the Wikipedia policy this image is permitted. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But look at the court case you are quoting from. The issue there was the use of an event poster where there was historical significance of the poster itself, not merely the fact that it happened to depict people from the band. In this case, any photo from the period would do just fine - there's nothing historically significant about this photo itself. Further, whereas the primary purpose of the poster was to promote the band (a purpose not infringed by using it without paying royalties), the primary purpose of this photo is to sell it and collect royalties. --BigDT 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are mistaken to say that the photo is not historically significant. The images of Morgan Tsvangirai after he was beaten up caused an international uproar. The point of the photo was to show his injuries after the government literally tried to beat him to death (not any photo would do; only one having him with his injuries next to the hospital.) Secondly I disagree with you about the primary purpose of the photo. The news agency photos are taken primarily to illustrate current events. The overwhelming majority of photos are used and printed within 48 hours of being taken. After that they are considered 'old' news. A tiny proportion are used later on are sold afterwards for other uses. Thus that later use is secondary. --Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I grant that in the case of the aforementioned poster - there was only one poster and it had significance in of itself. Here, there are a very limited number of photographs. The event they portray is important. However the image of a badly beaten man itself is iconic so the few alternatives are each iconic. Perhaps like the multiple shots of Iwo Jima. Each of them is iconic. Secondly there are no alternatives. There were only a few photographs taken of Morgan Tsvangirai while he was exiting the hospital for treatment/convelessing. Given also that Zimbabwe is one of the poorest countries in the world and that its economy is in ruins, cameras are very scarce and thus it is virtually certain that no new free shots in the future will become available. Accordingly the images are very rare and iconic. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On top of that, we can use a low-resolution version if market value is an issue. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think the arguments on both sides that are being raised here were already raised in the debate. I trust that Howcheng would have been open to an argument he felt was convincing. I see nothing wrong with the closure. Mangojuicetalk 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John P. Kelly (Philadelphia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author not notified (i.e. there was insufficient notice given), nor was there a real consensus. The standard used was rather arbitrary. evrik (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How was the standard used "arbitrary"? The nom asserted this man is a non-notable politician and the discussion participants agreed. --Iamunknown 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (These should be combined, I'm just duplicating text)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the supposedly "arbitrary standard" cited at AfD was WP:BIO, a widely accepted standard which is hardly arbitrary. The arguments to keep, on the other hand.... Xtifr tälk 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No notice is required, so the notice given met all our requirements. That standard seems fine. --pgk 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion on the basis that there certainly was a real consensus. At the end of 5 d, there were 2 deletes in addition to the nom, & 1 keep on the basis that a member of a city council for a large city was automatically notable--which is not the practice. The AfD was, properly, continued an extra 5 days, and there were 6 additional deletes & no other comments. That's consensus. If he does become notable, then it will be time to re-create an article. DGG 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This was rushed and there wasn't enough consensus to justify closing deleting. I agree with Evrik that more notice should have been given. Also, I think the debate was hastily closed. --South Philly 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Juan F. Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author not notified (i.e. there was insufficient notice given), nor was there a real consensus. The standard used was rather arbitrary. evrik (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Activated_Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was about a charity, though related to The Family International is an actual 501(c)(3) with a presence in California. The article also listed detailed information about their officers and directors which is important for folks to know about. I've been trying to document more 501(c)(3)'s on Wikipedia and this is an article I've been working on to raise general public awareness. Etcher 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the closing administrator said, "If they [references] can be found, then the article can always be recreated", he or she left editorial discretion for recreation. Why not just recreate with the help of Smee (talk · contribs) (the editor who said he or she could find citations)? --Iamunknown 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, 501(c) (3)'s are not inherantly notable since anybody can create one. I know people who have created 501's for their kid's education, for tax purposes. This is not a valid reason for deletion review. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that even a valid reason for deleting it then? Shouldn't we do away with all articles regarding foundations? This charity has been cited in news media as well. I wouldn't put it in the same category as one created for their kid's eduction and tax purposes. - Etcher 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer - one of the only 2 "keep"s was based on the "20 or so" citations, but none were forthcoming. I did indeed point out that a recreation if those citations were provided would not be a problem. I have no idea why this has come to DRV. Neil (►) 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because isn't it better to rework the current work then start from scratch? I get your point and references was something I was gleaning for the article. In any case I will respectfully withdraw my request for Deletion Review and try and start work on the article again once I have references and sources squared away. - Etcher 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WP:Administration_Abuse (edit | [[Talk:WP:Administration_Abuse|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason for deletion "Trolling in the wrong name-space" invalid explanation. This article was not trolling, and it was done in the correct name-space WP. It's a Meta article, not a Wiki article. (DRV initiated by User:Wjhonson at 17:57, May 29, 2007)

  • On a technical note, "WP" is a pseudo-namespace; if it was to be a project-space essay, the prefix "WP" should be replaced with "Wikipedia". --Iamunknown 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page will not make Wikipedia a better place. Endorse. – Steel 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, The content of this is a duplication of content found elsewhere on the project, and the title is just trolling. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and move to the proper mainspace. Does not appear to be trolling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Jeff, I would accept a restoral with a move to the proper name-space. I was not aware that Wikipedia and WP were different name-spaces, I thought one was simply a short-cut of the other. Wjhonson 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorese deletion - we have existing procedures and instructions. This reads like it was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder. AKRadecki 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you endorse and then say "we have existing procedures and instructions" in the same sentence? This deletion was a textbook violation of "existing procedures and instructions." --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. An essay of this nature might best be developed in userspace rather than in Wikipedia/WP space. I acknowledge a conflict of interest as a potential target of the essay, per the creator's comments on another pending DRV. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Newyorkbrad (minus the COI, as I am not an admin ;)). --Iamunknown 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I can't see what the content was, but I'm assuming that it's not some sort of blatant attack piece, since nobody has said that. So, from the evidence presented, I'm not seeing a good reason for speedy deletion. -Amarkov moo! 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - blatant trolling.--Docg 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm dubious about an essay that characterizes summoning an uninvolved administrator as 'meatpuppetry'. Let him create in his userspace if he likes, but it's neither appropriate for the article namespace (where it was accidentally created) nor the project namespace (its intended location). Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Swatjester. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't stay in the mainspace, but if the user would like for it to be userfied or moved to Wikipedia: space, I see no reason not to speedilly grant that request without prejudice. --BigDT 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, WP:POINT page. All this material is already better covered in policy pages. >Radiant< 08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone abuses their admin priviliges, you report them to arbcom. The page throws all administrators in the same pile and the abuses described are no different than the abuses regular editors commit. There's no point in writing an inflammatory essay about it that singles out administrators. - Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The point of the essay is to have a central place where editors (not admins) can comprehend *how* to complain about abusive admins. As it stands the process is so deep and confusing that virtually no person can understand it. I have been here for years and still do not understand how to do it. That is one reason why I started it this essay. And also collect to a central place, examples of the types of abuse and how to handle each type. This material is not covered in any central location and so loosely on policy that it's incomprehensible to the average person. Wjhonson 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:ANI:

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include mediation and requests for comment.

- Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Post-autonomous_art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I recently went to reference this article, which I've referred to in the past, and was surprised to find it deleted as nonsense. There is nothing non-sensical about the subject matter if one is schooled in contemporary visual art practices, and in fact this page is / was linked to from a number of respected academic sites. Unfortunately it was the most concisely-presented, and clearly stated source for background on this particular art movement available on the web. Its deletion was a disservice to serious discourse on contemporary art. BTW, I am in no way affiliated with the author, nor do I know him/her, I am simply an artist and critic who is engaged in this topic and find it rather insulting that it would be so summarily dismissed without any discussion whatsoever, which would have quickly brought to light the shortsightedness of the deletion Greenearrings 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow re-creation. This appears to be a recognized concept in the art world, which is not to say that I can make head or tail of it. The article as it existed didn't say much, and creation of a new article might be the best approach, although the earlier version could be reinstated for a short time as a starting point. Newyorkbrad 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Deleted as nonsense even while external sources call the article a good start. I have my doubts this was actually nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn . Unfamilarity is not nonsense; when confronted with an apparently incomprehensible article in a field one doesn't know, one should leave it for someone who is more able to tell if it's nonsense. There's a good tag: {{expert}} . One ed. who didn't understand, and a usually careful admin, whose own better judgment was to mark it OR, but deferred to the original ed. who placed the tag, which defeats the purpose for having a 2nd person check.DGG 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to correct this: the ed. who placed the tag does edit regularly in the general field, so it is understandable why the admin. deferred to that eds. view. DGG 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Only 43 ghits for this term, and the link provided by badlydrawnjeff is to a blog. Corvus cornix 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Mainly because the original deletion was a speedy but the article was worthy of deletion review. But note:
-- RHaworth 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm new, but please don't hold that against me. In fact it was this issue that spurred me to become official user, due to irony that the deleted subject is exactly in line w. wiki philosophy, namely, collaborating and ceding some level of control or authorship. I'm very impressed by the careful consideration and discourse I'm seeing here, so consider me not only new, but a convert to further engagement. Greenearrings 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (possibly relist). The current version by Postautonomy is not an article but rather a lecture which was rightfully deleted. However, earlier versions were significantly dissimilar. This should be restored to the more article-like version from December 1, 2006. The number of Google hits shouldn't matter, the quality should. If even one of these hits is the home page of a respected art critic, it's worth having an article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AnkhSVN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not sure why this was deleted as "blatant advertising". The article was short, but it depicts a valid software item which has been around for at least 2-1/2 years and is referenced by several articles. StuffOfInterest 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The_Universal – Deletion endorsed. The AfD seems valid, and nobody has presented a reason why the result was incorrect. As in most cases, no prejudice against recreation if multiple reliable sources are found, but any article without them will just be redirected back to the current target. -Amarkov moo! 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC) – Amarkov moo! 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Universal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON 217.195.82.2 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The_Universal - the article about a online computer game. It was deleted for some reason, and all such links now point to a song title. Disambiguation was also deleted apparently. There are many places that linked to the game, now link to the song. For example, List_of_MMORPGs (under letter T), also List of free MMOGs has a link and a description of the game. The link is now broken. Why remove the game article but not remove all the links? And why all other free online games are not removed? I found out about the game from wikipedia, it was a very good article. It's a shame the article is removed now.[reply]

  • Shame it might be, but we multiple, non-trivial, independent sources (for which read: sources which are considered authoritative - staff reviews, not user reviews - and which are not mere directory listings). Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. One reference is the official game site: www.theuniversal.net. Another reference (not on the net) is the PC Gamer magazine, Christmas 2004 issue. Is that not enough?
    Well the first clearly fails the "independent" part of the requirement. And one doesn't tend to be considered "multiple", so I guess not --pgk 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Most of the refs originally offered were to directory listings, but the ref. to a listing in the christmas issue is said in the AfD to be substantial (2 pages). Considering the subject I thinks it might be sufficient. Personally, I think number of registered accounts (the ed. says 13,000) can be used as factor N, just as circulation is used as a factor for newspapers. I'm just commenting because i know mine is still not the accepted view. DGG 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Patrick De Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Very few comments on deletion, and none after a detailed response for keeping the article according to WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists. - Curious GregorTALK 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject-specific guidelines do not override the need for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The only keep was from an majority contributor to the article. From the information given and the people involved, it would have clearley ended in a deletion, even if a few more people had contributed to the afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - As the admin who closed the AfD, I endorse deletion. The claim to notability it quite tenuous, and without much in the way of citations. He is claimed to have played in two notabile bands, Technotronic and T99. In Technotronic, his participation is listed under the "Trivia" heading (guested on on album, not a regular part of the band). T99's first 3 albums were De Meyer's solo works, so the article about T99 is essentially about De Meyer. It seems rather pointless to have two articles about the same artist just because he recorded under different names. At most, I could see a redirect to T99. AKRadecki 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there's no such thing as quorum on AFD. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Undeletion' Patrick De Meyer was one of the composers for technotronic, as well as playing the syntheiszers. Hence, the page for him alone. T99 when it became famous was him and Olivier Abbeloos and so cannot claim to be an article solely for Patrick de Mayer. The WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists suggests that he is notable enough as he he fulfils rule 1

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.

because if we look at his page on all music guide in the composed section we see he has written songs for Technotronic, Daisy Dee and 2 Unlimited, as well as | T99. Technotronic, T99 and 2 Unlimited have all had chart hits. Thereby qualifying him as notable on this count. He has also been a music producer on a number of albums, this is not covered by wikipedia notability rules, however, the producer is often influential on the sound of an album/band (see for example Wall of Sound). The references for the article were All Music Guide & Discogs, | this and IMDB film score credit (independent film, little known - doesn't add much to notablility) can also be seen as showing his work, as he has no official website that I know of. The article had been expanded and modified from the previously deleted stub, which was little more than a list of his pseudonyms, so that it contained more details about him. - - Curious GregorTALK 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yirmumah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

popular ongoing comic strip and independent print comic since 2003 by the creator D.J. Coffman who is also the winner of the first Comic Book Challenge put on by NBC and Platinum Studios. Yirmumah has also been featured in Wizard Magazine's "Edge" series as well as been critically reviewed by sites like Newsarama. Yirmumah is also a featured comic of the new Cracked Magazine. The creator of is also well known for helping other webcomic creators in making money with their online content and many creators have used the information available at yirmumah.net/make_money A simple websearch for Yirmumah will also yield several other notable sources in popular culture, as many of Yirmumah's comics are featured in other media, including "The Taylor Hicks Drinking Game" and "Things not to say to Darth Vader at the Imperial Water Cooler" - Please put the article back up. Thanks! - 24.154.221.235 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe fair use applies for inclusion of this image in the articles Northern Ireland national football team and Irish Football Association. --Kwekubo 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Enchanted Forest Water Safari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Wikipedia in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: on a purely-procedural note, Mhking (talk · contribs) tagged this with {{db-repost}} here: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —Phil | Talk 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. GRBerry 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. Jjm10 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that Jjm10 bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on Jjm10's user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. AKRadecki 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radecki, which version do you say was good? Guy (Help!) 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say this one would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. AKRadecki 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That version, unless I am much mistaken, reads like a pastiche or satire of an amusement park rather than a sourced article. There are a number of assertions and descriptions of things in there that I am highly dubious are actually factually true, and I would want to see cites for them. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lar - The intent is not satirical. If you check the sources, you will see the factual information regarding theme parks of that era. Of interest (and perhaps not relevant here), the History Channel had an interesting series on theme parks of the 1950's and their impact on Americana, along with the contemporaneous development of more mainstream parks, such as Disney World. Inasmuch as assertions you feel unfounded; I would be happy to provide additional citations to bolster the article. Jjm10 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. More sources always help. No insult was intended but the writing style DOES read like satire to me, and the park is not to be found in RCDB which threw me off, but there certainly is a website at the URL given in one of the versions ( http://www.watersafari.com/attractions/index.cfm?content_id=128 ) so I am confident the park exists and is notable enough to merit an article... the article just needs work. "no article" is better than a "bad article". ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. More eyes are only going to help this situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy The obvious solution is to restore this in the user's space and work with them to come up with something acceptable. We can then relist it when we have something worthwhile to look at. I'm willing to work with the author with this. 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (User:Spartaz)
  • Userify... agreed. I really see no need for a listing at AfD at this point, that's just process wonkery, this is an obvious keep once it's improved. Give Jjm10 time to tighten this up and to add sources and then bring it live again... I know sources may be thin sometimes. If I may be so immodest I would like to point to Joyland Amusement Park as a potential example of a similar article. I just wish I had been able to find better sources than the park's own site and RCDB. Time permitting I would help with this too. PS, part of the problem here is that Jjm10 is not totally familiar with the (somewhat arcane) deletion process and was commenting on things in the articlespace rather than talk space. Give newbies the benefit of the doubt, please. ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and improvement per above. Can be renominated on AfD later if warranted, but I hope it wouldn't be. No reason to burden a new editor with an AfD right away or with a userfication/deuserfication process; I'm glad enough he found this page. Newyorkbrad 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userification is very useful, and I'm happy to help any new editor with it if they ask... in particular I've already offered to help this editor in future. But since Uncle G created a new start point, go with that I guess. (and a tip of the hat to you for that, G...) ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleted version of the article created by Thebigschill (talk · contribs) and linked-to above is, as Lar points out, highly suspect. It's not worth undeleting it for content. This is firstly because there appears to be some blatant hoaxery and agenda-pushing there. And secondly it is because I've started a proper article, from scratch, for you, using as a source a published book that devotes 20 pages to this park. I suggest that further expansion be done using that and other, similar, sources ready to hand and cited in the article. Take this as an implicit challenge to an A7 speedy deletion, which thus requires that the article go through the normal deletion process. Uncle G 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A very effective rescue by UncleG, as usual for him. DGG 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • One of the key arguments that made me reach my decision was : "Wikipedia is not WikiNews". Minor subjects involuntarily dragged into momentary infamy due to some very forgettable actions committed against them should not be treated as the latest scoop. Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT, NYB and several other participants below have expounded this with detailed reasoning. The deletion of the Ben Ownby article is clearly endorsed. However Shawn Hornbeck's may be considered as a provisional one. If Night Gyr's laudable efforts to contact the Hornbeck foundation receive a favourable response, an appropriate article can be made for either the foundation or Hornbeck himself. In the meantime, a redirect will not cause any irreparable loss of information, After all, we aren't missing any deadlines. --Srikeit 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn Hornbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Ben Ownby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Procedural nomination, either the page should be salted to prevent recreation if the concern for privacy is so great, or it should have been listed for AFD instead of speedied. Personally I think that both Hornbeck and Ownby are non-notable by themselves, but I would like to see greater consensus amongst the community than an administrator's unilateral decision. Therefore, I call for an AfD on procedural grounds. Past AfD was a "no consensus". Calwatch 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting administrator's response:
The debate on this pair of deletions presents another opportunity for the community to provide input into whether and to what extent concern for the well-being and privacy of living persons will be taken into account in deciding on the content of the encyclopedia.
The subjects of these articles are young people (Ben is 13 and Shawn is 15) who were living otherwise non-notable lives as American children until each of them was kidnapped and was mistreated in a horrifying way. One of them, at the age of 13, was subjected to more than a dozen sexual assaults over a period of several days; the other's kidnapping separated him from his family for more than four years of brutalization and abuse. The ordeals suffered by these young people are harrowing to contemplate; the only saving grace is that ultimately they were rescued alive; and any decent person must hope that they are now able to overcome what they suffered and lead successful lives.
In doing so, one of the things that each of them will have to learn to live with is the pervasive publicity that they have now received in the mass media, including on the Internet. Ordinarily, the media, at least in the United States, do not report the names of victims of sexual assaults, and certainly not of victims who are minors. In this case, though, there has been massive publicity. This largely is an artifact of the fact that before these teens were known to have been sexually assaulted, they were "missing children" and therefore rightly the subject of publicity as their families and communities sought to locate and rescue them. Once that had occurred, perhaps the media and the families decided that the publicity when the boys were being searched for was already so pervasive that relevation of what had happened was a fait accompli and no steps to belatedly safeguard confidentiality could now be implemented. If that is so, it is a sad and troubling situation that raises a host of ethical issues for those media, but I see no reason that Wikipedia should knowingly make a bad situation worse.
We strive to create a broad-based and comprehensive encyclopedia covering an enormous variety of subject matters. For what it is worth, I am firmly anchored well to the "inclusionist" side of the administrator corps and am hardly someone who routinely goes out-of-process and starts randomly deleting things. But encyclopedic breadth does not exclude consideration of other relevant concerns. We have a duty to take into account the predictable impact of our articles upon living subjects, and in my opinion at least, especial solicitude is owed in the cases of young teenagers who are the innocent victims of terrible crimes that already will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
I do not contend that the fact that these boys' names and family circumstances have been publicized in other sources, and that they participated in discussing with journalists what had happened to them, are wholly irrelevant in deciding whether and how we should include such information. Yet, at the end of the day we have to decide what we believe is appropriate to be included in our encyclopedia, in which we hope that Wikipedia and our articles will be immortal. Whether today, or twenty years from now, if someone Googles (or whatever the then equivalent in later years is) the names of one of these people, should the first hit be what happened to them when they were 13? I would say no, and I would like to believe that a strong consensus of the Wikipedia community would agree. Note that I am not saying we shouldn't describe the general gist of what happened. The full story is still recounted in the article about the (alleged) criminal, Michael J. Devlin, although there is resistance to my editorial decision there to excise the victims' names. The question posed by these deletions is whether further publicizing these victims' names, geographical locations, and family circumstances will make us a better encyclopedia or make contributing to it more rewarding to any of us. My view is that it will not. See also my prior comments on related issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad.
Accordingly, I ask that the deletions be sustained. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - There should have been an AfD, per Calwatch. In addition, Newyorkbrad should be barred from admin actions for at least a week as a punishment. Wjhonson 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either the community will endorse my action or it won't, but after the thought I have given to this entire set of issues over the past several months and in light of the ongoing community-wide discussion of these issues, I find your suggestion that I need to be "punished" to be ... well, I'm not going to characterize it, though I hope that other participants in this discussion might. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone obviously does not understand Wikipedia, Wjhonson. We do not bar people like that from accidents (especially when this was no tan accident). Please read more about Wikipedia before commenting like that again. Cbrown1023 talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/keep undeleted Hornbeck, who's been featured in many mainstream places and is using his fame for good[37]. No current opinion on Ownby, although I'm leaning toward a listing for further opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I acknowledge that H is a closer call than O, although I am sorry to see back-pedalling from your initial understanding of this action expressed at User talk:Tony Sidaway#Another suggested deletion. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we want to work that into existing policy, then that's fine, but I was also probably a little hasty now that I'm doing more research into this one. Even so, whether we draw the line or not is not a situation for one person to make. I may agree with your deletion of one or both in principle, but that doesn't mean we can leave the rest of the community out of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, especially when this "consensus" was made on the talk page of another administrator. While well-intentioned, it needs to go before the whole community. Calwatch 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD, but keep the article deleted meanwhile for BLP concerns. I originally deleted it as what appeared to be a simple copy and paste of the old contents, but it appeared to have been another administrator doing it, so I undid my recreation protection of the page, but deleted the poor copying.. Now is a good time for an AFD now that the news about him has vanished, so people can look at whether he is notable or not with a clear mind, hopefully. Cowman109Talk 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the cache, it's well-referenced and is not negative in tone - there's no BLP policy concerns here, and that should be noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will acknowledge that as well. If we are going to have articles on either or both of these two people, the articles were well-written and reasonably referenced. That type of concern was not the basis for my action in deleting them. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, in that case, my mistake. I think it would be best to send to AFD and restore, then. And my above comments were also in reference to just the Shawn Hornbeck article, I missed the fact that two articles were up for review here. Cowman109Talk 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore both articles and permanently remove Newyorkbrad as administrator for his disgusting, arbitrary and grotesque censorship. What are we going to do now-remove the names of all alleged crime victim's? This will be the end of Wikipedia as a serious source. John celona 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to a broader article about the incident. FCYTravis 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is essentially non-encyclopaedic material. If they grow up and write a book, then a case can be made for entries for these figures. Until then, the case for deletion is in my opinion open and shut. Agree with FCYTravis regarding the redirect. FNMF 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Neither boy has done anything notable to warrant an article about themselves, but their names are out there and easy to find. People will come to wikipedia looking for the, but I think we should have minimal information about the victims. This incident is very sensitive, and in the past editors have argued that any and all information about these children should be printed. I find that deplorable. These are underaged victimes of sex crimes. We have a duty to not only record the facts, but to also be compassionate and discreet when appropriate. AniMate 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Hornbeck has started a foundation and has a personal website dedicated to advocating on behalf of missing children. Therefore, he has chosen to use his fame for various causes. Ownby is pretty un-notable since many kids get abducted for a few days or even a week at a time and their cases don't make it beyond the local media, nor do they end up here. Calwatch 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD - these articles existed for months and one survived an AfD, so an out-of-process deletion was not warranted. The names are already mentioned on Wikipedia, so that's not an issue. As to Jeff's earlier comments about 'minors', it's clear those don't represent his real views. I personally don't think people's age should be an issue for this purpose (unless it were legally required).The way, the truth, and the light 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both per FCYTravis, the current articles aren't biographies of the people, who aren't notable themselves. Yonatan talk 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concern I have with a redirect is that the "what links here" feature from Devlin's article will make it obvious why they are mentioned. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's taking your concerns a little too far, given the ease with which the names can be identified from other sources. The question should surely be whether these figures are deserving of entries, not whether we can keep their identities a secret (we can't). FNMF 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the damage done by that isn't enough to merit the deletion of the article, unless the redirect starts showing up as one of the first results on Google, or something like that. In that case, we could get rid of the redirect as a Wikipedia search would probably get the Devlin article as [one of if not] the first result. Yonatan talk 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are you defining notability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure, that's a difficult question and merits a long response. I don't, however, believe that a person automatically becomes notable if he's involved in a notable\well-publicized incident. I also feel we need to take into consideration what effect this will have on the real lives of people. Yes, we have an admirable goal of creating an encyclopedia, but should this come at the expense of other people's lives? Does a person need to suffer their whole life just because of something that happened to them that was beyond their control? Obviously he will suffer anyway, but we should do whatever we can to lessen the effect this has on his life, as people's lives are more important than writing an encyclopedia. Primum non nocere. Yonatan talk 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring back the articles - I believe Newyorkbrad should be reprimanded for his blatant disregard for other people's work. Lots of people worked on those two articles, especially the Shawn Hornbeck one. Everybody and their grandmother knows the names of the two boys. They both had press conferences, so clearly they know their name is out in the public; nothing we do here is going to harm then anymore then Michael Devlin. Hopefully, he will be punished to the fullest extend of the law. Fighting for Justice 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad erred only in forgetting to salt these deleted article. I endorse the deletion. --04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs).
  • Redirect both per FCYTravis. As I am not an admin, I cannot see the deleted versions; however, when I was reading them last month, they were textbook examples of the pseudo-biographies that seem to bedevil non-notable people enmeshed in noteworthy situations. Risker 05:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both per FCYTravis, or simply Keep deleted. Don't do anything to Newyorkbrad since this is not the venue for discussing such actions. Neither article was a biography, and as per my close statement on the AFD, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Coredesat 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. At a personal level Newyorkbrad has my full respect, but there is an underlying issue that cannot be shoven under the carpet. Unless clear, new guidelines are set, either by community consensus or from above, I do not see how issues like this one, which keep popping up again and again, can be decided unilaterally by an admin, however well-intentioned s/he may be. Stammer 07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Commentary on the underlying issues. (Striking neutrality, see below)
Please do not misunderstand my intentions; I understand the reason for concern when handling these articles and all the other recent (controversial) WP:BLP applications. Obviously, when anyone — especially someone young — is made a victim in any way, special care needs to be paid to the manner in which that topic is discussed, if at all. And these concerns are compounded by the relative permanence of information via the Internet and caching.
However, I approach the assertion that articles about such subjects cannot be written with trepidation. The undue weight argument seems particularly ill-formed; authors are not afforded undue weight if their non-writing achievements are not discussed, notorious criminals are not afforded undue weight when their articles focus on their crims, and notable victims are thus probably not afforded undue weight simply by a lack of other information. The "human decency" argument appears, on its face, more compelling: that as an instrument of public good, Wikipedia has a moral responsibility to shield victims of harrassment, abuse, and criminality from public examination. But there is a dangerous line here, across which lies the logical fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam.
If we conclude that, for example, minor victims who are otherwise unknown are categorically unsuitable for inclusion, then we should probably likewise excise the following articles on a variety of topics:
This list could be longer. Not only did I not search very thoroughly, I did not include nonliving subjects, nor subjects who had an active role in the controversy or crime involved. Obviously, some of these articles are better than others. Some probably should be deleted summarily at this point. Some are good as they stand. Most need more development and better citation. I'm not advocating for or against any of these articles at this point, but we need to consider that expanding application of BLP, notability, and undue weight in this fashion may have wider effects that initially considered. As to whether that is ultimately good or bad... I'm not certain that I could judge even were I inclined to try. Serpent's Choice 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List for AFD. I've given this a lot of thought and a lot of Google. Wikipedia is not the only permanent media. Once any of these people have entered the media's eye, there is simply no way, short of dedicated Googlebombing to the contrary, that nationally-publicized child victims who do not achieve recognition in other ways will ever have anything other than their ordeals as the top result of Google searches, even excluding Wikipedia. Sabine Dardenne, kidnapped 1996? Crime Library, The Guardian, The New York Times. Alex Griffiths, kidnapped 1990? Many false positives but a BBC News story on Google page 1. Erica Pratt, kidnapped 2002? Time, CNN. Timmy White, kidnapped 1980? Crime Library, San Francisco Chronicle, WorldNetDaily. Ashley Wyrick, abandoned 1987? SF Chronicle, CBS News. Nothing that Wikipedia does can possibly erase modern media coverage. Nothing. We can argue from now until forever the morality of that, but we cannot stop it. What we can do, on the other hand, is apply our policies to ensure that this type of article is extraordinarily well sourced and respectful (something that not all media outlets take the time and caution to do). These people will find their tragedies at the top of Google 10 and 20 years from now, but the power of BLP and editors writing with respect for their subject at least means that the top hit will not be sensationalist tripe. We should ask ourselves: in the place of Qian Zhijun, would we rather the first thing Google returns be a mature, well-sourced and well-written article, or "Fatty - the face that launched 1000 clicks"? Serpent's Choice 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting list there. I see that most of the articles do not cite sources or are poorly sourced. They also strike me as the equivalent of a freak show ("See the dog boy! See the chicken man! Only 25¢, Just one quarter!") I fail to see how those articles add to Wikipedia, and can think of ways in which they damage Wikipedia. My standards for adding an article to WP are pretty simple in most cases; there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. But living persons are a different issue. We should not be holding up living persons to public scrutiny, derision, pity or whatever just because they have made a mistake, had an accident or have been abused. Offering up these kinds of stories for the titilation of our readers is a real disservice. It reminds me of the original reason behind the movement to prevent cruelty to animals. The first animal protection activists were not worried about the animals, they were worried about the effect abusing animals had on the souls of the abusers. I think both sides apply here; it is wrong to subject these private individuals to public scrutiny that may increase or prolong their suffering, and it is wrong to pander to the prurient interests of readers. This is an encyclopedia, it is not The National Enquirer or whatever the equivalent is in other countries. -- Donald Albury 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I didn't spend much time examining the quality of the standing articles when I assembled the topical list (and, clearly, I should have). With that in mind, though, I think the solution here is cleanup ... if the best that we can offer is a freak show entry, then the article cannot stand under BLP (or common sense, good practice, etc.). If we can offer a mature, properly sourced article about the subject — the person — then the same very power that Wikipedia has to top Google lists ensures that material of quality is associated with the name. Because regardless of our actions, people who "have made a mistake, had an accident or been abused" are going to have those events immortalized in Google. If we are going to argue that our action should follow from moral grounds, the action under our control that is likely the least harmful (and hopefully beneficial on the whole) to these people is to present a factual article that avoids devolving to prurience. I'll convert one of these sad excuses for a Wikipedia entry into something closer to what I think it ought to be in the next few hours, by means of example. Hopefully, it will be more illustrative than their current condition, which, again, is inexcusibly low in general. Serpent's Choice 11:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't pretend that its ideal, but I've ground-up reworked Erica Pratt. Why? Because this is (at least the start of) an example of what these articles could be. It presents minimal facts of the case. There is no need for lurid details, we are not a tabloid. It discusses what controversies and related issues are relevant — in this case, wider issues of media bias. It does not discuss other controversies and related issues that are not relevant and whose impact could be harmful — in this case, accusations that her family had gang and drug involvement. The sources are reliable and chosen, where possible, because they themselves made similar editorial decisisons. This young girl is lucky because, at the moment, her top Google hit (which isn't Wikipedia) is a pretty decent article. But, it could be dreck like this, which is nearly a hit piece, and is everything she doesn't want to have to deal with. Not all these victims are so lucky. Many face Google searches where the crap, not the cream, has floated to the top. We can't guarantee that Wikipedia will be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" entry, but we know this site has name recognition. The entire point of this extended discussion on BLP and its (proposed) use to delete whole categories of biographies is that we are doing the people a disfavor if we write about them. I suggest that if we exert the effort to write mature, competant articles, we do a bigger disfavor by remaining silent in the face of articles like that last one I linked (and many of these victims suffer from worse than that one). Because those articles are like Wikipedia in one regard: their online imprint is probably forever. Serpent's Choice 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but not salting. I was wrong. Unable to directly view the deleted articles, I approached this topic largely from a purely Wiki-philosophy standpoint. But after my effort to rewrite Erica Pratt to meet my own stated purpose of providing a mature, non-harmful commentary on a similiar subject of media scrutiny, I went back and paid closer attention to the caches for the two articles directly under discussion, to see how close they were to my own standard. I cannot support salting; I still think Wikipedia can represent the moral good best by writing an appropriate article. But ... those are not the appropriate articles. Even where cited by reliable sources, the way to address abuse subjects in a neutral point of view is not to detail a luridly clinical discussion of the methods and frequency of their abuse. That is a tabloid point of view. We can — we must — do better if we wish to retain articles on such topics. Serpent's Choice 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point? The deletionists are getting away with it, and will continue to, because nobody will stand up to them. -N 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural nomination? What kind of crap is that, then? We don't do process for process' sake, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For shame. Nardma, I suggest that before you accuse "deletionists" of "getting away with it" you spend some time talking to people who field complaints from individuals concerned about their portrayal on Wikipedia. It's not a game any more. In truth, it never was. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take Barbara Schwartz as a very obvious example. She once sued every federal agency in existence, right down to the unit and office level in some cases, making for thousands of defendants--where in reality you are supposed to sue up at the much higher level, at the agency level (since for one thing individual offices wouldn't handle their own policy, external affairs, or legal matters). In the press, they dubbed her a "terrorist", and the Utah Supreme Court ruled that wasn't libel. No matter how neutral we word her article, it has a negative portrayal. She has a community ban from Wikipedia for consistently trying to get her article deleted or significantly altered when the weight of reliable sources are on the side of the current article. And yes, I have dealt with a hysterical editor, one who was livid we had his girlfriend's birthday in her article. He was extremely unreasonable and demanded to contact the Foundation, which then immediately removed the info from the article. (By the way, we need a better system in place to track Foundation actions in this regard. As far as I can tell, the only record the Foundation responded to his request was by having an administrator remove the information from the article...I asked at ANI and nobody seemed to know how a person would know for sure what their reply had been.) My point is, there is a line, yes, I understand this. Know why this case has victims' rights advocates crying for blood? It's because in this case you're erasing memories. Anne Frank is only well known because her diary was published post humously after she died to a horrible crime, right? If that had happened more recently you'd probably have deleted her article too. Point being, nobody has asked us to remove this article, so your argument about complaints is nil. In fact, in this case the person has started a victim finding organization to keep the memory going on. And still you delete the memory. -N 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice straw man. Seems like there's no point of contact here between us, or between your examples and reality for that matter. Anne Frank? Get over yourself, please! Guy (Help!) 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Anne Frank. Under YOUR CRITERIA, you'd delete her article. She was a previously private individual only notable for being a victim of her government's racist policies and for having her diary published against her will. -N 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave them deleted I think I've stated my reasoning in my comment above. -- Donald Albury 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than this notorious incident there is nothing to do a biography on. I think procedural nominations are generally a bad idea. Let's not mutually stroke each other with process and procedure, let's do the right thing. Demanding either salting or AfD seems silly, as we don't salt unless something has been recreated multiple times. Per NYBrad's commment, the community does need to come to grips with this question of how "concern for the well-being and privacy of living persons will be taken into account". I think we have a duty to be ethical, as I have said before, and that trumps the need to include every possible factoid. That's a sentiment I think there is broad consensus for if it were checked for. We had some good outcomes recently in which we managed to preserve the information that was relevant in the appropriate article without creating additional negative notoriety for the victims. Let's keep that trend going, hm? endorse deletion with a suggestion that the relevant article on child abduction be reviewed to ensure that this case is included in the proper context. I oppose redirects from their names as that gives the spiders more to work with. As for the suggestion that NYBrad be "punished" that is at best, laughable, as he is one of our very sagest admins. Oh, and I'm no deletionist, by the way, see directly above. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't care less but we need to stop fighting over the articles of minor individuals who are only notable because of events outside their control. Time to make WP:DIGNITY a guideline and update the deletion policy to reflect that BLP concerns outweight notability criteria. The way to do this is via an RFC or something similar. In the meantime we need to stop throwing mud at admins who are cleatly wrestling with a difficult issue and try and deal with this like adults. Lets cut out the irrational accusations and have a mature debate. If we can't do this then the project really has serious problems. Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there aren't any BLP issues. A well-sourced, neutral article on a notable person does not violate BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there is something about needing to recognise the impact that a wikipedia article can have on a minor figure and this is clearly what is driving this spate of deletions. What we are seeing is policy evolving by action. This is the reality of how policy tends to be devised anyway as policy is what the community does rather then what is written down. So the practise of BLP clearly is evolving to proscribe articles about minor figures who have only a single claim to notability and who were unwilling participants in that event. Like it or not this does seem to be the more humane way to go. :) Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We write from sources, so there's no added impact. Even with an article, the Wikipedia article is not number one on Google, and there's certainly no consensus that this is a minor figure, given the attention. Let's not assume that administrators working outside of consensus is "policy evolving by action," and let's start by looking at what we're going with as opposed to assuming things (in this case, that there are BLP concerns) that aren't there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we add impact. We add impact by taking tomorrow's parrot cage liner and immortalising it on the world's biggest information source. Like it or not, bbeing on Wikipedia is massively different to being in the press. This much we know, because people who've been included in Wikipedia against their wishes have made it very plain. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff: How are these guys notable, again? One incident. Why can't this go to WikiNews? We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and we respect people and act ethically, not work to gain notoriety by increasing their discomfort. Perhaps we are talking past each other Jeff, as this seems blatantly obvious to me. And, I suspect, to many many others. Which is why I believe that there IS a shift underway in how policy views this and how things will be done going forward. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually now that I have reread the discussion and particularly Guy's latest contribution and a few bits on talk pages here and there and then looked at the articles again, I do care. Endorse Deletion Spartaz Humbug! 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of my view (which is that an article on these people doesn't have a place here), moving to wikinews isn't really an option as it stands right now, since wikinews is under CC-BY while we are under the GFDL. Yonatan talk 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. The article survived a lengthy AFD and no-one mentioned any BLP issues, which makes sense since I can not see any either. These articles could be merged to Michael J. Devlin, but that is not up to one admin, or two or three, to decide and enforce. There is one "living persons concern" here, though. That is those living Wikipedians who create neutral, well-sourced biography articles, and do not want to see them deleted unilaterally and out-of-process. Prolog 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore AfD optional. Hornbeck had already survived an AfD where these issues were discussed so a speedy was inapropriate in his case. That these boys are notable for so tragic an event is in itself tragic but also true. Wikipedia does not, and in my opinion should not, have a policy of refusing to report on tuly notable events or people with the goal of protecting them. Thus this case is very different from one pertaining to a transient internet meme. Eluchil404 17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Brad. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, worries are not a speedy criterion. Potential libel is, but uncertain cases are to be decided at AFD, not on an administrator's whim. Plus, when the parents have been holding press conferences and publicizing the kid in the media, why are we suppressing information? Redirection and merging would have probably been accepted had this been discussed on the talk page first, instead of stirring up a shitstorm. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted unacceptable articles - no notability - good BLP deletions - we are not a newspaper, this stuff dies.--Docg 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one sensible gives a shit anymore. -Pilotguy hold short 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have now gone back and re-read these articles. They highlight, to me, a fundamental problem with Wikipedia as it now is. We currently consider that anything covered in more than a small number of sources may be considered "notable" and therefore valid for inclusion. This ignores the fact that most cases of, say, missing children, will get quite a bit of coverage, but without ever rising above the status of generic missing child. Some become causes celebres, most do not. Tragic, but I think most of us agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Now, Wikinews can cover these stories well, because it;s a news site, so we'd expect to find news there. And news stories is what they are. Biographies are different from news stories. Biographies are supposed to be the life stories of culturally significant individuals. I think Wikipedia is ending up with a hodge-podge of activist-driven stories, court reports and the like drawn directly form news sources as primary publishers, most of which do not make it into the secondary sources (books of notable crimes, law reports, case law and so on). They are not actually encyclopaedic, as such, and most of them are subject to the age-old confusion between what is in the public interest and what merely interests the public. So: can anyone explain what the actual long-term cultural significance of this story is, and if so, whether it can be covered under a better title? Guy (Help!) 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Night Gyr, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to patronise me. Not sure if you noticed, but deletion review is not a vote (I do believe Jimbo himself made that edit), my comments above are about these subjects, their inclusion or otherwise in Wikipedia, and the grounds on which we might judge that - or choose instead to leave it to WikiNews. The closer of this debate can weigh my opinion, I think, and decide whether it represents a productive contribution to the debate. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The articles seem to do nothing more than describe a sickening sequence of events in excessive detail. There may be an article to write on this topic, but these articles aren't them and should be nuked. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and protect names as deleted is the only option here acceptable under WP:BLP - even having the names as a redirect will make the article the first Google hit on their names - David Gerard 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salt or redirect and full-protect. These are articles about children and those who have a great injustice done to them, we do not need their article and they have done nothing notable in their lives. I had a problem with these articles too a while ago. They were not following the biographies of living persons and had to be locked down for a while. BLP is a very serious thing, and people need to understand that. People also need to understand that with this encyclopedia comes a responsibility to realize that this can ruin people's lives or, in the case of spam, make them better. Before you understand that, no one is fit to edit a living person's article. That being said, I applaud Newyorkbrad's actions and should have made the same ones. Cbrown1023 talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEep deleted -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and salt the earth. Brad made a tough call and I'm grateful there are still administrators willing to do so. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment to closing admin If these articles end up being restored, please be sure that the edits removed per the BLP stay deleted. Thaks, Cbrown1023 talk 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted or if Redirect if it prevents the articles from being recreated though, for the same reasons as David Gerard, I'd rather the names don't appear in any article title. Nick 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a new addition from Jimbo to WP:NOT: [38] - David Gerard 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and award Newyorkbrad with a barnstar. We have no business creating articles about minor crime victims. A violation of privacy and decency. Fred Bauder 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Discount all noms who refuse to acknowledge that Shawn appeared on Oprah. That's not a *minor crime victim*, nor is it a private person just trying to live unmolested by scrutiny. That's a public person, using their notoriety for some cause. Quite a different thing entirely. Wjhonson 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't think any commenters (I don't think you meant "noms") should be discounted because they give less weight to a particular fact than you do, but I again acknowledge that one of these cases is more clear-cut than the other. I'll respond to some of the other comments here tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Oprah is influential but the vast majority of those who appear on Oprah don't need Wikipedia articles. It does indicate that the subject and his parents consider that some degree of publicity is inevitable in this case and they'd rather it were positive and beneficial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My opinion on the deletion, I'm sure everyone can guess, so I'm not going to bother. I'm just going to say that I find this "redirect" stuff incredibly funny. Whenever someone tries to enforce an AfD redirect as if it must be followed, people complain "No, that's not a valid AfD outcome!" But we're willing to enforce a DRV redirect? -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I honestly have no idea what your opinion on the deletion is, and I am sure that the closing administrator is not going to take the time to "guess," so if you have an opinion on the matter that you want considered, please share it with us. As for the redirect issue, different considerations apply to protecting redirects for BLP and related reasons as opposed to in other circumstances. More tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally think that redirect is a valid AfD outcome, equivalent to "delete, but then let's do something useful with the title". So you don't really need to convince me. I just find it funny that people will support letting deletion discussions enforce redirects now that it's something they think should be redirected. -Amarkov moo! 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Viridae's statement below reminded me to say something. Definitely kudos to Brad for explaining his reasoning instead of "OMG U R ALL ST00PID U MUST TAKE DIS 2 ARB LOLZ". I still oppose deletion, but at least I'm not being steamrolled over. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main article per someone saying we don't need a biographical article on every single person who gains brief notability (however notable they may be) I do belive they are notable for their involvement in this incident, but i don't believe they have shown continuing notability. Hopefully the articles can be successfully merged into a main article on the subject - however I do believe that going through afd would have been more appropriate, but unlike several adminsistrators who have made unilateral deletions on BLP grounds recently, Brad has explained his position very well, appealing to the decency of the community (not just forcing his decision down our throat - and for that he gains great respect). These children have been through horrific times and given the nature of their experience, I believe this is one of the times where decency should prevail over notability (which they undoubtedly are). ViridaeTalk 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wonder if the Hornbeck family did anything substantive or notable in the four years that he was gone. Was he on milk cartons, America's Most Wanted, etc. The cached version just says they called some psychics and that was it. Right now it primarily focuses on his capture and aftermath and not much on the search. I would strenuously object to striking both Hornbeck and Ownby's name from the record, though, and I have been patrolling the Devlin article (which should be changed to something generic like 2006 Missouri kidnapping rather than a thin biography of Devlin) to make sure that it does not happen. Calwatch 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. The idea that someone would summarily delete an article without discussion speaks to no small amount of hubris. By any reasonable measure, deleting this article this article would have essentially no effect on a minor's privacy, given that Google, for example, gives over 100,000 hits for the subject's name. BLP is no issue as long as strenuous citation efforts are taken (which should be no problem, given the mainstream media coverage). zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the consensus is to keep them deleted so be it, I can respect that. However, I don't see why we can't have them considering we have an article on vaginal flatulence. I mean, if ever there was inappropriate article it is that one. IMO. Fighting for Justice 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But that article doesn't name underage victims. The two articles under discussion here were not deleted because they were inappropriate, they were deleted because they are potentially damaging for underage victims of sexual abuse who are not notable for any other reason. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, the more I read these discussions, the more I'm convinced that there needs to be a better way to develop consensus here. Is there any chance of a more widely-advertised note about this issue? Right now we're just dealing with individual pages as they come, but not developing anything overall. FrozenPurpleCube 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Two individuals (minors at that) who have no notability outside of the crimes committed upon them; there are few cases more clear-cut, IMO. If the crime itself is notable (it seems to have received a fair amount of press coverage) then there may be a case for keeping an article on the crime, but not these. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - as Morven says, there are other ways of dealing with this other than the biographical, especially as according to the deleted article he did not set up this foundation, his parents did. Potentially damaging articles like this, that do not discuss people as people but merely as crime victims, are not needed in the slightest. Troutslap the people calling for Newyorkbrad's head: don't make fools of yourselves, this was the right decision and not an abuse of admin buttons. Moreschi Talk 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think Newyorkbrad very eloquently lays out the issues here, and is making an appropriate judgment call, which I endorse. On a related note, I am very disappointed in those calling for him to be drawn and quartered. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the judgment call he is making is wrong; it is absolutely unreasonable and shameful to accuse him of not acting in good faith. Nandesuka 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that we can have an active non-profit called "The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation", which has ongoing activity (see here), and yet salting the earth for WHO is Shawn Hornbeck ? So Wikipedia becomes WikiCensorship and we have another scandal on our hands because we refuse to discuss a person who gets one hundred thousand hits. Are we suddenly the mind-police? Is this 1984? Are we going to start denouncing each other to the State? I hope so, because I have a long list already. Wjhonson 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This obviously isn't going to be closed as overturn now, so I suggest that we can close it as "deletion endorsed." If desired, the deleting administrator may consider salting either now or at some time in the future, should it become necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, Tony - if we're simply going by weight of argument, there's certainly nothing in the way of the endorse arguments to suggest that this was proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Tony, thanks very much for the endorsement. However, the discussion here has been helpful in developing community views on some BLP-related issues. Some valid points on both sides of the issue have been raised. I intend to respond to some of those who have taken the opposite position from me this afternoon. I hope we can use this to develop some more of the community's thoughts on the broader issues. I'd prefer not to see the discussion closed as yet. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Correct that, Shawn now gets one hundred and eleven THOUSAND Google hits. That's thousand. I recommend we merge this article with other wikiscandals. Wjhonson 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Okay, this rhetoric is becoming offensive. Many in the Wikipedia community are concerned with the privacy interests of non-notable people who become temporarily famous through actions outside their control. Read my statement at the top of this page again. Maybe I made a good decision that will be endorsed, and maybe I made a bad decision that will be overturned, or maybe I made a decision that will be overtaken by additional information (see below). But if you really think that our showing greater sensitivity to this type of issue is a "scandal," then that is really, frankly, demoralizing. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: As the person perpetrating the entire scandal in the first place I would hope you'd be "offended" when someone shows you what you actually did. The fact that you continue to support what you did is perfectly normal but exteremely offensive to those of us who believe in the process, and that the process should be allowed to play out. Shawn's actions were not "outside his control". The scandal is not "greater sensitivity" the scandal is that this story already exists, and you want Wikipedians to bury there head in the sand over your particular viewpoint of it. And you're willing to use your admin powers to compel that belief, instead of allowing the process to decide it. That is a perfect example of Admin Abuse. In fact I think I'd add a new chapter just for you. Wjhonson 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I have no objection to strong views plainly stated, but it would be worthwhile if you paid more attention to what is going on elsewhere on this page. Far from allowing the process to decide the issue, I have specifically urged that this debate be allowed to run to conclusion rather than close early; and far from urging that we bury our heads in the sand I've stated that I'm quite open to additional information that might come forward in this case. I don't know why there is this perception throughout Wikipedia that our arguments become stronger when we call one another various names. Newyorkbrad 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've contacted the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation and informed them of what was going on here. She said she'll have the family take a look at the deleted article and get back to me with any concerns. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, apparently it's already gone from google's cache so they won't be able to see it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears that the article may still be available on Wikipedia mirrors, such as Answers.com, etc. Alternately, you could request that an administrator make the content available to the Foundation, if they would find that helpful. JavaTenor 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse this approach and was actually planning to ask whether it would make sense for an OTRS volunteer to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and solicit their views on this matter (including the views of Shawn Hornbeck himself, specifically) as part of our overall effort to build sensitivity to the needs and rights of crime victims to our approach to this type of article. I would have no objection to temporary reinstatement of the article for a day or two so they can look it it, if that is requested. Night Gyr, I would also appreciate your drawing the attention of whomever you are in touch with to the reasons that I gave for the deletion. I think that in fairness they should know that the basis for my concern was the privacy interest of victims, especially minors, even if a given person victim might be prepared to consider waiving such privacy interest in this particular case. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt the earth per Brad's comments. I don't see why we need to be naming minors who have been victims of crime. Their names add absolutely nothing to the article. And I don't care what other websites and newspapers do. Thanks and respect to Brad for his wisdom, courage and strength of integrity. Sarah 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Let me say, though, that we are getting toward the borderline here. This is not Brian Peppers we are talking about; these are people who participated (albeit horrifyingly against their will) in a event that was deemed quite newsworthy by the mainstream media. We want to be careful not to move WP:BLP to include much beyond this point; but I think that these people basically remain private citizens overall and thus entitled to be not harassed (which is was it amounts to) by having a Wikipedia article on them. If there's any question of this it's definitely resolved in their favor by the fact of their being minors. Herostratus 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How private can a citizen be if they've gone on Oprah to discuss it? Seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't recall seeing "appeared on Oprah" in any of our notability quidelines. Appearing on Oprah is now part of everybody's fifteen minutes of fame. It is as ephemeral as making page one of a newspaper. Such persons in the past have sunk back into obscurity, and it is not the function of Wikipedia to prevent them from sinking back into obscurity as private persons. -- Donald Albury 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not the issue Donald. He's saying that if someone appears on Oprah, there are no privacy issues with mentioning their name. Notability is a totally different issue, but seeing as there's wide media coverage I don't see how they could be non-notable either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would be enough for James Frey? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, being on Oprah shows an even larger interest than simple news observation. In terms of notability, however, there's no argument that these two are notable individuals. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that is transient notoriety. Most people will have forgotten their names in a few months. These two boys are not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and deserve to return to private status. Permanently enshrining their names in Wikipedia is a disservice to them, and may cause them distress or harm in the future. Keeping the articles would in effect be punishing them for being victims. -- Donald Albury 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no such thing as "private status" in cases like this, especially this one. Notability is not temporary, and parroting the "may cause distress or harm" line with no demonstration of it does not help the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • 'Transient' is pretty subjective, and 'worth talking about' is a value judgement. WP:N goes by whether they're talked about, not if we think they should be. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Sarah/Brad/Herostratus. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And how private is a person when they have an official website where the very issue is discussed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs).
  • Overturn. I think by the time you have a website and charity in your name, you're notable whether or not you intended to be. Oh, and I've found where I first heard of Hornbeck. He got an article in Reader's Digest, and I think it was the cover story. Why are we even debating this? -Amarkov moo! 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the history, redirect and merge to Michael J. Devlin. A side note, one should not speedy something in which a rational argument for notability exists. That's the purpose of AfD. However, if it the assertion of notability is unsourced, it can be removed right away. Then it can be speedied.--Rayc 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator:
As I think has become clear, I have been following this debate with very close attention. Many valid points have been made and continue to be made, both in support of endorsing and overturning my deletions. Of course I especially thank those like Cbrown1023 and Fred Bauder and Lar and Sarah and Moreschi and Nandesuka and the others who have said kind things about me personally, which has helped counter some other remarks that were temporarily demoralizing. I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made, and I ask in advance for forgiveness if my comments prove to be lengthy, for the issues are critical and there is much to be said.
My greatest regret from this affair is that there are editors who consider themselves advocates for the victims of crime and have inferred or implied that my deleting these articles shows an indifference or insensitivity to the welfare of victims. As I had hoped my opening comments would have made plain, that is far from the case; the whole point of these deletions, and the reason I handled them is I did, is precisely based on concern for the well-being of two teenagers who were subjected to horrific and criminal abuse. Editors of good faith may and often will disagree with the best means to balance the welfare of the subjects of our coverage with our encyclopedic mission, but I yield to no one in the depth of my concern for doing so.
In general, I am concerned with how not just Wikipedia but the modern mass media in general treat crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control. The case of one of these article subjects, Ben, is illustrative. He was kidnapped and horribly abused for four days. When he was rescued, he participated in some media coverage, such as a press conference called to thank his rescuers. Beyond that, he may have lingering obligations to relive his ordeal, such as at court proceedings if his alleged assailant goes to trial. But apart from that we, all of us, owe him the precious opportunity to retreat into childhood to the extent that he can and to resume being a 13-year-old boy again, without reminding him unduly that what was done to him is known to the world, lest we join in adding violation by the crowd to violation by the crime. Perhaps not a day, perhaps not an hour, goes by when this young man can escape the memory of what happened to him, but he is certainly allowed to try; and above all we must not allow ourselves to define this individual, to the extent he is known to us at all, by the metes and bounds of the tortures that were inflicted upon him. We know little else about Ben beyond what has been revealed about his victimization; and it is not our business to know more. The Wikipedia article on him, by necessity, conflated the victim with the crime.
If Ben, in future years, does not become a starting linebacker for an NFL team or a first-chair cellist at the Philharmonic or the senior senator from Missouri, but remains otherwise non-notable as we define notability, the Wikipedia article on him 30 years from now may remain more-or-less frozen and define the now-middle-aged Ben Ownby largely in terms of what happened to him for four days when he was 13. We owe it to him not to do that. For the adult Wikipedians, imagine that this were your child; for the younger Wikipedians, imagine, God forbid, that this were someone known to you—is the story of a kidnapping and a series of assaults upon a young victim how you want to define the life of someone you cared about, the most important fact anyone will ever know about him? I see from some of the comments in this AfD that I am not alone in finding the thought horrifying.
Now unlike some people who think that the strength of a position is boosted by ignoring everything that is said on the other side, I want to concede the merits of, and frankly engage, the good-faith arguments in favor of keeping the Ben Ownby article. One argument that arises in discussions like this one, although it has been pressed harder in other BLP-related debates than in this one, is that the encyclopedic mission comes above all and that if a subject meets our standards of notability (an issue that in this case I have not addressed and is certainly debatable), nothing must stand in the way of immortalizing that person in Wikipedia, presumably forever. I have little to say to any Wikipedians who think in those terms, beyond commenting that their position has not prevailed in this community and I hope never will. We are proud encyclopedists and Wikipedians but also feeling human beings, and we are creating the encyclopedia for the benefit of the readership, and there must never be a class of innocent people whose lives are diminished simply because we exist. "Wikipedia," an influential editor once said, "is not here to make people sad." It especially is not here to make children sad. If I were a teenager and Wikipedia had a page about me that pretty much consisted of telling the world how I was unwillingly abused by a stranger for four days when I was 13, I would be sad.
A second argument is that we demean the work of our contributors when we delete it. I value the editors of Wikipedia beyond price; they are Wikipedia, and I became an administrator to serve and assist them, not to demoralize them or destroy their work. But this argument proves too much; it militates against any deletion, and Wikipedia has long passed the days when we kept virtually any content that could be contributed here. Still, dealing with deletion-related issues in a sensitive and caring way is important, and because I see that my actions hurt some good-faith editors, I have come to regret that I deleted these two articles so suddenly and without any warning or discussion. Some of these editors' rhetoric on this DRV, in return, was a bit harsh and over-the-top; if I can say so myself, there was and is no decent argument that I deserved to be reprimanded, or "punished," or suspended, or desysopped, or made the subject of an essay on "administrator abuse," based upon the fact that in accordance with emerging community values I deleted two articles about living minors who were the innocent victims of sex crimes. But as I say, I see now that the way I handled these deletions demoralized and offended several good-faith editors on important topics. I urge upon certain editors some introspection on how essential and desirable it really is, or is not, to provide detailed information on the child victims of crime within our pages, and also would ask them to give some thought to the value of civility in deletion debates. But I have done my own introspecting as well, and have concluded that I did not handle these deletions as well as I should have, and I apologize to the editors of these articles for that.
A third argument against deletion, emphasized above by Nardman ("N") in particular, is that we owe it to the victims of crime to preserve their memory. This contention may have some cogency in the case of well-known murder victims, where the victim has been lost and we, whether on or off Wikipedia, preserve the precious memory. The preservation of memory is less crucial in the case of living people who have survived brutal crimes, people restored to their lives and their families and who may very well not want society's memory of them to be the record of their victimization. The extreme example of Anne Frank has been mentioned, and I respond that if Anne Frank had survived the Nazi bestiality, it would have been well within her rights to decline to publicize her story until she was ready to, or to decline to do so in a personally identifiable way, and I for one would have fought to respect that. Now to be sure, different considerations may obtain where the crime victim chooses to speak out and be remembered as a pro-active advocate for the victims of criminality; but I see no evidence that beyond doing what he was practically required to do in the wake of being rescued Ben has done such a thing (in this regard, as I note below, Shawn may be a different case).
A fourth argument against deletion is epitomized by Serpent's Choice's point that the standard I point to would require the deletion or rewriting of many other articles as well. I have waffled on this one; on the one hand, it says to me that we have much work to be done to live up to our BLP standards, but on the other hand, it says to me that further discussion is needed as we decide precisely where the lines must be drawn. But we are having enough trouble deciding what to do with these two articles, so I shall leave the broader questions for another day.
The fifth and frankly by far the strongest argument for retaining these articles, and many others like them, is also offered by Serpent's Choice in this discussion, and harkens back to an argument that as far as I recall was first offered by User:Everyking in the otherwise unhappy context of the Brian Peppers DRV back in February, and has also been made by some contributors, particularly DeLarge, supporting undeletion in the "QZ" ("fat Chinese kid") deletion discussions. This is the point that once an individual, for whatever reason, attains a certain level of Internet presence and publicity, he or she is going to come up in Google or other searches for many years to come no matter what, and so the individual is better off if the most prominent Internet hit on his or her name is as the subject of what will hopefully be a well-written, sourced, accurate, NPOV, BLP-compliant Wikipedia article rather than what may be a half-baked piece or a hatchet job by a less reliable source. I generally identify with the BLP "hawks" (an exception to my otherwise "inclusionist" tendencies as an editor and an administrator), but for the most part we who have taken the lead on advocating against the articles against human "Internet memes," crime victims, and the like have not engaged with this argument. We need to do so, for it is a substantial and by no means a frivolous line of argument; and in some cases it might, after all, make a decisive difference. But in the case of Ben Ownby, my view is that this consideration does not outweigh the other, more powerful concerns I have expressed, and my view remains that I did the right thing by deleting that article and still urge the community to endorse that deletion.
As I have said from the outset of these discussions, the case of Shawn Hornbeck presents a much closer question. Partly because his kidnapping lasted for four years rather than four days, and partly by his and his family's choice, it is now clear to me that he and his family have affirmatively chosen to be outspoken voices publicizing the plight of missing and abused children and teens. Whether that is the right choice for them to have made is for them alone to decide, but having looked at the website and the press coverage of the Hornbeck Foundation and the like, it appears quite possible that the existence of a Wikipedia article about what was done to Shawn, and how his and his family's life was changed as a result, and what they are now doing to try to spare other families from like fates, would be consistent rather than inconsistent with the goals of maintaining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia devoted to notable persons and noteworthy institutions without deliberately doing gratuitous harm to any living human being and especially not to a minor. As I have noted above, under these unique circumstances, I endorse Night Gyr's special effort to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and to solicit their views (not just those of their Foundation, but hopefully of Shawn himself) on the matter, because if Shawn and his family want an appropriate article to be here, obviously I would lack standing to argue that it shouldn't be here based on considerations of Shawn's own well-being; and I believe in view of the massive coverage that has been pointed to, our other criteria for notability would be satisfied. Absent comment from that quarter, I am still of the view that deletion would be justified, but I will admit that I am not at all as confident of this as I was three days ago and if I had it to again might well have brought that article to AfD rather than speedied it. Speedying is for clear-cut cases. Ben's article was probably a clear-cut case; Shawn's, as I look back on it, probably was not.
I apologize again for having gone on at ridiculous length, and thank anyone who has read this far, but the issues raised here are of paramount importance to this project, and quite frankly to many members of the general public, and we need to get them right. They will continue to be hashed out on talkpages, and on deletion pages, and on policy pages, and on the mailing list, and it appears in coming days also in the crucible of what I hope will not be a bitter and contentious arbitration case (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Badlydrawnjeff, now teetering on the verge of acceptance for a hearing before the Arbitration Committee). If the participants in these discussions bring to the table the wisdom and good sense of most of the editors who have participated in this deletion debate, there is hope that we can move toward consensus on these issues without damaging our shared values of civility, community, and creating a reference work we can continue to be proud of. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you for taking being willing to take your lumps and endure the withering criticism in this forum. Your civility and focus on keeping this discussion on-topic is very much appreciated. Calwatch 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a weakness in the "it'll be on the Internet forever" argument is that Web pages do disappear (I keep having to deal with dead links that had been used as sources for articles). I certainly hope that Wikipedia will survive longer than most of what is on the Internet, and that could put us in the position of becoming the major factor in keeping attention focused on a victim who deserves the right to heal in obscurity. -- Donald Albury 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Shawn Hornbeck (at least redirect both). Their names can easily be found in the used sources for the article on the kidnapper, trying to hide them here won't add to their privacy and will make the relevant articles incomplete. On top of that, Hornbeck is actually looking to attract press attention, so deleting the article to protect his privacy when he (and his family) have no such qualms is not helpful. I'm suggesting redirecting because they're primarily notable for their kidnapping and not much else could be written about them (without sharing material that is private). - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just read that The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation was contacted for input and I would ask administrators to wait closing this until we have that input. It will provide value opinions of the actual subject involved. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that problems of these people have been so well documented that for the rest of their lives, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of the abuse they suffered, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. Thatcher131 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the extent to which I agree or disagree on any given point, well said, Brad. In part because I believe that I initially misjudged (that is, advocated AFD-listing) what should be done with these specific articles, I have been spending quite a bit of time looking into what could be written. I do not know how many of the commentors here carefully read the articles that have been deleted, but these articles were not the way to do it. Can we find a source for the number of times the police think a victim of sexual abuse was "forcibly sodomized"? Apparently, because we did. Does that have any business in an encyclopedia, whether the subject is living or dead? No. I think that all of these cases (Peppers, QZ, Hornbeck, Ownby) underscore the same very real problem. WP:BLP says that the things we say about living people must be sourced. It does not say, but should, that simply because we can source a thing does not mean that we should say it. I haven't spoken with Brad or the other editors involved in this issue, but I can say with certainty that is why these articles have been deleted. But I cannot agree that Wikipedia must remain silent — if we can speak in a way that does not fall prey to tabloid salaciousness. Shawn's four-year long kidnapping is unusual. It has raised substantial questions — evaluations of the accuracy or lack thereof of the concept of Stockholm Syndrome, questions about the procedural methods to search for kidnapped victims, questions about the role of law, and of the parents of vicitms in these roles, in addition to the news coverage of the crime itself. An article, I think, can be written from this. Ben Ownby? Not so much. There is nothing to say there outside of his role in Hornsby's story. That's why we have redirects. And I think that should be the standard. When we can write an article that does not devolve into taking base advantage of the horrors of an event, we should write it, with care, with caution, and with respect. When we cannot; we don't, we mustn't. I don't think there is any way remotely possible to write a mature, appropriate story about Brian Peppers, based on currently available material. I do think there is a way to write an article for QZ and one for Hornbeck. But for those articles to exist, we as a community need to recognize that, in a real sense, we are failing at more than WP:BLP. We are failing at WP:NPOV. At the time I write this, Wikipedia:Editorial discretion is a red link, and we should all be humbled and saddened for that. Serpent's Choice 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles should not be considered as equivalent. Ben Ownby is a minor footnote in the history of kidnapped children. There is nothing particularly notable about him which raises the bar above that. Shawn Hornbeck is a completely different kettle of fish. The Foundation named for Shawn has had literally hundreds of public appearences. Bloggers don't seem to care that much to discuss Ben, however they all want to discuss Shawn. The subject of Shawn's four-year disappearence has been on dozens of forum discussion boards. Shawn has appeared many times more often in the media than Ben. Ben gets 41 thousand Googs, while Shawn get over a hundred thousand. Many more intimate details are known about Shawn, then Ben. Ben is a cypher. Therefore I recommend, that any further discussion should discuss the two articles seperately. Wjhonson 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the two discussions together. That will only unnecessarily complicate the discussion further. Out of the last three opinions on both, we seem to be more in favor of deleting the both of them. Don't complicate this further for nothing. Cbrown1023 talk 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with possible relist at AfD - per aboveWjhonson 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Write an article about the foundation that briefly discusses why it was founded. Do not maintain a redirect from the person's name. Thatcher131 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - as per Thatcher131, an article about the foundation might be appropriate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and start a new Wiki site where self-appointed censors can't delete legitimately sourced information based on their own "superior" moral values. If the source says that "11 year old Jimmy Jones, born March 1, 1990, got kidnapped and anally raped 654 times" the new site prints the information, in total. Let those who want the censored version go to Wikipedia-or the Chinese internet. John celona 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is deeply sick, and I trust that you are simply trolling at this point. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elizabeth Smart, a child sex victim, still has a page complete with date of birth and photo. Get to work censors!John celona 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know that I see anything deeply sick about that, and I would imagine that to make the contention that John intends to make—viz., that the effects of editing and publishing on those in the real world ought not to be of much/any concern to those who write an encyclopedia (a perfectly reasonable argument, if not one that commands a consensus here at present)—one would want to choose an extreme example to illustrate the absoluteness of his contention. John's tone is, to be sure, probably unnecessarily confrontational, but only in its use of the appellative superior (and, of course moron, in an above comment) and its conflation of what some might perceive as the censorship by BLP with what most would perceive as censorship by the Chinese government (which, whether an accurate submission or not, is likely to serve to inflame more than to engender discussion), not in its putting forth an extreme (and to some off-putting) example. It is not, in any case, trolling for one to attempt to make a constructive point (or to protest that which he views as contrary to policy/good sense where he aims not to disrupt but to improve the project) in a substandard way, and I would likely submit that John's comment is more likely to be regarded as trollish than any equally unconstructively adversarial comment in this DRV that goes to a contrary proposition only because the latter should a principle that most will generally recognize as more moral than that suggested by, for one, John. Joe 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This guy was a cover story in Reader's Digest. He has a foundation set up in his name. At some point, we have to say that someone's a public figure whether or not they intended to be, and this certainly passes that point. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Even if other outlets violate journalistic standards by publishing minor sexual assault victims, wikipedia does not. --Tbeatty 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes Wikipedia must hold it's head high above that trashy yellow-press Reader's Digest. Can't sink to their level. Wjhonson 06:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted For the reasons I gave above. -- Donald Albury 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send back to WP:AFD, regarding Newyorkbrad's assertions, and the necessity of forging wider input and concensus. --Haemo 08:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD, as per my previous post above. Brad's reply to John celona is, in my opinion, unqualifiable. Stammer 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AFD We have an AFD process, and we should respect it. In an AFD I would probably favor deleting the two articles. But Wikipedia has guidelines and they should not be overruled by an individual's supposedly superior moral compass. Someone else's compass might say delete -out of process - articles contrary to their political or religious views. If we encourage admins to delete things which they find distasteful or which they think might cause embarrassment, we have made a dramatic change in the nature of Wikipedia. Policy changes should not be arbitrary acts by individuals, but should be done on the policy pages themselves. Put the new WP:POORTASTE provision out for debate and if it passes, fine. If there should be a provision in WP:N or WP:BIO which says that articles which could embarrass minor victims of crime (like these two) or minors in general (like QZ) than by all means add it and fight the battle there, so it is an enduring standard to cite in all future AFDs. In legal theory they say "Hard cases make bad law." It is better to alter the rules when cases such as this seem to dictate to some editors that changes are indicated. The goal was to prevent the individuals from future embarrassment as well as embarrassment while they are still minors, so you'd better run and delete (out of process) Lina Medina, an article about a girl who gave birth at age 5 (and was thus the victim of statutory rape). The fact that she is now 73 years old should not be a barrier, by that principle. Otherwise someone could mark their calendar and recreate the Hornbeck/Ownby articles the day they turn 21. Also, when did we start giving the subjects of articles veto power over the existence or content of the articles? Seems to fly in the face of WP:COI. Previously I have argued for deletion of such articles as the Hornbeck and Ownby ones on the basis that we are an encyclopedia, and the criteria which lead newspaper editors and TV news producers to include something as a story are not the same as those which encyclopedia editors use, and a failed guideline lingers on as the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Some of the views expressed here seem congruent with it. Just because something has substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, we don't necessarily need an encyclopedia article about it forever. Edison 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see now changes made May 28 in the policies WP:BLP and WP:NOT which allow greater latitude for deleting articles such as these two, on the basis that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that we should be careful not to embarrass such youthful crime victims as these two. Not clear if that extends to Elizabeth Smart and other persons not previously notable who got news coverage because of some event beyond their control. But the policy toolnow exists for greater freedom to delete these articles. Seems like it could still be done via AFD, given that no irreparable harm is likely to occur during the 5 day AFD period, based on how long the articles previously existed. Edison 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't really give any greater latitude. There were also long-needed changes made to the deletion policy where you're gonna need more than strengtrh of numbers to keep this deleted - the arguments to keep this deleted haven't been strong so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

27 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:LaToyaJackson.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted despite the fact that a legitimate fair use rationale was provided as required by Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale, and a full page discussion as to why the image was irreplaceable was held on the image's talk page. Rhythmnation2004 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting quite tired of saying this, but I have proven EXTENSIVELY on that page that this image is irreplaceable. See my messages dated:

10:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
12:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My messages have also explained IN DETAIL that I have made dozens of attempt to contact La Toya Jackson's agency to request a free-license image and have not received any reply, regardless of the fact that I have tried contacting them by e-mail, mail, and telephone. In addition, the fact that I provided a valid fair use rationale proves that the removal of this image is unjustifiable and that in its deletion, the administration of Wikipedia has shown that they believe themselves to be "above the policies" set forth by Wikipedia's guidelines on the fair use of promotional images. Rhythmnation2004 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated assertion is not the same thing as repeated proof. The fact that you are not getting a response from her agency does not mean that you can't get a picture of her, it only means that you can't get it from them. You could stand outside any function she appears at and snap one. Corvus cornix 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - images of living people, with rare exception (ie, Osama Bin Laden, William Morva, etc), are replaceable. As long as we are content to use a non-free image, we will never get a free one. Why should the agency respond to an email as long as the article has a photo? If we are going to use it whether they release it under the GFDL or not, what possible reason would they have to make that release? Having a non-free image inhibits getting a free one. --BigDT 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Codependent Collegian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Seems the keep comments were conditional on sources verifying significance; these were not added. So we have unsupported assertions of significance only. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted for containing too much OR, but this reason doesn't make sense, because it is a notable subject, and similar articles (e.g. 1990s in music) exist. If the article United States was unsourced and contained tons of OR, would that make it acceptable to delete it? The article should be cleaned up, not just deleted.--Azer Red Si? 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the article was deleted was because of a lack of sources, so no, how about finding sources instead of deleting it (which will just result in it getting recreated again without sources, being nominated for deletion because it has no sources, being recreated again, etc.)--Azer Red Si? 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it'll just get speedy deleted G4 if anyone tries that, and ultimately protected from recreation. If you want to create a well sourced article meeting the required standards, no one is stopping you. --pgk 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that the contents of article were speedily deleted before I even knew it was nom'ed is stopping me from being able to improve it.--Azer Red Si? 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here are the two criteria listed in Wikipedia's deletion policy that deal with sources:
  1. Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
  2. All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed--Azer Red Si? 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid result, no credible reason to overturn. Wikilawyering ain't going to help when even our most inclusionist inclusionist identifies that the content is hopeless. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn it and renominate it if you want, but don't speedily delete it. If I had known about the nom, I might have been willing to improve it. This is why deletionism is a bad policy. The concept of Wikipedia is that articles don't start out perfect, but get better over time. By deleting articles like this overnight before they've even had time to improve, all that is being done is destroying others' hard work with no net gain to justify it.--Azer Red Si? 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Endorse Deletion. I was the nominator for that enormous monstrosity. There was one cited item in the entire article, which was over 50K before someone starting hacking away at it. This was not a speedy delete, either, FWIW; it ran for the full five days before it was closed with not a single editor asking for it to be retained. 11 editors all agreed that it was absolute garbage. Sorry if you take offense to it, but there was absolutely nothing in that article that was in any way encyclopedic. Horologium talk - contrib 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, with Prejudice. No one spent more time looking at that article's hideousness than me. No one had more edits on it than me. That article was the academic equivalent of graffiti, where every prepubescent owner of an iPod could and did insert whatever personal thoughts popped into his or her head. And take note: It was not only up for a full five days of AfD, but every single statement in there but one had been tagged as needing sourcing for a full month! It was not an article, it was garbage, and there was nothing in there worth saving. And all of us do understand that articles often start out weak and get better. But look at the record, friend, exactly the opposite was happening to that article. It got worse and worse over time. Unschool 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could an admin please recreate the largest revision here so I could look over it and see what I could make of it? I remember looking over it a while back, and I doubt it's as bad as everyone says it is.--Azer Red Si? 19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as asked. Remember that it's supposed to say there only while you are working on it with a reasonable chance of improving it enough. Based on the above comments, I suggest you copy it to your own computer and work on it off-line. DGG 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it hasn't been recreated in my userspace.--Azer Red Si? 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs whose title includes personal names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AFD)

Overturn and delete - This DRV includes the sub-lists by letter as well. Closing admin acknowledges that the delete arguments are stronger than the keep arguments yet claims that opinion is "not settled" about the articles. It appears however that opinion is fairly well-settled in the deletion of a number of articles of a similar stripe recently that these sorts of lists are not encyclopedic because of their disregard of policy. Several of the AFDs for those articles were linked into this AFD and there appears to be no reason offered as to why those many precedents should be ignored (I realize that precedent is not 100% binding but it is certainly important to consider how similar articles have been treated in the past). Arguments for keeping, if I may paraphrase, amounted to it's interesting, people put a lot of work into it, it made it through an AFD once before (two years ago) and people like stuff with their names in it. None of that is particularly compelling and none of it overcomes the strong policy-based objections. The only substantive keep argument, that the songs are thematically related because they all contain a name, was pretty handily refuted by a number of people. Otto4711 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Saying that the delete arguments may have been better than the keep arguments does not automatically mean that there's a consensus or reason to delete. If consensus continues to shift in the delete direction in given time, then the next time this gets listed may work out in a delete direction, but there's no current consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto4711 appears to have neglected to bother talking to the closing admin at all before whistling over here (although someone else did, to which my reply was [40], which forms part of my response here). Anyway. Closing admin acknowledges that the deleters argue better but does not consider that they argue so very much better that a highly split debate motivates a consensual deletion. Nominator here is openly asking for a non-consensual deletion. The keepers argued that the list was well-constructed and well-defined with clearly present barriers to entry adn the nominator here glosses over that completely. The deleters failed, in my opinion, to successfully deconstruct that opinion and did not persuaded any of the keepers of the case. DRV is not an end-run around AfD, and this is simply an attempt to capitalise on the debate further down to that effect. Precedent on unrelated articles of different natures with different criteria and different debates does not translate into a license to shoot every list someone dislikes. Endorse my own close, if that wasn't obvious. Nominator should try AfD again later with a better argument and with time to fix the articles to see if that's possible. Splash - tk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone has already asked you about your closure, you've responded and I disagree with your response, why on earth would you want me to ask you the same question again? Would your response to the second asking have been markedly different from the first one? If not, then why criticise me for not redundantly asking?
  • Well gee, I probably would've said something like asking you to explain your decision more clearly. Presumably you would have said pretty much the same thing; I assume your reasons aren't so fluid as to change in the course of a few hours. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your suggesting that I glossed over the "well-constructed" aspect of the keeps, I noted the work that went into the lists which I consider as addressing that argument. How well-constructed an article that IMHO fails policy is strikes me as irrelevant. Additionally, two different editors noted how the list was not well-constructed or well-defined or restricted. Risker stated I will also note that many of the songs listed contain a word in their title that is sometimes used as a person's name (e.g., Rose, Candy) but the song is not about a person at all. and I stated Some of them aren't even about people of that name, for instance, a number of the songs listed with the name "Angel" are about actual angels, not people named Angel. All of the lists mentioned as precedent were equally restricted by subject matter yet were still determined to be unsuitable for Wikipedia. No one is suggesting that precedent translates into a "license" to shoot anything but one would think that an admin would recognize some value in looking at how similar AFDs for similar lists raising similar arguments on both sides were handled. It seems to me that a closing admin should be able to justify why he believes precedent should be ignored instead of simply dismissing it with a poor gun metaphor.
  • As for the debate being "highly split," my count has it at 10 for deletion and 6 for keep, which is pretty close to a two-thirds majority for deletion. While of course AFD is not a vote, there have been plenty of AFDs closed with a delete with a similar count.
  • Since there is no threshold, your comment about that hypothetical threshold is irrelevant. The point still stands that this debate was not so closely divided as your claim would suggest. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for your claim that I'm trying an "end run" around AFD, I am struck by your obvious failure to assume good faith. To be blunt, you made a mistake. We have a 62.5%-37.5% in favor of deletion with delete arguments that the closing admin acknowledges are stronger than the keeps yet the AFD still closes as no consensus. You gave credence to weak arguments that should have been discounted and your explanation for your closure, both in the AFD and on your own page, were weak and unpersuasive. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the delete arguments failed to deconstruct the poor arguments of the keepers, I disagree with your stated reasons for closure, I disagree with the implication that keepers should have to recant their opinions within the AFD for admins to discount their arguments. This is the forum for reviewing the actions of closing administrators. Otto4711 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are claiming there is a consensus present in that debate to delete the article. You are claiming so clear is the consensus that it could not possibly have been a 'no consensus' debate. This is not the case. Acknowledging that one side argues more strongly is not an implication that I found the other side totally unpersuasive, which would have to have been the case to mandate a deletion in the kind of divided debate you have identified. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am claiming that when one side argues policy, debunks the other side's claims and has a nearly 2-1 majority while the other side makes arguments based in pretty much nothing and fails to refute the policy claims of the majority and indeed barely even addresses them that this is a strong indicator of consensus. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sides argued policy. Neither side refuted the others claims so totally that we need to disregard them totally in order to manufacture a consensus. We already agreed that the numbers do not matter. Splash - tk 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't claim to be the most knowledgable person when it comes to policy but I think I have a pretty good grasp on it, but in looking at the keep arguments again I'm realy not seeing any policy arguments. What keep arguments exactly are you saying are based on policy? Otto4711 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way: it's not that I want you to make the keepers 'recant', although that's surely the ideal course of a debate, but that the deletion arguments did not even manage to persuade those who came to the debate after they had all been made, and after what deconstruction of the keepers arguments there was had also been attempted. Life doens't always go your way. You can renominate later. Splash - tk 15:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes no sense whatsoever. If Person A says "keep, I like it and it's fun" and then Person B says "delete for policy reasons XYZ" you're giving mrore weight to the person who comes in later and repeats "keep it, it's fun"? That's ridiculous. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you made up the bad example, not me! Anyway, your example doesn't match what I described or the algebraic format of the debate in question, or the reasons I have given for my closure, so I'm not sure that it's useful. It's common to find a divided beginning to an AfD followed by a well-argued point or two, followed by a clear trend among later participants to supporting those points. This is less good than everyone winding up agreeing of course, but we can't really expect that very often. Of course, the later editors do not get a free-pass through policy but rarely do people line up convincingly behind such weak positions, which is why you conclude your own example to be ridiculous. Splash - tk 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The thread above is a conversation that could (and should) have occurred on the closing admin's talk page before creating this listing, making this DRV out of process. Regardless, this was a reasoned closure accurately reflecting the AFD discussion, with the reasoning carefully explained (starting in the AFD closure notes). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The keeps can be summed up by one of the comments: These lists provide an entertaining look at music across time, across genres, with the unifying theme of proper names in their titles. Entertainment is a side-product, it's not a core encyclopaedic purpose, and the "unifying theme" has no encyclopaedic basis: there is no encyclopaedic topic "songs whose title contain a propoer name". This is a list whose defining criterion is completely arbitrary, and it will by its nature include so many songs as to make the list useless for navigation, which is what Wikipedia lists are for. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, every "keep" that I see in the discussion is in essence WP:ILIKEIT, while those arguing to delete provided some pretty good, well-founded arguments. AfD is not a vote. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Indeed, AFD is not a vote, so one wonders why some people keep insisting on counting heads - and DRV - especially for articles that are not deleted - isn't supposed to be used as a second go at the same argument, moments after a closure, just because you don't like the decision. When an AFd results in deletion, there's obviously more at stake than when the result is no change. WHat exactly was the rush in this case? Was something new uncovered that demands deletion? Also - I recall seeing one specific complaint in the AFD - about "Angel" - and that complaint was addressed by removal of those songs pending examination of which if any were legitimately included. If there are other specific concerns that I missed or no one stated, why not try stating them and giving the editors a chance to correct them. Finally, despite the characterization here, the arguments for keep included the value this type of list has as a resource that Wikipedia is uniquely qualified to provide for writers and researchers into popular culture, which no one refuted or even bothered to address. I find this use of DRV to be a cynical attempt to denigrate the comments of people who were in favor of keeping the articles, and to substitute one admin's judgment for another's and that's not appropriate. Tvoz |talk 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Otto and Seraphim. Again an instance of pressure groups pushing no consensus closures. There is a severe bias towards keeping articles if people like it. Afd is not a vote but sometimes the numbers can be overwhelming for a closing admin. It's true. Bulldog123 09:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. With respect to Splash, but in my opinion, this was a clear supermajority in favor of deletion. That's not everything, but this debate boils down to those who like the lists vs. those who don't, both have reasons based in policy for their positions... but to call the debate a stalemate because neither position is superior is a mistake when the numbers are strongly on one side. I counted 10-6 in favor of deletion, which is a 62.5% majority, nearly 2/3. Especially when the closer felt the delete arguments were better, which I also think. Yes, Otto should have talked with Splash first, but in the end, this wasn't a good closure, I think. Mangojuicetalk 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unusual to find a non-voting operation characterised in four numerical ways, to include a decimal point of accuracy! The closer thinks the deleters argued their case better, but not so much better that the position of the debate was enough to mandate riding roughshod over the opinions of the keepers. If editorialising the debate (as Guy and Bulldog123 do) or counting votes (as you and the nominator do) is the only way to manufacture a consensus then I conclude that there is not one present. Splash - tk 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vote counting should not be demonized this much. AfD is not just a vote, but in circumstances where it comes down to editor opinions (like this one), it is appropriate to go with the winner of the vote count, so long as there's a supermajority in place. Mangojuicetalk 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Even for those who think otherwise, the decision was not so very wrong as to call for overturning. Others may have done it differently, but it was a reasonable. 10-6, with the arguments being laid out in great detail, is in my opinion not consensus enough to delete a long series of articles. The closing wasn't keep, it was no consensus--it was clear there , and is clear here from the above discussion, that there was no consensus and still is none. It's the safest decision, after all.--it neither establishes a precedent for keep, nor does it delete the articles. DGG 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I have to disagree with that philosophy. "No consensus" closures should be given when a solution cannot be found, not when there is a perfectly reasonable one. They should be an option to be avoided unless it's impossible to avoid it, because it's like invalidating the discussion. One should never stretch a case that has a pretty good consensus, like this one, into a "no consensus", especially when the default of keeping reverses the result of the pretty good consensus. Mangojuicetalk 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No consensus closures are appropriate when the debate has failed to reach a clear conclusion among its participants. We're not looking for 'solutions', as we're not solving problems. We're trying to work out whether the subset of the community that participated intelligently has reached an end-point or not. If they have not, then thinking continues for a while and the issue may be revisited later. 'No consensus' does not invalidate the discussion in any way, since discussions can fail to reach agreement and still be quite valid, as occurred here. And let's not now embark on the path where someone says "but none of the keepers are intelligent", for I shall refer to them a bluelink if they dare. Splash - tk 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except, consensus doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, either. Debates sometimes come down to community opinion, and then it does matter what the numbers are, and this is that kind of debate. If it was 11-6, would you have closed for deletion? 10-5? 12-6? In many debates, those in the minority don't end up agreeing with those in the majority, but that doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. For that matter, if you thought there wasn't enough of a consensus for your comfort, why close the debate at all: why not simply leave it open or relist? It is better to have an outcome than to have no outcome. AfD is supposed to give answers to these questions, that is the purpose of AfD. Mangojuicetalk 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not asking for total agreement, and really I'm very aware that unanimity is not the standard for deletion (I sort of picked that up after my first few thousand closures). 'No consensus' is, and always has been, a perfectly functional outcome of an AfD debate. Relisting is only necessary when the debate is so insipid that simply no determination can be made; not delete, not keep, nor even a conclusion that there is no consensus on the immediate disposition of the article.
          • I will not answer questions that require me to votecount in the absence of actual information; but you're preaching to someone who is well aware of how AfD works and has, once or twice, deleted articles from there. I was satisifed that the situation had been discussed and that the resulting situation was not clear enough to mandate a deletion. I don't see why DRV should be used to force some other outcome in the patent absence of such a situation.
          • 'No consensus' is very precisely not the same as 'no outcome' (which is a result I have also very rarely assigned to debates; I rather suspect I may be the only admin who has done so). If you'd like to talk about the philosophical aspects of that, then maybe my talk page? It's rather off topic to this debate. Splash - tk 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse. I thought I saw consensus in the AFD discussion, but, then again, I was the nominator. I inquired on the closing admin's talk page. He provided a sufficiently adequate response for me to leave the issue alone. For my part, I still think this material should go, but that's why involved editors don't close discussions. I've suggested a possible direction to improve the article(s) on the page's Talk. Maybe it'll acquire some context and relevance. If so, I might even support it later on. If not, we can always ship it back to AFD in 6 months with "no effort to resolve the previous concerns" appended. There's no rush; Wikipedia has no deadline, and this content isn't so problematic as to make urgency more important than preserving what decorum AFD still has. Serpent's Choice 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per the above, and per WP:NOT indiscriminate. >Radiant< 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. If we go via strict numerical guidelines, there was no consensus to delete the page to begin with. However, as we don't vote on deletion, we have to look at arguments, and in this case, both sides have reasonable ideas grounded on Wikipedia policy, so no consensus is the only reasonable outcome. Besides, this is a no consensus closure, not a keep; that means that this can be revisited in the future, without even having to wait the customary six months due to the "immunity" (for lack of a better word) granted to articles kept in AFD. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I can see how this could be an easy navigational aid, but that's what search engines were made for. It's a textbook example of a unmaintainable list that will never be comprehensive. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Titoxd. Although the 6-month-safe-period thing after a keep decision is basically the Wikipedia equivalent of an urban legend... "keep" and "no consensus" are only as different as people let them be. --W.marsh 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete badly fails the core policy of WP:NOT and should be deleted absent a clear showing that is not present either here or in the AfD. Eluchil404 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Titoxd & Rick Block; isn't it obvious that there's no consensus on this one? Carlossuarez46 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

previously considered 'blatant advertising' - now another contributor wants to resubmit a new text with several reliable independent sources. please consider and advise of new steps Seital 09:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should create it under their userspace (e.g. User:Seital/fring) then ask for a review when done. --pgk 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, yes, just rewrite the article in userspace first. You'll need to bring us something to look at so we can assess whether to restore the article or not. --Coredesat 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paul McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

McCarthy is a major, internationally recognized artist. The article seems to have been deleted for lacking notability. A simple google search will confirm this is far from true. Freshacconci 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the deleting admin, I was asked to give my opinion. Personally, I don't have one either way. It was a tagged prod with the rationale of "facts are unsubstantiated, no verifiability," essentially an un-sourced BLP. If someone wants it overturned and have it properly sourced, more power to them. ^demon[omg plz] 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the cache, I agree this was a poor article. But deleting it seemed harsh for an artist who has been in the Whitney Biennale, Museum of Modern Art and Tate Modern (amongst scores of other international galleries and museums). It strikes me that a tag of some sort would have been better, and that the original prod was from someone who simply doesn't like McCarthy. I haven't been on wikipedia that long, so I wasn't sure of the procedures around this. Could this be restored, tagged with the appropriate tags and then I'll work on it? Freshacconci 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I think I have a couple books from my art history class last semester that discuss him (we spent a day or so discussing his work). I'll add what I can in a week when I'm with my books again. There are at least four independent books about him on Amazon, so notability certainly is not lacking. Maybe a restore and remove a bunch of the more controversial info for the interim? Wickethewok 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first, I was going to ask why someone would delete an article about one of the Beatles. ;) As a now-contested prod, it can be undeleted on demand ... HOWEVER ... based on the content of this article and the claims it makes about this man, I really don't think it should be undeleted unless/until sources are provided. --BigDT 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested prod, moved to AfD. Chick Bowen 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:uw-deletionpolicy1 (edit | [[Talk:template:uw-deletionpolicy1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache)

I am tired of the out of process deletions, in contravention of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. So I created warning templates, {{uw-deletionpolicy1}}, {{uw-deletionpolicy2}}, {{uw-deletionpolicy3}}, {{uw-deletionpolicy4}} to warn perpetrators of this form of vandalism. While the vandalism policy says good faith edits are not vandalism, WP:AGF says that in the presence of repeated abuses you may stop assuming good faith. Given the massive out of process deletions, refusal to accept DRV as a legitimate forum, and flat-out violations of Wikipedia:Deletion policy I felt that a 4 level warning system consistent with other forms of vandalism was appropriate. However these templates were deleted out of process as "trolling". I assure you, I am not trolling. I consider these deletions to be directly damaging to the project by violating core Wikipedia policies, improperly deleting properly sourced, notable, accurate articles, when our stated goal is to form an Encyclopedia. -N 01:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - valid T1. For one thing, leaving a standard template on a veteran user's talk page is insulting - you should leave a personal message. For another thing ... the text of the templates is just plain nonsense. --BigDT 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to be gracious and not speedy close this; I haven't refuted anything on a point-by-point basis in a couple of hours, so here it goes. First of all, Wikipedia:Process is important is an essay. Pointing to it with claims of some sort of improper action holds no water, because essays, by definition, can give no binding instructions. With regards to your link to Wikipedia:Consensus, you can't honestly believe these would be kept at TfD, can you? An equally ludicrous template with regards to the spate of Main Page deletions was deleted there too, and these would be no different. The deletions can therefore be viewed as a sort of snowball-in-hell close of the TfD that would have happened otherwise. With regards to this deletion contravening deletion policy: alright, maybe "CSD T1" should have been entered in the deletion summary instead. But I'll let you in on a secret, Nardman: CSD T1 is just a polite acronym for trolling. (The Cabal was even so bold as to make sure it started with T.)
  • With regards to your accusation of vandalism, I say hogwash, and suggest you assume good faith. From the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism, a policy: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Not one of these deletions have been made "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," and I challenge you to prove me otherwise. To look at this a different way, why the hell would multiple longtime administrators "vandalize" Wikipedia like this? We've joked about horrendous forms of vandalism, namely in the MediaWiki namespace, and yet none of these so-called vandals has done so. Why not? Because they are not vandals.
  • With regards to your assurance that you are not trolling: alright, I will take you at your word. (Why not do the same for our good BLP-enforcing sysops, eh?) And finally, when you say "I consider these deletions to be directly damaging to the project by violating core Wikipedia policies, improperly deleting properly sourced, notable, accurate articles, when our stated goal is to form an Encyclopedia," I have just one response. I consider these deletion reviews to be directly damaging to the project by violating core common sense principles, improperly challenging the deletion of improperly sourced, nonnotable, inaccurate articles, when our stated goal is to form an Encyclopedia. To sum that up, I endorse deletion. Picaroon (Talk) 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your first paragraph, I would strongly suggest that nobody speedy close this. The whole reason a lot of people are ticked off lately is the speedy closing of some controversial DRVs. --BigDT 02:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second BigDT's suggestion. I think that a quick refresher of the original intent of speedy closures is in order, given the above and events of late: Speedy closures are there to combat disruptive vandals who are attempting to tie us in knots using our own processes, such as (say) by nominating Earth (AfD discussion) for deletion in the hopes that we'll labouriously trudge through a full week of AFD discussion. They are there to combat bad faith. An editor who creates boilerplate texts for user talk pages may be exceedingly misguided, employing a wholly erroneous interpretation of what constitutes vandalism, communicating with other editors in a very counterproductive manner, and so on. But those are not the same as acting in bad faith.

      There are also snowball closures. Those are for when it is glaringly obvious what the consensus will be. Sometimes this is simply because of the sheer unanimity of expressed opinion of a large number of different editors. Sometimes this is because discussion rapidly reaches an appropriate solution that everyone is happy about. Even then, it is important to ensure that there has been opportunity for any dissent to have been expressed. It is sometimes beneficial, for example, to place a notice saying that unless anyone comes forward to disagree with the conclusion within 24 hours, the discussion will be closed early. (We don't all live a single timezone, remember.)

      Please reserve speedy closures for cases of bad faith. Uncle G 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Should I feel honoured to have had one of these startling piece of process-at-the-expense-of-product applied to my talk page? - David Gerard 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and BJAODN for preservation - David Gerard 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nardman, even if you do have a valid point, this is not the way to go about it, is a violation of WP:POINT, and is not helping your cause. Chick Bowen 03:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Pure bad faith, designed to stir up bad feelings. Corvus cornix 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Disruptive administrators need to be held accountable. Having seen these templates, this wasn't the way to do it. Unfortunately inflammatory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Templating admins is a seriously bad idea. While they have their place in warning newbies and boilerplate stuff like image problems, templates are a very poor way of sending a message. I have never heard of an experienced user responding postively to a templated user warning. Whats wrong with actually writing a specific message and having a conversation?? Spartaz Humbug! 07:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Canned templates like this are a bad idea and serve no useful purpose except to fan the flames. Krimpet (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - amusing, but sheer balls. When Jeff endorses deletion, you know it's pretty bad (with all respect). Ouch!!. Moreschi Talk 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Don't use templates on experienced users; it creates bad feeling. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest don't use templates on any users - they're not personal, they're bureaucratic rubber-stamping. But perhaps that's just me. Rewrite in one's own words - David Gerard 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, stupid. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per all above, and let me note that the recommendation to test deletion on sandbox may result in database lags that will make Wikipedia read-only for several minutes. MaxSem 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom. I will admit it appears I'm climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. -N 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of jazz clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn speedy delete. Significant new information added to list (locations), justifying renewal of article and addressing differentiation between the list and a category. Issues raised in past afd resolved. The most recent revisions illustrate the difference between the originally AfD'd version and what had changed.Freechild 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Your comment about the deleting admin is not necessary or appropriate. If you have reason to think the AfD should be overturned, then bringing it here is the right thing to do, and Cordesat gave you good advice. Chick Bowen 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say I had any disdain for the list. Given that the list was essentially a recreation of deleted content by stating that it will never be complete (which was the main concern in the AFD), I endorse my deletion. A category would work far better in this case. I'll restore the history behind a tag. --Coredesat 05:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category can relay details related to location using subcategories -21:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse Closure Doesn't look like there are any problems with the AFD. Hard to see how a list like this can be properly maintained or finished. Spartaz Humbug! 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The addition of the locations really doesn't add anything to the article. It is still just a category in disguise. I think the result will be the same if the new version is brought to afd. --- RockMFR 18:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is a perfectly valid subject for a list. Haddiscoe 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Haddiscoe; also, appears more and additional info is being added per Freechild.A Musing 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The recreation certainly looks better, but I'm unsure whether I'd call it significantly different; however, the original debate was minimally-attended (a point curiously heretofore unmentioned.) Given the continuing debate over the "list vs. category" question in general, and the oft-expressed desire for solutions tailored to the circumstances of each case, I do think more discussion would clarify these issues. Original AfD wasn't wrong, but its under-attendence means that it has less conclusive force. Xoloz 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Jimmy Kimmel Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Overturn and delete - CFD was closed "keep." The closing admin stated that it was not deleted because "no other participant was convinced" by my argument. The admin clearly did not take the quality of the so-called "arguments" of the other participants (one wanted it kept because I'd said that it had guests of the show and it apparently doesn't, the other copied and pasted an identical general comment about deleting TV series categories into several CFDs and was ignored in every other CFD). The precedent against categorizing people by the projects on which they work is strong and clear. We do not categorize actors, writers, directors, producers, "personalities" etc. by their TV shows or networks. The admin obviously completely ignored that precedent. Based on the strong precedent that's been established and the utter lack of persuasive counter-argument as to why this category should be some sort of exception, the CFD closure should be overturned and the category deleted. Otto4711 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the grounds for the nomination were that the category contains "cast, crew and guests." The keep was premised on the supposed lack of guests. Hardly seems like the sort of "factual error" which should derail a nomination. Otto4711 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You stated "category is being used to capture cast, crew and guests" and you were challenged on the assertion that the catagory contained guests. You partly conceded this point. The factual basis for the listing was therefore unsound. I loathe process wonking but you seriously can't expect to get something deleted if none of the persons responding agree with you and if the factual basis of the listing is at least partially sucessfully challenged. If you are really unhappy wait a few weeks and list it again. Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I doubt I'd call the close a "keep", but there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete either. --pgk 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know why we are debating this. There's no consensus to delete in that discussion - but indeed there was little participation in the discussion - I suggest that the nom withdraws this DRV, and relists the category on CfD. --Docg 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to withdraw and relist, but the last time I did that without going through DRV first a zealous admin speedy closed the re-nomination and slapped a penalty on me for "disruption." If the closing admin tells me I can relist without risking a penalty then I'll go ahead with it. Otto4711 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general (at least where there is no discernible disruptive intent or disruptive tendency), I don't think the community objects to the immediate relisting of a page where the XfD engendered little participation; if the basis for a closed XfD is troublesome to an editor, his having expressed his concerns earlier might well would have resulted in the XfD's being relisted to generate a clearer consensus, especially where such concerns relate to the inconsistency of one decision with another similarly situated. Here, though, it should be observed that many other television program categories are now at CfD, and the ultimate disposition of this one ought, absent special circumstances, to mirror that of those CfDs. Joe 23:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my point though, is that the outcome of this CFD doesn't mirror the results of any number of CFDs. Categorizing performers by their performances (which extends to crew members by the shows they work on) is overcategorization. The community has spoken loud and clear on this and dozens or hundreds of categories capturing actors, writers, directors, etc. broken down by film, television series, studio and network have been deleted as a result. Again, I have no objection whatsoever if the closing admin or any admin will step in here and assure me that a relist will not lead to a charge of "disruption," or if one wants to overturn and relist on his or her own, but since I really don't feel like serving out a bogus block for a good faith relist I won't do it on my own initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 27 May 2007
  • Endorse - I think we've all had cases where we viewed that the consensus was wrong. The admin really had no choice, and you can't expect them to WP:IAR on something like this. Just let it sit for a month and then try again if you want. Nothing will be harmed if deletion of this cat is postponed for a bit. I doubt it will survive a second attempt. --After Midnight 0001 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist. The closing was proper (personally I would have closed it as "no consensus" but that's not a substantial difference) but per lack of debate on the topic, it should be relisted or renominated if anyone wants more feedback. >Radiant< 10:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Looks like consensus from the Cfd was keep--Sefringle 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I too would have closed this as "no consensus" because there is a strong recent history of deleting similar categories, and this one has the same overcategorization problems. I suspect that many of us simply did not notice this one. I've gotten complacent about these categories since the big battle was fought over "actors by performances". Since that has settled, it seemed that there was tacit support for deleting these categories. I could name 5 to 10 CFD regulars who would probably vote to delete. Yes, we all missed this one. Relist. I'll wager it is quickly deleted. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NOT_JUST_FOR_PROFIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

PAGE_NOW_LINKS_COMLETELY_INACCURATELY_TO_NON_PROFIT_ORGANISATION Jim Lawn 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nichole Marie Blackwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This AfD appears to have been closed improperly. There wasn't a consensus to merge and it was closed with the comment "The result was MERGE to Craigslist - this is an incident not a biography", clearly an AfD vote rather than an impartial judge of WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

25 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Lootie original.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lootie original.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It looks like the consensus of the AfD on Lootie will be merge to Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina. This image appeared on the Lootie article in January 2006 but was removed from the article and deleted the same day by an admin as a copyvio. Given the fact that two years have passed, meaning reselling opportunities for a news (ie current events) photo are less and given the racial bias talked about in both articles (and what I plan on mentioning when I do the merge) I believe this image would be fair use in Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Also since this image is a photoshop meme, I believe the best source of an unaltered version is (ironically) our deletion logs. -N 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What exactly are you asking DRV for? If the image was deleted in Jan 06 its gone and can't be undeleted. If you want to upload it again you need to make sure there is a free copy available or that it meets the fairuse guidelines. DRV doesn't exist to review FU and certainly not before the merge has taken place - Context is everything. Why don't you just wait until the merge goes through and then look at sourcing an appropriate image? --Spartaz Humbug! 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Italian-American Youth Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

User:Cjserio left this request in this page's wiki comments. I am neutral on the merits. His original request was "This was a page created about an organization that I belong to. The organization is a charitable one and is growing rapidly. It appears that the past article was vandelized and was then deleted. Please put the article back up.". Looks like a contested prod to me. -N 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Newgate - cell and galleries from The Queen's London - a Pictorial and Descriptive Record of the Streets, Buildings, Parks and Scenery of the Great Metropolis, 1896.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now as I am not (yet) an admin, I cannot see this deleted page, but I saw the deletion log. I4, no source. However, I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that this consists of an image from The Queen's London - a Pictorial and Descriptive Record of the Streets, Buildings, Parks and Scenery of the Great Metropolis, 1896. I am going to further speculate this was published in 1896, and is PD by reason of age. -N 22:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dynamic Submission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper Deletion Akc9000 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) This was the first product ever created by Dynamic Software. I actually do not understand your reasoning. I was following the format used by Microsoft. Dynamic Software is a software company as is Microsoft (much smaller) but it is published and has many works and it worthy of being in an Wikipedia[reply]

akc9000

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dynamic Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper Deletion Akc9000 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) --> Dynamic Software is an international corp. that sells Windows based software. It is published and noteworthy. I see no reason for this article to be deleted. I request the article be restored.[reply]

  • I dunno man. As a general rule, you want to give careful consideration to a contested speedy, as through {{hangon}}, provided the contester is not a troll or vandal. This article is certainly not spam. Does it make a sufficient claim of notability? Well, they make a bluelinked product that has a fair-sized article with its own press notices; and they've won an award of some kind, or at least claim to have. Why not give the guy his day in court, is that gonna kill you? It's easier, really, than expending energy here. In all liklihood it'll pick up a half-dozen Delete comments and vanish forever. But maybe not. You might start to get "ZOMG are you kidding everyone uses their software" or whatever. You never know. Herostratus 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "everyone uses their software", they'll find references from "everyone", and post it here on the DRV rather than fire rubber cartridges.--WaltCip 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just now saw this thread. I answered a #wikipedia-en-help request for this earlier today and userfied the article to User:Akc9000/sandbox. I did this, as noted, without knowing that this discussion was on-going. The user is attempting to create a properly referenced article now in the sandbox. If anyone has issue with what I've done, feel free to comment accordingly. --After Midnight 0001 04:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Iceman (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was a page I created for myself so please let me restore it! GBpacker4 7 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

24 May 2007

[edit]
  • YMS-15 Gyan – Endorse deletion. Although the closing reason may have cited the wrong criteria (in this case, CSD), we can say that it would have been snowed anyway. We should consider the merits of this article, rather than the fate of a number of similar articles. – Sr13 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
YMS-15 Gyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted without satisfying speedy deletion criteria. The normal AFD process should have been gone through. Article should be restored and re-nominated for AFD. --Polaron | Talk 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It satisfied CSD criteria G4: "Previously deleted". As I noted in the close, it was already deleted. Therefor, it can be speedied. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Please don't bring something here because the form wasn't filled in - tell us that the article is a loss because of it and we'll consider. 2) It was deleted as a recreation after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja and in any case the AfD that was speedily closed was already pointing to a unanimous delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMS-15 Gyan. So, whilst this may or may not have been a valid speedy as recreation (I don't know), it would have been a valid close per WP:SNOW. So, in the absence of any evidence that this is a loss to Wikipedia - keep deleted per evident consensus.--Docg 21:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good number of comments on the R-Jarja AFD indicated that they were voting to delete only that article. There is no consensus to delete all the articles on the template. This particular case of the Gyan is actually notable because it is a *major* "character". Please give enough time for interested editors to weigh in on the debate. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also noting it was not unanimous for deletion (18 delete, 7 merge, 12 keep). I see you were referring to the Gyan AFD not the R-Jarja one. In any case, it has only been 18 hours between nomination and deletion. Other people have not had a chance to weigh in. --Polaron | Talk 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSK-008 Dijeh, which specifically delt with a mass of 'em. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While these should have probably been merged to a list article, those have no bearing on the case of the Gyan. My point is these things should be looked at on a case by case basis. These "mobile suits" have widely varying degrees of significance. Just because a few were deleted does not mean all should be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my view, the article should have been merged into a list of minor weapons in the Gundam universe. I am failing to see how WP:SNOW applies as there might have been momentum moving towards a merge. --Edwin Herdman 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and resend to AfD. Another example of someone in a freaken hurry to close ending up taking more of our time. This turns on the question: did the Delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja cover all the articles in Template:Early Universal Century Mobile weapons? This is not entirely clear. The nominator there said that he would have liked to include all the articles in this template, but couldn't for unspecified technical reasons ("...this is part of a larger AfD i would like to create, but its beyond any practical abilities to do so..."). Thus it's not at all clear to me that all of the commentors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja believed that they were commenting on the entire mass of articles rather than just the single article AMX-104 R-Jarja. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMX-104 R-Jarja does cover all the articles in Template:Early Universal Century Mobile weapons, why are almost all of these still bluelinked? It looks like the closing editor thought that the AfD covered only the one article, and the closing editor's belief matters considerably, therefore the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YMS-15 Gyan was out of line. In short, either all the articles at Template:Early Universal Century Mobile weapons should be deleted, or else YMS-15 Gyan should be restored. Since the former is not going to happen and this discussion has no authority to force it, the latter become operative, therefore the article should be restored and relisted. Herostratus 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no reason to do anything else as far as I can see, outside of process-wonkery. Doubtless WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS feels like a valid reason, but it isn't. Consensus is clear: utterly unsourced game-guides fanpieces on these subjects is not encyclopaedic as well as failing core policy. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think consensus is clear. Some of these have been kept and others deleted depending on their significance within the series and outside. This is one of the more significant ones and should be discussed fully. As I said, there is no consensus to delete all such articles. The point is it was speedy-deleted as recreated deleted material when it wasn't previously deleted and there was no consensus to delete this particular article in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Herostratus's reasoning, which is entirely sound. If there's any doubt at all, a stronger consensus should be formed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I suppose - the only reason why some of these mobile suit articles are still around is that I got tired of nominating them. Per Guy, Gundam articles have a long and inglorious history of being useless. Swat the rest, as well, until any of them actually cite reliable sources that assert real-world notability. Process should not get in the way of the right thing. Moreschi Talk 13:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would the popular clamor for Bandai to create a Master Grade series model kit be good enough? There are also several plastic model kit guides that featured the Gyan. Also, there was a TV network decision to introduce the Gyan because of a slump in ratings at the time. The decision to introduce the Gyan is related to the "new enemy mecha of the week" formula that other popular anime robot shows were doing but which Gundam tried to initially avoid. Unfortunately most books on the real world significance of these are only published in Japan and I am no longer in Japan. I'll see if I can find people to help out. What I am saying is that while 90% of all the Gundam mecha articles are indeed "unencyclopedic", some of them actually are encuyclopedic and this is potentially one of them. All I am asking for is allow for a wider group of people to comment on the deletion discussion. --Polaron | Talk 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If specific items are indeed notable -- and as far as I'm concerned, showing up in some glossy otaku magazine doesn't count -- then cough up the ones for the specific items instead of attempting a runaround of past AFDs. --Calton | Talk 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there was no consensus to delete all items in that Gundam template in any past AFD so this is not a "runaround of past AFDs". The current AFD wasn't allowed to finish. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I should say "Falling back on rules-lawyering and nitpicking to attempt to cast doubt on general editorial judgment passed along by past AFDs", then. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't follow the Gundam mecha article deletion debates so I might be missing something. But the R-Jarja debate mentioned above definitely didn't show consensus for a blanket deletion and only a slim majority for the R-Jarja. What past AFDs are you referring to that show a clear consensus for deleting the Gyan article? --Polaron | Talk 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per Guy. Herostratus's reasoning was a whole lot of smoke that obscured more than it illuminated. --Calton | Talk 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse strongly per Guy: failing core policy. The fact that other articles of this type aren't yet nominated doesn't mean anything. They will be nominated (and eventually deleted), you can count on that. -- Ekjon Lok 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that doesn't mean they should be speedy deleted on sight. All I am asking for is go through the process. A small number of these are significant enough to merit an article. --Polaron | Talk 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, and what do you suppose this particular AfD was about to result in, after 5 days? It got 5 "delete" votes (not counting the nomination!) in less than 20 hours. Was there any hope it would get even a single "keep" vote? Not a chance of a snowball in hell! The "delete" closure was entirely appropriate. This is not (yet) about all those articles in Gundam template. The AfD nomination (and deletion) was about a single article. That article did indeed fail core policies, and was rightly deleted. -- Ekjon Lok 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hasn't anybody even thought of redirecting most of the mecha articles to a list article to discourage people from creating these articles anymore and we don't have to discuss deletions and so forth? I don't have a strong opinion on the deletion and have only passing familiarity with the subject so the end result for me doesn't really matter. But I don't think you can say for sure that not a single keep/merge/redirect would appear within the regular AFD time frame. I don't think the WikiProject covering this was even informed of the debate. --Polaron | Talk 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - It fits under the umbrella of the previous AfD, and was valid. In any case, it wouldn't pass anyway if it was re-run. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Sorin Cerin – Speedy Endorsed - you were told to make an article in your user space, source it, and make it NPOV, and then petition for it's inclusion in the encyclopedia, not to just recreate the article exactly as it was before. – Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

[41]&124:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin/AfD) Yesterday was the result in this case,with endorse deletion,but with right to re-create another good article no to protect again this page.We try to make another good article about Cerin,but this page have been again protected to prevent recreation against conclusion from yesterday.

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Helium.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

... to be replaced by some form of User:Deramisan/Helium. New user discovered this article salted. Two non-trivial sources are present with helium as subject (boston herald and us news+world report); Alexa ~10,000; users well over 5000. Prior deletion reasoning based on poor sources, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helium.com, should be revisited with well-sourced article. Suggestions welcome, but believe it easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) and should be un-salted with some for of new article remaining. ∴ here…♠ 08:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2007

[edit]
  • Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker – Normally this nomination would be speedily closed as "relist at AfD per invoking of exception of clause in WP:CSD#A7 providing for AfD discussion in the case of contested speedy deletion." However, the AfD process has already been de facto taken its due course here. Given this fact, I thereby invoke WP:IAR to (in an attempt) save everyone from lashing out at each other again in another unnecessary and redundant process move (namely, AfD), and hereby close this discussion as deletion endorsed, with the option of locating the contents of the deleted articles in a more general location, such as the Babies switched at birth article. – Kurykh 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Robyn Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Gavin Clinton-Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --Bookworm857158367 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, assertion of notability on the DRV nom is not a valid DRV nomination. Give us evidence of why the deletion was not proper. Corvus cornix 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". Both articles made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage.", and one had an additional claim about being one of the better junior players of a particular sport in his country of residence. On the other hand, I'd like someone to look at it from a WP:BLP light, as I can't make up my mind. GRBerry 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (tweaked to reflect the merge GRBerry 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn On a procedural basis, I am not happy with taking unilateral action twice. If an admin action is challenged in good faith, someone else should be involved in the follow up. As for BLP concerns regarding the articles, there is nothing detrimental being said about either boy, and their names are already widely known. The parents are also not accused of anything. Trying to keeep names out of WP after they've been broadcast on 60 minutes is a little absurd.DGG 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep deleted per BLP and ethical considerations. A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will. Totally encyclopaedic - plus there are no sources from which to write any biography. So we'd have a biography on a living person's life, that ONLY mentioned an unfortunate birth incident - unacceptable. This is a minor people - get a grip.--Docg 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold and added these together - the arguments will be identical for both--Docg 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. If they were kids anymore, this might hold some water, but not with what we know. 18 years of press coverage asserted needs a better hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep deleted. Absolutely not. DRV is not an appropriate venue for BLP deletions. The correct action is to undergo dispute resolution, starting with convincing the deleting admin.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dispute resolution should never be a matter of course. AFD is the place to discuss controversial deletions, not begging and pleading with the admin who speedied the article out of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? When did this occur? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't a BLP deletion when the discussion started; it was a garden variety A7 (see the deletion logs), which would have been a garden variety overturn as clearly incorrect due to explicit claims of notability in the article. BLP was first mentioned by myself after the discussion was here. GRBerry 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. You have to think about the effect that this will have on these kids later in life. If you're going to have an article on the person, you need to write a biography; not a chronicle of some accident at birth. Sean William 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, take to AFD The article made a claim of notability. Cases where that's questionable belong at AFD, not speedied and argued here. We have other articles on similar topics, such as Kimberly Mays. That's not just an Othercrapexists, it's an example of why the consideration of a full afd is necessary and speedy is improper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals, until then it might (at a pinch) merit a short sentence in the article on the hospital. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' per Doc, Guy and SwatJester. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Doc and Guy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is a very trollish nomination, or a very stupid one, and I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen, endorse deletion. I may change my opinion if presented with examples of this 18 years of media coverage. -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless the articles can be verifiably expanded beyond "This boy was switched at birth." FCYTravis 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to keep deleted (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. GRBerry 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.

This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the notability of the subject. --SunStar Net talk 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, valid A7 plus BLP concerns. Kusma (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deletin' admin - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- Merope 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Apparently asserts notability, and please don't even mention WP:BLP here, because that is not even a factor. Abeg92contribs 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no BLP concerns. BLP applies only no poorly sourced negative material; there is nothing here which is in any way negative, and all the material is well-sourced. The attempted deletion is an attempt to extend BLP to include all material that the eds. think to be potentially embarrassing, or that they would prefer not to talk about. Calling any of this BLP is an attempt to greatly extend the accepted meaning, and the reasonable meaning.
There are no notability concerns. The material has been the focus of numerous stories which are cited. This is the basic criterion for N, and the article meets it. Removing this as NN is judging on the basis of IDONTTLIKEIT. Removing it is a total denial of our standards for objective criteria. DGG 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn "International news coverage" was mentioned in the final revision of both articels, adn is a clear claim of significace, so an A7 deletion is clearly improper. BLP was not cited in the deltion log, and so arguably is not at issue at the moment, but in any cas it is a non-issue. None of the information included in either articel (in the last revision before deletion) is "negative" or "contentious", and it appears that all of it is well-sourced. There is no reason to list at AfD, but if someone wants to nominate for AfD any editor is of course free to do so. DES (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BLP was not cited in the deletion log, and so arguably is not at issue at the moment" - WTF? Process wonking at it worst. The content and nature of the article are more relevant to proper consideration that whatever is in a log. These are articles about living people - they are about what happened to children. They affect real people with real lives - and we are not going to have Google for ever list them with long=-forgotton newstories of childhood trauma. These articles and all like them must die whatever heartless process obsessives and irresponsible inclusionists think. We are an encyclopedia. Now stop it.--Docg 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, we are an encyclopedia. That's why we gotta use our heads and not submit to our own personal feelings on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You will note that having said that, i proceeded to respond substantively to the (IMO clearly incorrect) claim that BLP issues do mandate deletion here. Note also that the purpose section of this page says "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." An encyclopedia is supposed to include significant contetn about what actually happend, whether that distresses living people or not. Now an argumetn can be made that this incident is to minor to be notable, but that sort of argument ought to be made durign an AfD discussion, where everyione can see and work on the articel, can add or challange sources, etc. I am tempted to say "This must live" but I won't -- what I will say is that emotional appeals to avoid harm -- about articles that are not in any obvious way harmful to anyone, and that are well sourced and apparently factually accurate -- are in my view harmful to the project of creating an encyclopedia. And just as DRV is not suppsoed to be a re-run of AfD, neither is it supposed to be a preveiw of AfD. These were delted as makign no claim of notability, which is not true, neither are they unsourced or weakly sourced negative or controversial biographies. therefore they shouldn't ahve been speedy deleted. debate the more general question of notability and inclusion in an AfD, as is or normal method for dealing with such matters. DES (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted And stop wasting our time on these. -Pilotguy hold short 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - serious BLP concerns, quite aside from the fact A7 was an issue anyway. Orderinchaos 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My major objection here was and continues to be the way that the administrator immediately deleted it without putting it up for debate. I don't think that either of these articles meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Having read the Biography of Living Persons and notability guidelines, I also don't see any clear reason why these articles deserved to be deleted under those criteria. Nothing derogatory or untrue is said. Both young men have been the subject of news articles by a reputable news organization, which was cited. A claim of notability was made -- arguably in the FIRST version. I think the statement that the boys were switched at birth IS a claim of notability. Certainly, the fact that I added a sentence in the second version saying it had been a subject of international news coverage and that one of the boys is a top-ranked junior badminton player takes away the assertion that no claim of notability was made. Contrary to the comment made by one of the administrators, I am neither stupid nor a troll. I think this topic is of interest and will likely continue to be of interest. Both boys have freely given interviews to the national news media. They're public figures. If the articles are put up for deletion and a majority of people think they should be deleted, fine. However, I continue to think the administrator's actions by speedily deleting them without putting it up for debate were incorrect. --Bookworm857158367 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one has asserted, as far as I can see, that you are stupid or a troll. Even in the hypothetical case that that could be true, we don't decide debates by article creators, but by article subjects and contents. The debate here is whether the original decision to delete is valid. Orderinchaos 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Tony Sidaway's comment above: "This is either a very trollish nomination or a very stupid one." It certainly makes that implication. As for whether the decision to delete the articles was incorrect, I see that Merope above has acknowledged that she deleted both articles without seeing the claim to notability in the second article. Apparently she didn't read the article closely before she speedily deleted it, which I also find troubling. I decided to nominate these articles for a review because I was troubled by those actions. I think the decision should be overturned and the articles should be listed for deletion, which would give people a chance to debate deletion or to improve upon it. Maybe an all-encompassing article on the subject of past switched at birth cases would be best, with a mention of these boys. The AFD process would give someone a chance to make that determination. In my opinion, as someone who has nominated a number of articles for speedy deletion and has read the notability guidelines pretty closely, this was NOT an appropriate use of speedy deletion. --Bookworm857158367 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No opinion on the article, but the original deletion was invalid. Take it to AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the right thing to do, and well within the spirit of A7. Jkelly 22:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I might support a delete at AfD, but I cannot support unilaterals like this. See Crystal Gail Mangum and Little Fatty, both submitted the same day as this, as examples. Horologium talk - contrib 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:BLP is NOT a speedy deletion reason. It's only a speedy deletion reason if the article is an unsourced attack piece, which this was not. -N 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a speedy reason. That's why admins are selected how they are - for judgement - David Gerard 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me where in WP:CSD it supports your view. -N 00:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If admins deleted nothing but articles that unquestionably met the CSD guidelines, we could have adminbots doing all our work for us, and backlogs at AFD. Sean William 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, I find the administrator's judgment questionable. I have read the guidelines and I do not see clear notability or BLP concerns here. --Bookworm857158367 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a deletion criteria called basic human dignity. Sean William 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DIGNITY says "While Wikipedia articles may contain negative information about notable persons, no Wikipedia article should exist solely to mock or disparage any person or entity, or to document such mocking or disparagement - unless these actions in and of themselves have become highly notable, and sourced in multiple reputable locations". Again, this article was sourced and there was an assertion of notability, plus this non-policy essay says that only clear A10's can be speedied, which was my original point. Again, defend your actions using OUR POLICIES. My rfa was rejected because I think our free content policies are a bit too strict. That's the standard we hold admins to. OUR POLICIES. Defend yourself using OUR POLICIES and nothing more. -N 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then. Use common sense. Sean William 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine a large number of other articles included in this encyclopedia would also qualify for deletion using those criteria, as "basic human dignity" is offended by their inclusion. I reiterate: no negative information is included in this article, nothing untrue is included in this article, the young men and their parents gave interviews to a national news organization on multiple occasions, making them public figures, and it's a topic that is of interest, which seems to make it encyclopedic. Why, again, does the truth violate "human dignity"? In any event, it was originally deleted because the editor stated "no notability was asserted." BLP concerns were not the original reason. If it is taken to AFD, I am sure that any BLP concerns can be taken into consideration there. That would be the proper procedure for considering deletion. That was what I wanted in the first place. Unilateral deletion of articles -- twice -- where notability was asserted and improper use of the speedy deletion policy is my chief concern here. That is only "common sense." --Bookworm857158367 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and explain to the whoever did the deletion that "no assertion of notability" means what it says, & that you cannot do a speedy under A7 if there is an anything that suports possible notability. DGG 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - obviously unacceptable under WP:BLP, and that the right result was achieved through a speedy does not mean it was the wrong answer. "Overturn on procedural grounds" is a meaningless opinion in this context and demonstrates a lack of understanding well deserving of being ignored - David Gerard 23:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn BLP overrides consensus when an article is negative AND unsourced AND about a living person. Without all three, or a valid CSD, it takes consensus to get rid of an article. Vadder 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list at afd CSD A7 states "assertion of notability" this article clearly does that and thus is not speedyable. It is also not deletable under BLP, it is sourced, there is no negative coverage. When will you people relise that unilateral action like this simply pisses off the community and causes a shitstorm of complaints. Take it through the proper deletion process and you will get none of the above. ViridaeTalk 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might I also add that those who are using DRV as an impromptu afd, ie arguing about the conetent of the article not about the policy of the deletion are entirely missing the point of DRV. DRV is not here to argue content - apart from anything, most people can't view it. DRV is here to challenge whether the deletion was correct under policy. CSD A7 (the criteria under which the article was deleted) quite clearly doesn't apply here, there certainly WAS an assertion of notability. CSD A7 does NOT cover "I don't think this warrants an article" or "There is not enough information to warrant an article" it is limited simply to "No assertion of notability". That is quite clearly not the case and for this reason alone the article should have gone through a deletion discussion before being deleted (if that was the consensus of the discussion). The other reason given in this discussion (but not at the time of deletion) is BLP issues, but this quite clearly is not the case under WP:BLP: 1. This article does not give undue weight to negative coverage - hell there is no negative coverage at all in either of the articles as far as I can see. 2. The articles are properly sourced to a reputable news source. In other words, this is a complete miss-application of deletion policy. So to all those that insist on seeing this article deleted - should it be restored (rightfully under deletion policy as I have pointed out), then you have as much opportunity as everyone else to open an afd on the subject and argue your point there. ViridaeTalk 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse although I don't like the road we're going down here where this is being called a BLP deletion. A7 ... ok ... but not BLP. We don't want to get to the point where deletion of any article about a living person can be justified in the name of BLP. Being switched at birth is an interesting piece of trivia. It's a news item. It's a daytime TV talk show item. But it's not an encyclopedia article. Our mission is NOT one of cataloging every bit of news that has happened in the history of the English-speaking world. For that reason and that reason alone, I endorse this deletion. I am uncomfortable with calling this a BLP deletion because I feel that is a slippery slope that we are moving towards. --BigDT 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you endorse the deletion but not the process you essentially are arguing for an overturn and list at afd. DRV is about deletion policy not the content of the article - if you don't like the slipery slope, then throw some sand on it by forcing those who are oiling this slipery slope to go about deletions like this the correct way. ViridaeTalk 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not an A7, but delete is the right result. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article didn't explain why these two should be notable, and the fact that there is one source on them doesn't change that they aren't notable. I don't know what the "18 years of coverage" in the source refers to, no one has actually pointed to any other sources, and I couldn't find any. Relisting should be avoided unless the closer feels there is no consensus on the article here. This shouldn't be a debate on the merits, but it is, and it's too big of one to ignore all these comments just because the wrong process was followed. Mangojuicetalk 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AFD... assuming the article was based on the 60 Minutes story, I see no reason for BLP concerns, although I do think that a switched baby is non-notable. Someone should pull up articles in Nexis to assert notability. Calwatch
  • Bookworm amde a comment up there ^ that is worth repeating here "afd gives people time to improve the article (should it need it)" DRV quite obviously doesn't, so a DRV should never be a play out of an afd. ViridaeTalk 08:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - obviously, completely valid A7, no assertion of notability in either of them. The swapping-story may be notable but nowhere did it assert that they are. Moreschi Talk 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP, WP:NOT (a tabloid). No notability whatsoever, will be forgotten soon. --Mbimmler 11:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP; we will not list for the rest of their lives people who just happened to be noted by tabloids for some incident. David.Monniaux 11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources brought up so far aren't tabloids. could you please detail the BLP issues? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeff please STOP harassing people who don't agree with your skewed view of the world. If you can't understand why so many wikipedians find this article objectionable, then frankly I despair of you.--Docg 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a discussion. If you don't like the questioning, then justify the issues you present. It's not hard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well then, see all the reasoning above, and use your head (and heart). When you don't like what people are saying - simply saying "no one is discussing this with me" isn't helpful. Bottom line is that these are human beings and we have some dignity and humanity not just process and rules. Even tabloids have journalistic ethics. If you don't get that, if you don't at least understand where we are coming from, then either you are just being bloody-minded, or you have so little human empathy that there is really no point in discussing this with you. Sorry if that seems personal, but you've made it so in your soulless and disruptive crusading.--Docg 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reasoning above doesn't give any indication as to why this would be a BLP situation, nor does it show why the deletion was proper. My head thus tells me that these articles are not problematic, and we need to approach these neutrally. The only disruptive activity here have been the deletions - call me heartless or soulless, I can accept that since I approach these situations logically and not emotionally, but do not accuse me of disruptive behavior without some damn good evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Jeff, here's the deal. There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story. FCYTravis 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to present these issues neutrally and fairly. End of story. I will go along with this train of thought if that's where we end up, as I always do, but I will not sit by idly as people attempt to justify it using sketchy or false reasons for doing so, as have been done here. --badlydrawnjeff

talk 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with that line of reasoning, Jeff, is that ethics isn't really a matter of evidence. It's knowing in your heart what the right thing to do actually is. The closest you can get to evidence is when "50 people tell you" that you're wrong about the ethics of the situation. That doesn't mean you are actually wrong (mobs sometimes lead people astray), but it does mean you need to drop back, stop talking about process and evidence, and do a little soul searching about the issues. I'm not seeing evidence that you've done that, Jeff... just that you're standing on process. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing at the big green box in the discussion below, I repeat the principle that not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Bookworm857158367, in good faith, took the wrong approach, writing about an incident in two separate articles purporting to be individual biographical articles of two people involved in the incident. That's not what we want.

    This could have been solved before deletion, without the use of any administrator tools, by simply merging (indeed, smerging) the articles into an article about the actual subject. As GRBerry says above, there is an encyclopaedic article to be written, but addressing that article as two separate articles that are purporting to be biographical articles, when the two individuals are not discussed by sources separately from the case, and are not even discussed by sources separately from each other, is clearly wrong.

    The proper encyclopaedic article is babies switched at birth, which discusses this case without separating it into multiple biographical articles, in its proper overall context, without a pretense that it is in any way a biography, and with the necessary weight that should be given to a case that is simply one instance of the phenomenon.

    As it was, the articles have been deleted. I suggest that we simply leave these articles deleted, educate editors such as Bookworm857158367 in the better approach to writing about court cases, controversies, crimes, conflicts, and suchlike; and that we drop the matter. An AFD discussion would almost certainly at best have resulted in a merger consensus, given that the articles were exceedingly similar (merely addressing the incident one-sidedly from the perspective of each individual in each article). We now have an article discussing the phenomenon. And in this particular instance, redirects from the abovementioned titles don't seem terribly useful, as GRBerry wrote above. The best thing that we can be doing right now, the best thing for our efforts to be expended upon, is showing editors such as Bookworm857158367 how best to address such subjects, at the point that they create articles; so that we don't get into these situations in the first place.

    By the way: The claim of "eighteen years of continuous coverage", which many editors above appear to be accepting without actually checking for themselves, and using as a basis for their own arguments, is false. This incident hit the headlines in 1995 as a court case, when the mothers sued. I can find nothing between then and the recent documentary segment, which is little more than an "18 years on" followup. I strongly recommend, once again, that editors look for sources themselves. It is one of the things that we are supposed to be doing. Uncle G 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Deletion and for the love of god stop whining about these kinds of articles. They arent encyclopedic. -Mask? 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Doc. ElinorD (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some people have commented that the arguments here are exactly like an AfD, so why should we care about it? The important difference is that at AfD, no consensus defaults to 'keep'. So performing an out-of-process deletion and moving the argument here gives their side an advantage. The way, the truth, and the light 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment the other difference is that at an AfD everyone could see the artices in question, and could search for and add additional referfences, or edit the articels to deal with issues raised, adn we have a better chance to comne to a true consensus. That's why these kinds of issues -- content issues -- should normally be raised at an AfD, not at DRV. And what is the huge rush? At worst the articles stay around for a few days more. Or do people fear that they won't get a consensus at AfD? DES (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The very person who deleted the article asked, way near the top , for it to be sent to AfD instead. Second, the material fills two lines of a very general article, and there is no redirects. How it can be called a suitable replacement I do not know. I do know that there is a case to be made for going by rational discussion, not gut feelings, and " knowing in your heart what the right thing to do actually is." is the most inconsistent of criteria--we all have different hearts and guts, but we should all be able to engage in a sensible discussion, based on the application of what we find to be our common principles, however deep we have to go to get to them. One of mine is basic fairness--another word for this is following process. Following Uncle G, we would simply let him decide on N and have done with it. I think he usually makes reasonable decisions, but that's not the sort of project I thought I joined.
I am not too concerned about this relatively minor issue & I don't think it matters much what happens to the article. I do think it matters what principle we use for making decisions: reason, and consensus arrived at based on reason, or a total reliance on IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT. This is the sort of matter where I am glad we have at least one person willing to stand up and testify, and, although much less eloquent, I am honored to join him. DGG 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; I'm not a BLP wonk, but two people separated at birth is in itself not notable. Interesting story, but it doesn't satisfy encyclopedic notability to me. Plus, the "average" referencing job does show some BLP concerns.--Wizardman 01:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; At this point, I think the best ultimate resolution to this would be to create an article called Switched at birth cases (or some variant of that) and include information about relevant cases and hospital efforts to increase security in light of cases such as this, as suggested above. I'd still like to see these articles go through the AFD process, though, largely because I remain troubled by the administrator's decision to speedily delete it without such a review. I think the process needs to be honored here unless there are clear issues of libel or material in an article is not sourced. I don't think the article does harm, either, which seems to be the issue that the administrators are citing. It's not material that is libelous or derogatory and these boys gave interviews to a national news organization. While I would probably vote to delete my own articles or merge them into the new topic at this point, I still would prefer that they be officially listed for deletion. --Bookworm857158367 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't (yet) mention this case, though. The way, the truth, and the light 04:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does now. FCYTravis 04:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I missed it. The way, the truth, and the light 04:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we now close this review amicably because the material has been inserted into Wikipedia in a manner consistent with our policies. --Tony Sidaway 04:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin now closes as 'no consensus', I will not object here. That in no way means that I approve of the deletion. The way, the truth, and the light 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Frog and the Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Canadian Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See the ANI discussion, which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? GRBerry 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't the case before all the links to it were removed from other articles. About 12 or more used to link to it. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since this title is currently redirected there, that is a round trip redirect. I've eliminated it for now, per the MOS. Obviously, if this does not remain a redirect, the link can go back. GRBerry 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete I think Sam Blanning redircted it to protect the history under GFDL after a merge but I can't see that any merge has actually taken place. In which case I think we should go with his first conclusion and delete. If I'm mistaken about the merge I endorse but suggest that we protect the redirect to prevent edit warring. --Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge took place last year. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In that case endorse redirect Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Little Fatty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Invalid G4...this is not a repost of the deleted article. This new version was sourced and carefully avoided talking about the person involved, instead it was about the meme. Given the controversy surrounding speedy deletions of this article I think overturning and listing at AfD would be appropriate. -N 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong endorse. No, no, no. There is an RFC currently active about the whole mess, and it's even resulted in a related request for arbitration. Trying to create a new version while the other one is mired in such heated debate and dispute is inappropriate. Wait for a resolution. Arkyan • (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my Talk: [42]. Best to wait, this needs to be discussed ina rational manner in the right forum after the dust has settled. This is an extremely ill-advised request. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are named in the arbcom case. And you speedy deleted this. And you closed one of the previous DRVs as "disruptive" to Wikipedia, even though it validly pointed out that an AfD cannot be open for only an hour and hope for consensus to emerge [43]. I'm not sure you are unbiased in this. -N 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion, G10 if not G4.--Wizardman 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A version of this article exists at User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. I do not see any BLP issues with this article about an internet phenomenon. I would support restoring this article. Catchpole 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is the sources still name him. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ryan, with all due respect, so what? That's their problem, not ours. Mangojuicetalk 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This BLP argument is pretty much bullshit, its application is a farce. Wikipedia is not a censored, we don't delete well sourced articles for ridiculous claims of "human decency", who the hell are you to decide what counts as decent? Whether its notable is a different issue, and one that should have been decided on AFD. Are we really going to start deleting articles on criminals because its giving the crime "undue weight", and should the Gerald Ratner article be moved to 1991 Institute of Directors' speech, because of BLP? I remember the fairly trivial Jason Fortuny thing several months back, certain (misguided) editors were claiming that the article shouldn't be at Jason Fortuny because it was giving "the only thing notable he has ever done" undue weight. - hahnchen 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete: the draft is still in user space, and given that the community has been good so far about letting the QZ deletion rest while we sort out the aftermath, I think it would be best if we waited a while. I agree G4 isn't really the best explanation of why this should be deleted, though. If I had done it, my summary would have been "can we please wait on this until things cool down?" But nitpicking over a reason isn't a good reason to go through an AfD. Mangojuicetalk 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 - Different name, same content. Sean William 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There weas significant difference in the content, but also significant overlap. i don't think this is technically a G4, but this was probably an unwise action at this moment. Even less of a BLP issue than the prior article, however, and as BLP was the major ground on which the previous article was deleted, this really isn't a proper speedy. On process, weak overturn and undelete but I do wish this had been delayed a bit. DES (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a protected redirect to the internet memes article which has information about him. If there is ever more to write about this fellow than the internet meme, which I doubt but would not pre-empt, then a case can be made to re-open the article. He could well go on to become President of China, who knows? --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not helpful Whether this is a valid G4 depends on whether there is a valid AFD deletion of the other article. I continue to believe that there is no valid AFD deletion of the other article, which invalidates G4 as a basis for deletion. However, creating this article at this time was not helpful. Let it wait until the ArbComm case is over. GRBerry 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems very sensible. If the creation of this article is contingent on the status of the other, then deferring any decision is a good idea, I agree. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This should have been settled long ago. But until it is, the deletion should stand. (H) 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for now, while I disagree that a BLP issue exists here, I think we need to let this settle down. We already saw last night that throwing more fuel on the fire is not a very good idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be general agreement that, irrespective of the merits, this application for review was mistimed. Would it be in order to snowball close this case pending events? --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'd be better off if the request was withdrawn, and then this was closed as request withdrawn for now. Early closes are part of the problem in this mess, and if we have to have another one, I'd rather it be one that nobody is in a position to disagree with. GRBerry 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on practical grounds. I strongly disagree with the decision to delete the original article, but this is not the way to go about changing it. I'm agreeable to the Snowball. DGG 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This is a request for assistance to restore access to the archives of this talk page. I don't know how they were lost but as a clue to the administrator who handles this, the article recently was changed from Scientific Revolution to Copernicus Revolution to Copernicus revolution and back to Scientific Revolution. I'd also appreciate help on creating an archive2 for the articles through February on the present talk page, which is extremely large. Thanks for the help. SteveMcCluskey 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of people by name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The debate was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: "it has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof.

This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request overturn and delete. >Radiant< 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). Kusma (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete but hold on. I think the consensus was clear for the deletion, but there were various concerns expressed, either in form "Keep for now" or "Reform". There should be an additional discussion on how an "exit strategy" should be performed and the information moved & reorganized; some proposals were present at the AfD, but a centralized discussion should be held somewhere WPP:BIO? WP:VP? I'm not sure. Duja► 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not overturn. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --Alvestrand 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the delete argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -Halo 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that in theory this list page is a nice idea, but in practice it really doesn't work at all. >Radiant< 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea in theory, while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ever happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as unmaintainable, while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting delete, particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -Halo 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. Arkyan • (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. JuJube 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. (H) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. WP:NOT USEFUL is no more valid than WP:USEFUL. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. GRBerry 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --W.marsh 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Delete arguments strong, keep arguments poor, consensus to delete apparent. Otto4711 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. Xfd is not a vote. There was no consensus on any points raised by either sides. The discussion mostly consisted of useful vs. not useful, along with a few "waste of resources" and "indiscrimate/incomplete" - I don't see any merit in these arguments. User:Carcharoth had some great ideas, and I think this probably played a large part in the decision to not close the discussion based on a straight vote count. --- RockMFR 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. The arguments on both sides are valid. Consensus is not about majorities or supermajorities or even about who has the stronger arguments. It is about finding a reasonable solution that tries to address the points made by all sides, and that every reasonable person can accept, even if it is not the perfect solution. Yes, an alphabetical index of names of people is a useful navigation aid that belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, this list as currently implemented is largely unmaintainable. But deletion solves nothing. The solution is to come up with a way of making such a list maintainable, whether it is done with the current software through bots, categories and/or templates, or by proposing and implementing changes to the MediaWiki software itself. DHowell 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is it intended that these pages be replaced with an appropriate set of categories, as proposed during the deletion discussions? If not, then what is the point of deleting them which would result in a net loss of information? If so, where is the planning for the replacement categories? —Phil | Talk 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The consensus to delete in the AfD was clear and overwhelming: 10 keep arguments vs. 26 delete arguments, and the deletion arguments were all quite strong, pointing out glaring flaws in a huge, manually-updated, mostly unknown index such as this. Krimpet (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Agree completely with all the comments above. I always found the "no consensus" conclusion to be false in nature as every discussion has SOME consensus. Step up the deletions. Bulldog123 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of no consensus is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. WilyD 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Inherently unmaintainable due to size. - Merzbow 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- DS1953 talk 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Clear consensus to delete. WarpstarRider 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting keep b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- Lini 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - because there was no consensus. Jheald 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - The fact that there are a significant number of people who have stated that they found this list useful, and that numerous people have vouched for the list in the most recent and in previous deletion attempts, disproves the notion of a consensus when it comes to deleting this list. --Slyguy (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete, and kill it with fire. This is practically the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that it is absolutely and completely unmaintainable to boot just makes it worse. Nandesuka 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - this seems to be precisely what categories are meant for (and they don't fall out of date). WP:NOT#IINFO issues. Orderinchaos 19:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as no consensus If there ever was an article with a confused debate justifying a conclusion of no consensus, it was this one. DGG 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete - talk about an unmaintainable mess. I looked at the MFD and it looks like a pretty good consensus to delete. Then I took a look at the list and looked for a few well-known football coaches - Frank Beamer and Bobby Bowden. Neither was listed. That's not exactly a spectacular sample, but it tells me that the list isn't well-maintained. If a bot could auto-populate the list from categories ... ok ... it might be useful ... but if it isn't going to be maintained, it's a nightmare. It's a potential vanity target and I'm sure nobody has all of the kazillions of pages on their watchlist. --BigDT 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - and add this as an example to what Wikipedia is not. AKRadecki 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per consenus to do so in the discussion. ViridaeTalk 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus, agree with closing admin... however, suggest centralized discussion to move forward to Carcharoth's proposal. Am puzzled, incidentally, as to why this was on MfD rather than AfD. -- Visviva 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete This article is doomed to fail, as it is per se not maintainable. --Mbimmler 11:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - totally without merit--Docg 11:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Agree with Radiant's reasoning. This is a case where theory is at odds with reality. Sure, it would be nice to have an organized list of all people by name that's magically updated by the Wikifaeries. That's not what we have and it's not reasonable to expect this list will ever be maintainable. As for process concerns, the delete arguments were more compelling and numerous. ChazBeckett 12:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus as per DS1953. I'd say that to any individual user of Wikipedia, the vast majority of articles are "useless" because they are far outside their fields of interest or study, and many pages appear "unmaintainable" to the uninitiated, but no one would want to see them deleted because of that. Moreover, I don't yet see any consensus among those who wish to delete it as to how it should be replaced. The list of people by name serves the honourable purpose of an alphabetical index, something you can find in any scholarly book. Personally, I can't think of any replacement. <KF> 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People does not contain a single name ("Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories where appropriate"), and the subcategories are also maintained manually. Where's the difference? And users like me are interested in people rather than, say, people by revolution. <KF> 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the point. What Nandesuka says is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in the relevant "policy" (List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). As I already tried to point out, it is an index used for cross-referencing and other things, an essential requirement for any written work of non-fiction which aims at being transparent rather than cryptic. As to its alleged unmaintainability, the List is admittedly incomplete. But tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles are; after all this project still is, and will always be, work in progress.
  • Also, I'm still waiting for someone to suggest an alternative. It would be plain crazy to delete the effort of many years without making it accessible for further use, so what about projectifying it? <KF> 20:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus, especially in light of Del votes that should have been left uncounted,
_ _ for merely echoing currently or previously well-answered arguments like "unmaintainable", or
_ _ for contradicting other del args, e.g.: either loading system or duplicating search's function has to be an invalid arg, since these thousandish, well-under-32K main-namespace and templates are insignificant portion of our thousand-times-bigger load for DB-space and article count, and the impact of search on response time (when search isn't shut off to avoid that impact) means we should be doing everything we can to reduce the number of searches -- in light of the high proportion of bio articles (~20%), that would include having search start by looking for keywords that are first words of sortkeys of yesterday's LoPbN, and if there is one, asking "Are you sure this LoPbN page wouldn't do the job?" before starting any search."
(Sorry if making that last point here sounds like seeking another bite at the apple. And my 4 years of making this tool my principal editing focus (which isn't, despite the arguments of a keep voter or three, any argument for a keep result) does probably leave me by far the best prepared to state or counter some arguments. But the highly procedurally defective AfD/MfD in question came at the time that would most handicap me (at any time in those four years) in making those arguments. (I focused my sparsely available on-line time, and much of my think/research compose time -- perhaps foolishly, but that's not the articles' fault -- mostly on the procedural problems, believing that waiting to raise them here would best avoid letting discussants waste their time on a tainted process.) The overwhelm extends to the point where i'm not even sure whether my point-by-point on the nom'g arg is one of the things that is on the page or just in a steno-book awaiting keying and saving.)

--Jerzy•t 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the nom is going to offer here a refinement of an argument made during AfD, i am going to single it out to be countered here. They deprecate a keep arg
it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them

(IMO probably not quoting an actual version of it), saying

simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof.

But in fact this does nothing to counter the repeated observation that there are many cases like Hoffman/Hoffmann/Hofman/Hofmann where the alpha list makes possible an eye-ball search much shorter than alternatives. Nor does it acknowledge that even the contrived 4-way confusion cited here is capable of being reduced by the mechanism that's been in use for years on some pages, and probably is on the page or pages with those Hof... surnames: "This name may sound like" [another name] lks. Note that even soundex or automated fuzzy searches could not do as well as such cross referencing, bcz the c-ref'g can be targeted at cases of real names, and even (with enuf effort) at names that actually are misspelled on Web pages. (And, No, that's not fully implemented either, and Yes, it'll take a lot more work to do so, but the question is not whether the pages are ready for prime time (neither is Thai art, which groans for expansion but not deletion), but whether its existence is more burden than an aid to users. The tool doesn't say it's complete, and implies it's not; if it needs to say it on every page (except permanent index-only pages) to avoid being misleading to some readers (not argued let alone demonstrated), the "incomplete" notice can be put on every page simultaneously, with about 5 minutes total for editing and testing.) (Gotta run again, w/o finishing proofreading!)
--Jerzy•t 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete Although I am normally an advocate of wide admin-discretion in closings, I think Radiant's nom. provides a conclusion rebuttal in this case: this close was not reasonable by any measure. The impracticality of this list is clear, so I feel relisting is unnecessary. Xoloz 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, not only is this completely useless, but it is totally impractical, will never be complete, and is a textbook example of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The delete arguments in this case are much stronger than those for keeping, and that should have been considered. If the "no consensus" closure is endorsed, the list should be relisted on AFD. --Coredesat 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still fail to see the point. What people say here over and over again is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. They even quote the relevant Wikipedia policy. Now the List is even a "textbook example". However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE (List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). Referring to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is probably the weakest delete argument of all, as no one is willing, or able, to explain why it applies here in the first place. <KF> 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, that looks like a pretty clear delete consensus to me. That's a pretty clear case of "what categories, redirects, and search are for." Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • User:UBX/Suicide – Deletion endorsed. Creator admitted intention to disrupt. If editors choose, they can express their personal issues well enough without the aid of a template, so the arguments about freedom of expression and the health benefits of discussing feelings seem trumped by the arguments in favor of deletion. Listing for a another large discussion would be a more persuasive option, even at the cost of additional disruption, if there appeared to be a good chance that some additional light would come from the extra heat. – William Pietri 03:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I, the creator of the box, do no longer contest the deletion. But I did not make it to disrupt, as the above poster writes. Any belief in that is a misunderstanding. Thank you. -Eridani 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:UBX/Suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)
  • NOTE that this debate started May 17th.

Cyde deleted this userbox without any sort of discussion or even notification. The matter was brought up on Cyde's talk page but Cyde provided only "common sense" as the criterion for speedy deletion. Other users contested that it was common sense to delete the page. In short, Cyde's deletion was out of process, and the page in question should be undeleted, at which point Cyde or some other user may choose to initiate a proper deletion discussion. The Storm Surfer 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have reopened this deletion review to allow for further consensus, per this discussion. To see the userbox prior to the deletion, see here. Sr13 09:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, seems like a good decision to me. That userbox is potentially dangerous (for those who cannot view the history, it is a black userbox with an image of a pill bottle and "This user is suicidal"), and it is indeed common sense to delete it. --Coredesat 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suicidal people is just another group of people like liberals/goths/anarchists, we should not give them special treatment, instead the proper response to treat them as people like ourselves. WooyiTalk to me? 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore userbox for heaven's sake. First, suicide-prevention experts encourage people who experience suicidal thoughts to talk about them - I thought that was common sense. We are not doing any suicidal people a favour by deleting this userbox; all we are doing is reinforcing the stigma of mental health problems. Second, we have many userboxes describing contributors' afflictions, including template:User depression. These things help contributors relate to each other and understand how to talk to each other. BTW I don't like the pill bottle picture on it. Kla'quot 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sticking a userbox on your page is not talking about them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a counseling service, discussion forum etc. --pgk 07:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Displaying this userbox is talking about them. Deleting the userbox because WP is not a counselling service is like deleting User:Disavian/Userboxes/Nearsighted because WP is not an opthamology clinic. Kla'quot 07:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to nominate it for deletion. It is totally useless for building an encyclopedia. I haven't said we should delete it because wikipedia is not a counselling service, I've said it's not a reason to keep it (which is a different thing). Your analogy fails, no one is saying that userbox should not be deleted because it is part of the healing process for those who are myopic --pgk 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no when you said "Wikipedia is not a counselling service" you didn't say whether that was a non-reason to keep or a reason to delete. I think we agree that the userbox's therapeutic benefits to the user are slight. My point is that singling out this userbox for deletion reinforces a stigma. Kla'quot 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Neither divisive nor inflammatory. trialsanderrors 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are en encyclopedia - don't be so bloody stupid.--Docg 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has WP:BEANS connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes per se, but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia. --SunStar Net talk 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...just as divisive and inflammatory as a userbox of "this user is an aspie" or "this user is an anarchist". WooyiTalk to me? 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn, not divisive or inflammatory, and when is someone going to step in about these deletions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FFS. We're making an encyclopedia - and you are defending blatant trolling. Now, I can respect (but disagree) with your ultra-inclusionism as being in your opinion in the best interests of the encyclopedia. But calling for an undeletion here is simply disrupting wikipedia to make a silly point. Stop it and behave.--Docg 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • FFS indeed. I'm not defending blatant trolling at all. Don't ask me to behave, start by pestering the folks who are causing these problems (a hint - it's not the people making the boxes). --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I fail to see how this userbox could be used in a non-disruptive fashion.Lkinkade 13:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it could be used in a disruptive fashion either. WooyiTalk to me? 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not divisive. Not inflammatory. Actually helpful for building the encyclopedia. I was recently reminded that my first visit to RfA was in this discussion, where an admin who "wasn't behaving rationally" (self-description) one day and had stopped using the tools asked if the community trusted them to resume use of the tools. Had we known they were in emotional trouble, we probably could have done a better job helping and minimizing damage done to the encyclopedia. So this userbox is useful for the encyclopedia. GRBerry 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Retract the bolded opinion and first two sentences based on AuburnPilot's opinion below. The remainder of the comment stands as a comment, reserving the right to opine after I figure how to balance the value versus the poor intent. GRBerry 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted. Sure, not divisive or inflammatory, but an appropriate case of WP:IAR. Give me a freaken break. On top of everything else , for all I know we could be liable - and certainly liable for bad publicity - if a person posted this, we didn't do anything, and the person was then found floating belly-up in the tank. Herostratus 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When can we treat suicidal people not as special people, but just as people like ourselves? Why can't you view them just as you view everyone else? I find this moral panic disconcerting. WooyiTalk to me? 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one says Wikipedia is a therapy. WooyiTalk to me? 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Should have gone through TfD, but it's a disruptive userbox insofar as the drama associated with people intervening (or not) when users announce that they want to kill themselves disrupts our work on the encyclopedia. Sandstein 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any instance or potential for this userbox to be disruptive in any way. WooyiTalk to me? 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to TfD Process is important, so undelete. Out-of-process actions, unless entirely uncontroversial, are bad for the project. By their nature, they are not transparent, and they tend to sow confusion, especially among inexperienced editors. If nothing else, actions like this support the contention that an admin has traded mop & bucket for sword & shield. Untested consensus is no consensus to act. If the feeling against this template is that strong, templates for deletion should rapidly arrive at the same conclusion that Cyde did. --Ssbohio 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it controversial to delete a suicidal userbox? Has Wikipedia really fallen this low?! --Cyde Weys 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the number of vociferous arguments on both sides, it seems clear to me that it is controversial. — The Storm Surfer 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cyde, StormSurfer has a point. If the deletion was entirely uncontroversial it wouldn't be at deletion review. The fact that anyone took the time to locate and delete this userbox can be used as evidence of how low Wikipedia has fallen. The existence (or not) of this (or almost any) userbox pales in importance next to the improvement that could be made to encyclopedia articles. On a (hopefully) humorous grammatical note, wouldn't a suicidal userbox be prone to deleting itself? --Ssbohio 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Process is irrelevant, this is transparently plain silly. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted and stop wasting our time. Where in the hell has common sense gotten to these days anyway? --Cyde Weys 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This troubles me on a couple of bases. First, this isn't an "us & them" kind of thing. We're all (presumably) here to produce an encyclopedia. Second, the act of disagreeing over this deletion is not, in itself, a departure from common sense. People of good conscience and the best intentions can & do disagree. It's easy to see that your deletion was an attempt to boldly improve the project; We just disagree on the method & its effect. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inflammatory userbox, and Wikipedia is not a counselling service. This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has WP:BEANS connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes per se, but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia.

— User:SunStar Net

This comment is controversial, I realize that, but this one does have problems, in a moral, legal and publicity sense. To undelete it would be a very bad idea. --SunStar Net talk 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who made the userbox, and I just want to clear something up: I did not make it to troll, disrupt, seek any sort of help, or for attention. I made it only because it is true. I cooled down since Cyde's cold and apathetic attitude on the matter, but I see that Wikipedia, nor society, is not ready to accept suicide, for whatever reason. I don't see how it's disruptive, as I was probably the only one who was ever going to use it, and my userpage isn't exactly the most popular, but that doesn't matter now. I support it's undeletion, but it seems Wikipedia's users really have a stigma for it: so be it. Make any snide comment about this as you like: I will not respond either way. Let those who argue that Wikipedia is not a place for such things know that it was merely a little fact about myself, nothing more important than the fact that I like spaghetti. And let ignorance remain bliss. Just wanted to say something before it gets deleted. -Eridani 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a person's free choice whether to commit suicide or not. WooyiTalk to me? 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me your law degree as basis for your assertion? This is a serious real life issue; it isn't something any amateur can just make up answers to. --Cyde Weys 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether there would be liability. I do know that no-one here is qualified to say whether there would be liability or not. And I know we don't need the uncertainty. --138.38.251.193 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take an attorney to know that a third-party bystander is not liable for failing to stop a suicide. For there to be liability, there must be a legal duty to act. What goes on here isn't about credentials. Not having a J.D. or a D. Div. doesn't invalidate the information offered. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn sorry for foul language here, but seriously, wtf? This userbox not only should be kept, but it's also a very good one. We have userboxes that express the user's identity, like we have userboxes to indicate the user being Republican, Democrat, libertarian, goth, emo, geek, depressed, aspie, why we can't indicate the user is suicidal? I've seen now admins like Cyde trying to wage a war on teenagers, basically. WooyiTalk to me? 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, you caught me. I'm waging a war against teenagers. Uh-huh. You teenagers need to get over yourselves; the world is not out to get you. --Cyde Weys 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We knew you had it in for userboxes, but teenagers too? How about puppies? (I'm kidding) This isn't the angst- & drama-ridden discussion that some of these comments (not speaking strictly of Cyde's) would indicate. It's definitely not a clear-cut and uncontroversial deletion, so it should go through the process. --Ssbohio 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still on the fence on this one and don't like userboxes in general, but there is a difference between "This user is suicidal," on the one hand, and "This user is about to commit suicide" or "This user advocates suicide" on the other. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - If you have suicidal problems, go see a psychiatrist. Wikipedia's not your cry room.--WaltCip 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you have the problem of being a Democrat, go to a psych ward...I'm a Democrat and I use Wikipedia as a cry room...what kind of absurd logic is that? What's the difference between being suicidal and being conservative/liberal/anarchist? WooyiTalk to me? 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being suicidal can be used as a tool for disruption; being a Democrat isn't ("omg i hate u all im gonna go democratic" isn't quite a threat.) This isn't a userbox supporting a specific stance, such as "I support the right to end one's life," this is one saying "I'm suicidal." For people who are legitimately suicidal, Wikipedia is not MySpace. For trolls and people unable to handle disputes, this has a high potential for disruption. (Of course, people could do that without the userbox, but there's no need to have it around as bait.) Phony Saint 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox is not for therapy either. WooyiTalk to me? 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any userbox indicating the user could commit suicide would be acceptable. What would you do if you were in a dispute with someone who stated he/she was suicidal? Phony Saint 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but we do need a compromise here to get things done. We can't build an encyclopedia if people around all have different sorts of grievances. Let's treat suicidal people just like regular human beings, as Democrats and Republicans, as punks and geeks. WooyiTalk to me? 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - clearly inappropriate userbox to me. --After Midnight 0001 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list, the wide variety of contradictory strongly-held opinions here make one thing clear: this is not a clear-cut case! It is clearly disturbing—I find it disturbing—but disturbing is not exactly the same as divisive or inflammatory. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one, but this is quickly turning into an XfD debate, and DRV is not the place for XfD, so I think we should run a proper XfD debate to get a wider audience. Xtifr tälk 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • T1 (divisive and inflammatory) applies only to templates. This was in userspace and that criterion is not applicable. This deletion was an IAR/Bold deletion, and, in my view, one that absolutely needed to be made. The last thing we need is parents blaming Wikipedia because some kid put this UBX on their page and nobody intervened, or, worse, that someone from Wikipedia pushed the kid over the edge. --BigDT 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion I was very surprised to see anything about helping potential suicides on wikipedia. I think we should remember this is just an encyclopedia. Anything that happens outside can't be fully its responsibility. The problem must have already been fuming. --Tellerman
  • Oh, for God's sake. Extreme monkey endorse deletion. When process becomes more important than content, then Wikipedia is lost. Corvus cornix 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Overturn If somebody has this userbox on their userpage or somewhere else, then somebody can talk to them away from Wikipedia, and get them some help, or encourage them to do so. If you want to delete it, at least put it through AfD, and do it right.--CJ King 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be silly I'm surprised to see people like Cyde and JzG taking IAR justification for granted on their action to delete the box. Of course their motivation is intolerance, is bigotry, against suicidal people. Why can't we just treat them as regular human beings? We treat goths, gays, anarchists, and Republicans like ordinary people, why can't we do the same to suicidal people? In another hand, self-identified suicidal people can be very helpful for Wikipedia, just as anarchist have an expertise in anarchism-related articles, suicidal people should be encouraged to edit suicide-related topics, which is their area of expertise. To build an encyclopedia we need our basic open-mindedness for all human beings, including suicidal ones. Suicidal people is just another group of people, there is nothing to worry about. Everyone act on their free choice. Again, we are here to build an encyclopedia, we need people from different background. We need Democrats as we need Republicans, we need goths as well as punks, we need non-suicidal people as well as suicidal ones. Pretty simple. WooyiTalk to me? 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've cited an essay and a policy that doesn't necessary apply in this case. I fail to see how this prevents improving or maintaining WP. JPG-GR 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said this should be taken through proper deletion policy. We're already in the process of deleting it, so relisting to AFD for the sake of policy is unnecessary, if not manipulative.--WaltCip 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR only authorizes actions that improve the encyclopedia. Once we are having a discussion about whether something improves the encyclopedia, citing IAR is a circular argument, not a valid argument. IAR also requires that the rules prevent the improvement, not merely that the rules would delay the improvement. Absent a claim that unreasonable results have occurred in MfD for this specific page, IAR isn't relevant. Without holding an MfD, it can't produce unreasonable results. In fact, IAR is almost never relevant to an explanation here. GRBerry 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has encouraged overdosing...why can't you treat suicidal people just like everyone else, just like Democrats and Republicans, I find this moral panic disconcerting. I've been painstakingly reiterated that suicidal people is just another group of people, like goths/liberals/geeks. WooyiTalk to me? 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suicidals aren't just a different "group" of people along the lines of various political/social affiliations. There's a difference between having a certain opinion on big government vs. small government and wanting to kill yourself. You still don't understand why this is being deleted. It's because claiming to be suicidal is stupid, disruptive, and has liability concerns for Wikipedia if someone has that on their page, nobody steps in to help, and then they end up offing themselves. And stop throwing around phrases that you don't understand like "moral panic". There's no moral panic here. If anyone wants to be so stupid as to kill themselves, let them. You can't catch suicidalism. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wooyi has confused the term "suicidalist" and "masochist."--WaltCip 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find suicide to be a morally neutral endeavor. Suicidal people don't constitute a clique, they are individuals in the midst of a psychiatric emergency. Further, we have no way of judging whether each use of this template is deliberate trolling, a symptom of some personality disorder, or a real plea for help. In any case you would have amateur therapists popping up to recklessly attempt to reason with the user, others to fan the flames and try to involve every official agency they could contact, and yet more users that become personally invested out of empathy or some vague sense of responsibility. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. So, um, lets avoid that. If an editor expresses any wish to commit suicide, politely refer him/her to a mental health professional and discourage any attempt to seek intervention through Wikipedia channels. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and Cyde's. However, still, IMHO, suicidal people are not "individuals in the midst of a psychiatric emergency". They are a group, a "subculture" if you like to use that term. It is connected to a desire, i.e. the desire to die, as many groups do have a desire to do something, like stoners have the desire to smoke marijuana, bookworms have a desire to read, plain simple. What we need to do is to treat them as ordinary people, without prejudice or patronizing attitude. WooyiTalk to me? 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that suicidal individuals are not in the midst of a psychiatric emergency, then I don't think we have anything more to discuss. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindented) Well, I can understand why people are so afraid of seeing people "suicidal" because of the life/death issue. However, a "desire" to die is different from the action of suicide. Many have been suicidal, having the desire to die, but never actually do it. It's the same logic that if a person has sadist desires but never actually beat/torture/kill anyone, no law enforcement would go after him. Being "suicidal" and commit suicide killing yourself is two different issues. WooyiTalk to me? 19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As far as I know, we don't have a group at my high school that proudly call themselves the "suicidals" (and if we did, 9/10ths of them would have been admitted to a mental health ward by now.) Wooyi, use a bit of common sense - by your logic, there are subcultures out there of arsonists, thieves, murderers, and terrorists. Should we include userboxes for them too? I'm a bit nervous about the idea of having a userbox with a text that reads "This user identifies himself as a terrorist" next to a stereotypical picture of Osama Bin Laden.--WaltCip 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Many have been suicidal, having the desire to die, but never actually do it." Because he or she hasn't DONE IT YET. There are three stages: wanting to commit suicide, committing suicide, and then having committed suicide. There is no "I want to commit suicide, but I haven't yet, maybe I will, but I won't, or shouldn't, but I really want to."--WaltCip 19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I want to commit suicide, but I haven't yet, maybe I will, but I won't, or shouldn't, but I really want to." That's exactly the case many people experience. Take an analogy, when myself get really stressed out, I may have a desire to smoke a cigarette, but I know smoking is not ok for minors and is bad for health, so I don't do it despite the desire. People contemplate about death, sometimes wanting it, yet realize the legal/moral obligation not to kill yourself notwithstanding the desire to do it. That's the essence of being "suicidal". WooyiTalk to me? 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore for heaven's sake. Wikipedia is NOT a censor. OK, it IS supposed to be a "serious" project, but if people can have "This user likes donuts" then why not this userbox? Please be mature and at least give sensitive issues like this a proper forum before deletion.
Strong endorse deletion. This userbox, trumpeting as it does the self-destructive tendencies of anyone who might use it, is patently unacceptable and harmful to the mission of the encyclopedia. Any userbox in this category should be considered "deletable on sight" by any admin. Cyde made exactly the right call. Nandesuka 13:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read your rationale as not liking the content. The encyclopedia will soldier on whether someone's userpage has a small box on it or not. Only noncontroversial "targets" should be deletable on sight. Wherever you come down on this deletion, it's certainly not uncontroversial. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasonable assumption that this userbox is going to be nearly inflammatory and divisive. WooyiTalk to me? 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Closing explanation: Examining all the comments carefully, it is clear that a significant portion of the community does not endorse the unilateral action taken in this case. Hence, "overturn." As for the fate of the article, it was surprisingly uncommon for folks to request relisting, so it will not be relisted at this time. Normally, DRV is for discussing the decision-making process involved in a deletion, not for deciding on the fate of the article. But there are too many comments on what we should do with the page for them to be ignored because of that, so I feel it's important, given that the debate will not be relisted, to interpret this debate as deciding on the fate of the page.

Many folks made arguments explicitly in support of redirecting the article; the main arguments were based on WP:BLP (that the article, though sourced, presents mostly negative information) and that the other article already contains all the content this one did. Some of the undelete comments endorsed returning the article in full, although many either explicity endorsed the redirect solution or were merely opposing the way the decision was made. Those in support of full undeletion made two main points: (1) we can try to fix the article / it was okay, and (2) the prior AfD resulted in a keep. Neither of these is really an argument against redirection; in response to point #2 we have multiple AfDs on articles frequently: consensus can change. In fact, I didn't see any good arguments that directly oppose the (2nd) argument for redirection. (And, though many people said "Endorse deletion," I really don't think they wanted the redirect to go away, but if I'm wrong, head over to WP:RFD.) Thus, I have to conclude that the consensus and the weight of the arguments here is in favor of the redirect.

I hope this closes the book on this particular article, at least for a long while. Mangojuicetalk 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another controversial WP:BLP deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by the Google cache ([45]), and is a central figure in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including Fox News. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. Also, a previous AFD resulted in Keep. *** Crotalus *** 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all Some commentary has been moved to the talk page. It will need to be courtesy blanked later. Please do not say anything else that will need to be courtesy blanked. GRBerry 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. Whether we like it or not, there are sources that exist to write about her. I don't see any urgent BLP concerns that warrant deletion. --- RockMFR 04:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the undeletion of the history and restoration of the redirect, along with Uncle G's insightful comments below, I've struck my vote. I think we have now achieved the correct result. --- RockMFR 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although, it obviously should be left up to editorial judgment (read: not speedy deletion) whether to merge/redirect to the main article. The sort of details in the article are the kind that nobody will care about in 5 years (or now, for that matter). --- RockMFR 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was apparently deleted for lack of a fair use rationale. The article was deleted for reasons that are unclear to me; the existing state of the article had some problems, but these could have been handled by one of the two other methods I described above. A full deletion and salting was not appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was discussion and a defense of the fair use rationale of this same exact image within the last two weeks and it was decided then to keep the image. What has changed since then? Duke53 | Talk 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not terribly relevant. The way, the truth, and the light 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Out of control editors unilaterally took it upon themselves to forcefeed their Point of View on Wikipedia. The notion that Crystal Gail Mangum does not warrant a biographical article is so absurd that it can only come from a mendacious reviewer. It's obvious that Wikipedia is the new frontline of ideological warfare and it's disgusting that editors can't work toward consensus. The article's redirecting was a heinous act of bad faith. Ikilled007 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to hear from the two admins involved in this decision (Tony Sidaway and David Gerard) precisely what was the problem with the article. Not "violates BLP' or "Violates undue weight". I am asking for objections to specific phrases or sections, so that those who feel that this article is valid understand the rationale for a speedy delete. As I noted on the talk page for the article, Monica Lewinsky and Monica Coghlan were also people who were tangentially involved in a single notable issue; I will be a bit provacative and mention QZ, who was similarly unwittingly involved, and was also the subject of an alleged BLP vio. And Tony, please don't misrepresent what I said. I said there was issues with some of the details (such as the GPA, which was irrelevant; the whole college enrollment thing was irrelevant), but that doesn't mean I said the article was unbalanced, and as I noted earlier, the portions that you probably dislike the most are the ones that are most relevant to the case. Horologium talk - contrib 06:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently only one of the guys you mentioned above is an admin ... from what I am understanding there was also a second (unnamed) admin involved in deleting and burying the article, etc. Duke53 | Talk 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be User:David Gerard who has been busily nuking everything related to this article. Photos, previous history...Both have been working seemingly in tandem on this since the whole thing erupted. Horologium talk - contrib 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that somebody mentioned ("I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and presumably so did the admin who deleted it") another admin (as yet not named) as being involved in the feeding frenzy, not just the two guys previously mentioned. Duke53 | Talk 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the log (at the top of this discussion), it appears that User:Zsinj was the one who deleted it. Horologium talk - contrib 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All i did (or so I thought) was cleaning up the history of the page by deleting all revision except for the one which contained the protectedpage template. ZsinjTalk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this not be solved by redirecting the article to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal? >Radiant< 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a redirect, but it's been contested, and User:David Gerard nuked the article and salted it, with no discussion permitted, please. Horologium talk - contrib 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted in the nomination, the above would be an acceptable solution to me. (I can't, of course, speak for the other commenters.) Another possibility is reducing the article to a stub and then protecting it, and discussing changes on the talk page to avoid BLP issues. This has been done before with other articles, I think. *** Crotalus *** 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I could live with a stub being expanded into a full article through consensus. What happened here was not that. Horologium talk - contrib 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Get the history back, maybe switch it to a redirect. The application of BLP is a fucking joke around here, we'll be blanking articles on criminals next because we're giving the crime "undue weight", and deleting them for "deceny" reasons because they're fat. We're a fucking encyclopedia. - hahnchen 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP beats all the "votes" possible on DRV. This was established recently by Jeff's previouis exciting arbitration case and is about to be established in the next one - David Gerard 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain to me why neither protecting a redirect, nor protecting a stub and then carefully discussing additions on the talk page, would have met the requirements of BLP. Why is an ugly redlink needed? Furthermore, the discussion on both the last AFD and this DRV clearly calls the BLP allegations into question. This is why I wanted to draw the line earlier than this — if this keeps up, pretty soon we'll have nothing on Wikipedia but hagiographies. *** Crotalus *** 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify out-of-process deletions and protections. You have to discuss, allow other users to discuss and explain how the article was so drastically in violation of WP:BLP that this action was necessary. Prolog 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to first demonstrate that this is a BLP violation. You must then demonstrate that there's no non-BLP-violation available. And so on and so forth. You can't just scream "BLP! BLP!" and have it be done with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't work like that. We've grown up a bit. Attack articles are speediable anyway. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does work like that. Thiswould be an excellent time to read WP:BLP, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I predict two things: firstly, sooner rather than later the interpretation of the biography of living persons policy will be clarified by the arbitration committee; secondly, you will not like it one little bit. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking at this one yet, I simply note that a claim of WP:BLP is not a self validating claim. To stand, it needs to be supported by specific facts about the article and its prior versions; the criteria being set out within WP:BLP. Are those criteria met? GRBerry 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The article survived Afd by strong consensus. The proper forums for changes, deletion etc. in this case are WP:AFD and Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum. Looking at the page histories and the logs, this whole mess seems to be a WP:POINT violation involving two or three users. Despite how good their intentions might be, this is simply disruptive. Prolog 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (also known as WP:POINT) refers to someone making an edit that he knows to be damaging in order to illustrate the potentially damaging effect of a suggested line of action or of actions performed under an existing policy. It doesn't apply to good faith actions performed by Wikipedians in order to improve the encyclopedia. A good faith removal under Biographies of living persons is, furthermore, calculated to reduce disruption, so it's hard to argue that it's more disruptive than maintaining unencyclopedic content on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Controversial bold actions in controversial articles usually lead to drama. There were over 700 revisions to revert to, and that fact combined with the edit button and the talk page would have produced a much more appropriate result. Prolog 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. The article on the scandal has all relevant encyclopedic information about the person. I'd like to see a protected redirect here. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, merge, redirect, delete – that's for the community to discuss. Redirecting and then protecting would be inappropriate, unless there is a consensus to do so. The editors in the last AFD certainly thought this should have its own article. Prolog 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Due to the amount of problems BLP-related articles are experiencing with regard to deletion, undeleting it would allow further discussion which is clearly warranted. BLP is not a magic wand to make not-nice articles disappear. ZsinjTalk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete with full restore and reprimand the deleters -- She is not a victim or even alleged victim. She is a victimizer who falsely accused three people of rape. Her false allegations likely were motivated in part from her own racism. There's an article about the guy who kicked in and shot up V-TECH, so there should be an article about her. The real victims were the people she falsely accused. Wikitruth.info has a good version explaining this. SakotGrimshine 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it as it is: What we have here is an article including every single bit of information that any media source has managed to dig up about this person, including medical records, grade point average, previous unrelated employment, dates of birth of her children - and this is the cleaned up version. Many of the originating sources used in this article - quotes from the lawyers of the accused, her former employer (whose club is now getting all kinds of free advertising), opinion pieces and so on - are hardly objective and reliable sources, even if they are quoted by others. Everything left after removing the irrelevant personal information and the information from questionable sources is already in the main article. The administrative actions, while bold, were entirely correct and within the requirements of BLP. Risker 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Redirect to the incident maybe, but just turning this into a redlink is very misguided. I'll now load IRC so I can hear the snarky comments about me. --W.marsh 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete too many sources to qualify for G10.Geni 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Not notable in herself and a hindrance to her future, we are not hand of fate in charge of hanging albatrosses about people's neck. Fred Bauder 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Although it's practically piling on at this point. Other than Tony Sidaway and David Gerard, who seem to think they don't need to answer to anyone but themselves, I think there is consensus that CGM is a proper subject for an article. I looked at the previous version via Google, and it could probably be cut down to 1/2 to 1/3 its previous length by simply eliminating information that is already available in the main article - which is also the same material that I suspect is most objectionable to Sidaway and Gerard. Unlearned hand 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The people who blanked/protected redirected the article might have been trying an IAR-type thing, which they believe would better the project, so people probably shouldn't get annoyed with them. The complete initial lack of an explanation and avoidance of discussion of the issue until badgered into it helps better nothing, though. Voretus 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete the amount of interest and coverage at Wikipedia alone speaks for itself. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I am unconvinced that there is any persuasive reason to keep this separately from the scandal article. What about her is significant that is not something that would be covered in a well-written article on the scandal? Phil Sandifer 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#G10, pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. It is abundandtly clear form the content and history of this article and 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal thast both have always exiosted primarily as a vendetta against this individual, pursued zealously by the team and their supporters. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD result was keep, not speedy delete per G10, so the article could have been reverted back to a proper revision, which makes a G10 speedy incorrect. We revert vandalism and delete libelous content, we don't delete articles because they have been the target of such edits. Prolog 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: I've read through the entire deleted article and I'm still confused as hell as to how anybody calls this an attack article. I'm also failing to see how this article is in any way a BLP violation. The article is/was properly sourced with reliable sources, and clearly stated only what facts exist. Regardless, it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. This is what AfD is for, people. - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this article has certainly gone downhill in tone and uphill in sourcing since the AFD in June last year. While my reasons in that AFD for supporting a merge are no longer valid, I still believe that merging or redirecting to the article on the scandal is the best solution. The closing admin should drop the list of sources in the last (non-redirect) deleted version onto the talk page of the scandal article for consideration. Coverage of the scandal should adhere to WP:NPOV. While that will make her look bad, it should be done in the way set out at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves. GRBerry 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that this is a valid BLP deletion, I believe that it is invalid on the explicit terms of WP:BLP. GRBerry)[reply]
  • Comment: This really needs to be added to the RfAr about the QZ deletion. This is getting to involve the same issues with many of the same participants. I'd also like to add that the uncivil, combative attitude of the deletionists, especially Tony Sidaway, is not helpful. The way, the truth, and the light 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise if I have been uncivil in this discussion. As far as I'm aware this has not been the case. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete in the face of the AfD debate, which was hevily in favor of keep, a well sourced article on a person whose name has been made very public should not simply be speedy deleted. Editing down, possibly. If some versions of the article include unsourced or PoV content, reverrt, and possibly selectively delete or oversight such versions. Clearly not a proper speedy delete -- speedy is supposed to be for uncontroversial matters. Not a BLP issue, as BLP does not support deelting well-sourced content. If supported as an IAR action this seems to fall into the category of likely to be controversial actiosn where the use of IAR is unwise and will be reverted. 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DESiegel (talk • contribs).
    Much of the content in the article would be hard to support as well sourced, or even encyclopedic. Much of it was sourced, and heavily so, but that's not the same as saying it's balanced. Remember that our neutral point of view policy is to be taken very seriously, and attack articles, even heavily sourced ones, even articles that have survived a deletion discussion, can still be speediable. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've made your opinion clear, Tony. You might want to actually read a couple of these policies you keep quoting instead of repeating yourself here over and over again. Unlearned hand 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly in this case, written policy lags considerably behind application. See for instance the arbitration ruling I cite below, which isn't written up in any policy yet but applies wiki-wide. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin should take a look at this principle adopted by the arbitration committee in November by 6-0. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a former professor of mine was fond of saying, "True, but irrelevant." That policy does not apply here, except in your opinion, not the community's. By deliberately choosing to spit in the face of the community, this whole drama was created. If proper procedure had been followed, any problems with the article could have been fixed, and we wouldn't be dragged through all this crap. Unlearned hand 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The principle behind the Rachel Marsden case refers to an entirely different concept. The Rachel Marsden article may have been a hack job, but it is possible to write a balanced article reflecting various media/commentary views on her. If the media and public portrayal of this girl was almost entirely negative, then that is how we, as an encyclopedia would present her. Do we need sympathisers and prison penpals to write a glowing paragraph on Clayton Waagner? - hahnchen 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reserve judgement on the comparison as I have never seen the old Rachel Marsden article. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted as relevant bits are already in the scandal article. Going by this entry on Public Figures, I would conclude that this individual still qualifies as a private figure, despite the notoriety of this case. Therefore, following BLP and Jimbo's own words "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.", I feel this article should be deleted, and careful consideration to sources and comments used in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal should be used to ensure no violations of BLP occur there, either. --InkSplotch 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you figure? From Public Figure: "A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis." If Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty can involuntarily become public figures because of Mangum's allegations, it follows to reason that she becomes a public figure for her involvement in the case (which, of course, was eventually revealed as a hoax). Ms. Mangum is unquestionably a public figure, at least under American law. Unlearned hand 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say unquestionably...I question it. But even if she does qualify as a "limited public figure," that applies to her participation in the Duke scandal (duly covered in the scandal article) and not to her past or her private life. It may have benefited her prosecution to release such information to the press, but that doesn't mean such a topic is suitable for Wikipedia. --InkSplotch 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you an attorney? BLP, essentially, is to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. CGM is a public figure (not a limited public figure), and there's nothing in the article that was deleted that would cause Wikipedia any legal liability (since it was all properly sourced). That being said, there was a lot in the article that could easily be culled, but given that she is a notable public figure, there is some relevant information about her that does not belong in the main article. If anything, her own article should be more sympathetic than the main article, because there's not much of anything to say about her in that context that can be anything but negative, unfortunately. Unlearned hand 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me, how about you? I understand the Wikimedia Foundation is in need of new legal counsel. That being said, I disagree with you on several points, and you haven't said anything to change my mind. I don't believe she's a public figure, I don't believe BLP is, essentially, "to keep Wikipedia from getting sued", and most of all, I believe in the essence of BLP that this article was properly deleted and should remain that way. And as this discussion continues to grow, it looks like I'm not alone in that view. Thank you for responding to my comment, but I don't think we're making any progress changing each other's minds. --InkSplotch 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am. And while I'm not giving legal advice, etc etc etc, I see no problem with the article. I wasn't aware WP was looking for new counsel. Interesting. Unlearned hand 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, Wikipedia does not exclude non-public figures. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does provide for a greater presumption of privacy for non-public figures, which I feel applies here. Even as a "limited public figure", I feel adequate coverage is provided in the Duke scandal article, and currently an article on her just runs afoul of BLP. --InkSplotch 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, deletion is not the only solution to a bad article. Surprise, you can edit them too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. It looks like a clear case to me. This subject is clearly notable and the article was completely sourced and presented no legal issues. It does not look like an 'attack page' to me, and if it is, it could be rewritten using consensus as any other article is. This person is notable enough that a person coming to Wikipedia would expect to find something and a redlink is not really acceptable.
  • In addition, given the controversial nature of this case, there is a strong appearance that any deletion was made in bad faith. I am not accusing anything - but many people may think of it as censorship. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, people's opinions on notability do not trump BLP. Corvus cornix 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, this has got to stop. There is plenty of source material available for an article on this. If the article was bad, stub and semiprotect, don't just hit the big red button. BLP prohibits negative unsourced material about living persons, and I am 100% behind that. But it does not prohibit negative sourced material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete There is no BLP violation; the material is so widely public that having it in WP will not make the problem worse, nor will removing it help. If the name had not been widely disclosed I would of course have supported the immediate removal of the article DGG 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please heed these proscriptions at WP:BLP:

  1. Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
  2. Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
  3. the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

  4. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

    — Jimbo Wales [1]
Corvus cornix 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with every one of those principles, Corvus. But let's go through them.
  1. Regard to subject's privacy: Using information which was already published in reputable sources which are nationally or internationally available does not violate a subject's privacy. The information is, in this case, already a matter of wide public knowledge.
  2. Relevant to notability: The subject is notable due to involvement in this case.
  3. Do no harm: Again, this matter is already a permanent one of public record. We're not bringing out information nobody knew, we're summarizing information that's already been widely publicized.
  4. No tabloid journalism: Again, we're not bringing out some sensationalistic fact that very few people were aware of. We're summarizing existing source material, which was already widely available and widely read.
  • Again, I fully agree with the principles of BLP. But it is a remedy which must be applied carefully. Sometimes, negative things regarding living people do bear mention. Sometimes, a person becomes notable for doing something bad, or for something bad which happens to them. It's not our job to make value judgments here. It is our job to make sure that any negative information about a living person is well-sourced, that undue weight is not given to negatives, etc. But when something is mostly negative, it's not undue weight to reflect that. That's due weight. The articles we have should be accurate and balanced. But they should not necessarily be nice or pleasant. Sometimes, we've got to cover some pretty unpleasant topics. When we can cover that in a neutral, well-sourced manner, we should do that. Even if someone doesn't like it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this article was that it didn't just cover what she was notable for (which is all covered in the article on the scandal anyway) but also contained a lot of muckraking about her past, apparently the result of research by the defense attorneys--who in any case could hardly be regarded as reliable sources in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • " ... the result of research by the defense attorneys--who in any case could hardly be regarded as reliable sources in this instance." Well, the official report by North Carolina's Attorney General (Mr. Cooper) pretty much confirmed everything that the defense attorneys had been claiming all along; are we not to believe the official report and its findings? Duke53 | Talk 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliability of sources is something that can be dealt with without deleting the article. I don't think there were any such problems myself; also, major, respectable media outlets should be taken as reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. The way, the truth, and the light 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically just not true. Pretty much everything (if not everything) was sourced to a mainstream media source. At one point court documents were the only place that her name was printed, but of course that's no longer the case. It's considered proper to call her by name everywhere except on Wikipedia, it seems. Unlearned hand 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If muck dug up gets published in a newspaper, that doesn't stop it being muck, nor does it make it reliable or balanced simply because it has been repeated by a secondary source. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor does your singular opinion that it's all "muck" mean anything more than that's your opinion. Unlearned hand 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly singular. administrators have access to the deleted material and I don't think many of them are thinking, "hmmm, seems balanced enough, and it's all encyclopedic." Far from it. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus seems to be going against you. Unlearned hand 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait until it closes. BLP is pretty powerful. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL This is getting obnoxious. - Unlearned hand 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the defense attorneys dug up dirt and released it to the press. How is it our obligation to "report" it? Why does this woman need an article, when everything that needs to be said about her is already in the rape case article? If she had not been involved in this case, ther would have been no biography whatsoever. Leave it as a redirect, it's pure sensationalism to report dirt about a private individual. And that is exactly what she is. Corvus cornix 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's not a private individual. See Public figure. Unlearned hand 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to agree with the proposition that she's a private individual to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of hosting attack pieces and muckraking. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those that disagree with you would not characterize it as an attack page. The way, the truth, and the light 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that constitutes their bone of contention. The facts are pretty plain, though, and are available to administrators. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this administrator disagrees with you. AfD is the place to decide this, not amongst a cabal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This administrator does too, Tony. If the article was problematic, stub it down to only what's sourced. But do not delete. We're not talking about a completely unsourced negative piece, which may be deleted without question or discussion. We're discussing something for which a lot of source material exists. That requires a discussion, not hitting of a button. And from what I'm seeing here, it appears there's anything but wide agreement with your position. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all I want is a redirect. Stubbing down is not necessary. Everything relevant is in the article about the scandal. We don't need the muckraking, in fact we should not have the muckraking at all. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP - it appears the relevant material is already in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal and, looking at the deleted article, it clearly had major issues at the time of its departure from stage left. Orderinchaos 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect, obviously. We have an article on the scandal, and the only reason anyone knows her name is that event. Why would this be controversial? Friday (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect was just deleted again (with an improper edit summary). Anyway, many of us think she should have her own article, just like Monica Lewinsky who's also known only for a scandal. The way, the truth, and the light 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, and regardless of the outcome of this way-too-long deleton review, a redirect for now is not harmful in any way I can see. Friday (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Monica Lewinski became a bit of a minor celebrity, this other woman did not. There are enough proper sources for the Lewinski article. Don't you see a big difference in the two situations? Friday (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's spelled 'Lewinsky'. There were reliable sources for this article. Of course there's some difference, but not (in my opinion) a relevant difference. The way, the truth, and the light 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A lot of these "endorse deletion" arguments are based on the idea that community consensus does not determine what is a BLP violation. That's a somewhat reasonable position to hold. But that does not mean that administrators who like to speedy delete things out of process determine what is a BLP violation, either. -23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's right, community consensus isn't that much use in determining what is a Biography of living persons violation. The facts are much more important. In the context of Wikipedia, it means that an administrator can summarily delete an article that is a violation of that policy. Administrators always have discretion over deletion. Their decisions can be appealed but not simply on the basis that they didn't cross some t or dot some i. The wellbeaing of Wikipedia comes first. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that undeleting BLP violations just so we can say process was followed is stupid. But I don't just dispute that this article was deleted through the proper channels, I dispute that it was actually a BLP violation. -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The most relevant section of WP:BLP is WP:NPF. There was a pile of irrelevant stuff in this article; if that was pared down, and the shaky sources (e.g., any sources quoting the lawyers for the accused, in particular) were removed, everything that was left was already in the main article. The event is notable, none of the individuals involved are - neither the accused nor the accuser. Risker 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on her not being a public figure, which is disputed. In any case, deleting some of that information doesn't require removing the whole article. The way, the truth, and the light 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NPF says don't publicize it if other reliable secondary sources haven't. It doesn't say we have to have subjective standards about who's public and censor our content based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically thinking of this sentence: "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. " The number and ages of her children are not relevant to her notability. Her grade point average is not relevant. Her previous employment and education history is not relevant. The names of her prescription drugs are not relevant. The sources are used in such a way to extract only the salacious information, while excluding information that contradicts other edits to the article; one source quotes the manager of the club saying she worked only three nights in March (none before the incident), and another source quotes the manager as saying they had to drag her out of the club, possibly causing her "injuries," a few nights before the incident - but only the "dragging her out" bit is included in the article. That makes the article a NPOV problem as well, I suppose. Risker 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the initial media coverage portrayed her as a "single mother and honor student", the information about her children and education is entirely relevant. The stuff about her medications I would take out. And pretty much everything that is more appropriate for the main article should either be deleted or moved there. You'll be left with a much shorter article, but I think a better one. - Unlearned hand 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens. Wasn't that back when the newspapers were following the customary practice of not using the name of the accuser? What if they had published her home address and telephone number as well? Wikipedia is not obliged to include information in its articles just because a reliable source used it. Did either her parenthood status or her studentship have anything to do with the incident? That would be a valid reason to include this information, but someone else publishing it first isn't. Risker 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those facts shaped the initial media coverage of the incident - and still does to this day for some people who just can't let go of the idea that the whole thing never happened. So yes, they are relevant, whereas things like her phone number or home address (or whatever drugs she is taking that don't have anything to do with how apparently drugged-up she was when she showed up to "perform") would not be. - Unlearned hand 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the citations in the article were to reliable secondary sources. And NPF is precisely about 'non-public figures'. The way, the truth, and the light 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that I agree, but I could be talked into it. (Until you can point me to something the defense lawyers have said that turned out to be untrue, I would contest "sources quoting the lawyers" as "shaky" - the lawyers aren't as free to lie as you seem to think they are, which is one of the reasons Mike Nifong will be disbarred in a few weeks.) However, none of that changes the fact that this deletion was done in a totally improper fashion and in violation of correct procedures. - Unlearned hand 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're saying we have to have some muckraking on Wikipedia because some secondary source has published it, you're onto a loser. That's the very thing that the Biographies of living persons policy is there to stop. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If published in reliable secondary sources isn't a standard for inclusion, what is?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's an unreasonable position to hold because it's an untrue position, and should be discounted accordingly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contents of the deleted article are available to all administrators. The facts, not a vote misnamed "consensus", determine what is or is not a BLP violation. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the facts quite clearly show that it isn't. But I guess if you keeping saying that it was often enough, maybe you'll convince someone. Very GordonWatts, actually. - Unlearned hand 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure we need that. I'm aware Tony Sidaway feels strongly his position is correct, and he's entitled to that. But the reason I don't go right over there and undelete is because I'm willing to see the discussion first. I'm quite convinced I'm correct, too. What we do when well-meaning people, who all have good reasons to believe they are correct, disagree, is to have a discussion. What we should not do is simply go take an action which will clearly be controversial and cause more problems than it solves. And I do disagree that "It's a BLP problem!" requires no more than that as a rationale, it doesn't become true through frequent enough repitition. As far as I can see from looking at the deleted article, all negative or potentially controversial content was sourced, and to pretty reliable sources, not blogs or the like. Even if I overlooked some unsourced content, that content should have been removed, not the whole thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After thousands of words on this subject, Risker is the only one who apparently supports the deletion of this article who has actually identified specific issues with the article as it was immediately prior to its deletion. We have had admins cite BLP over and over again, without actually reading the damn guideline. We have had people assert that she is a private figure, which is open to dispute. We have had people cite "Undue weight" while focusing on things that are not particularly offensive (such as her schooling and her prior service in the Navy). Thank you, Risker. Now we have something to work with when this article is restored. Horologium talk - contrib 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to later recreation of an article that isn't utter garbage. I've read the deleted article. As Risker says, "the sources are used in such a way to extract only the salacious information, while excluding information that contradicts other edits to the article." As written immediately before the redirect, the article is so poisonous that it is beyond salvaging; we shouldn't even have material of this nature in the article history, frankly. From that perspective, I support deletion. That being said, there is no philosophical probelm with an article on this individual existing. I suggest that if someone wants such an article to exist they create a clean, properly sourced, non-vile version in their userspace and then get opinions from WP:BLP savvy individuals before proposing to move it back into place. Nandesuka 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just clarify here? We have an article at 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, which exists largely to put the boot into this person, but it appears to be asserted that we should also have an article on this individual, presumably because the Duke article does not put the boot in firmly enough or something. Is that what people are arguing for? Two articles when there is only one conept, and that documented only dfue to the obsessive interest of the Duke camp? Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an administrator, and I agree with David Gerard (edit), Tony Sidaway (edit), Friday (edit), Thebainer (edit), Crotalus horridus, Radiant!, Hahnchen, W.marsh, InkSplotch, Seraphimblade, and Orderinchaos, all of whom think that there should simply be a redirect here. Deletion review isn't the correct venue to decide this. But, conversely, neither is AFD. Redirection is not deletion, and does not involve the use of administrator tools. It's a normal editorial action that any editor, even one without an account, posesses the tools to enact. At this point, it appears that there are a quite a few editors who favour doing that, and several who have actually done it.

    The reason that this should be a redirect has actually been articulated by Phil Sandifer and Risker above, and is actually a principle that we should consider elaborating and adopting, because it is one that a lot of editors appear to be progressing towards:

    Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person receives a namecheck in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically warrant a redlink, or a biographical article for that person. We should not present things in a way that the sources do not. If sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), and are not wholly separable from sources for that something else, then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the something else. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately.

    There's an unfortunate tendency of many editors to do exactly what this principle proscribes, putting everything into biographies, as exemplified by the recent attempt by quite a few editors to present information about the Virginia Tech shootings as if it were a biography of one of the journalists who reported it. That is wrong, and not what we should be doing here. Several editors have touched upon our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. That policy says that we should strictly apply our content policies to biographical content. One of our content policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that is the problem at hand here. An article that takes the account of an event, such as the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, strips off everything that isn't related to one of the participants in that event, and presents that partial account of the event as a separate purported biography of that individual, is by that very process one-sided. One-sided articles are not neutral. (It can also be argued that since it presents a subject in a context that the sources do not, it is original research, a novel synthesis of data that isn't the way that the sources synthesize and present those data.) As I did at Glasgow Ice Cream Wars, we should present such events in articles that discuss all participants and the entire event/incident/case, not present them piecemeal spread across multiple biographies of the people involved, requiring readers to stitch several one-sided accounts together. The names of the people, being subordinate subjects discussed within the context of the event, should redirect to the article on the event, per Wikipedia:Redirect (incorporating them as name disambiguation list items in disambiguation articles if they would overlap other redirects or articles, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation). We should only break out biographical articles if it is possible to write neutral articles, that are not one-sided, and that actually are biographies of a person's life and works.

    Looking at the purported biographical article as written, which is almost wholly a subset of the article on the event, duplicating in large part what the latter says, as both Phil Sandifer and Risker have noted, this principle seems to apply here. There is not a single cited source that discusses this person separately from coverage of the case. (Most of them even have "Duke case" in their titles. Even those few that don't are under a "Duke Lacrosse Controversy" heading or similar. Again, note the similarity to the way that the sources cover the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars case — especially The Scotsman's coverage. The Dartmouth Murders are covered by sources in this way, too.) This should be a redirect, therefore. Several editors have exercised ordinary editorial tools to do this. It wasn't necessary to use the delete button. But I can understand why David Gerard might perhaps have thought that in light of this edit (note the edit summary), removing the prior history would prevent people from reverting on spurious grounds of "vandalism". However, that can equally well be done with a group of editors who are willing to redirect the article and make it stick via use of ordinary editing tools and talk pages. It appears, from the number of editors who want a redirect and who have actually redirected the article, that such a group exists. Uncle G 10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes a very great deal of sense and I commend it to all parties. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single cited source that discusses this person separately from coverage of the case. (Most of them even have "Duke case" in their titles. Even those few that don't are under a "Duke Lacrosse Controversy" heading or similar. This is misleading. There are several cited sources that are entirely about Ms. Mangum (including a considerable amount of information about her life outside of the context of the lacrosse incident), but they have "Duke Lacrosse" in the title because until very recently the media had a policy of never referring to her by name. So to use the fact that all the sources refer to her in that context is not exactly a valid point. - Unlearned hand 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I borrowed this from the QZ discussion: an article about a person is an attack piece precisely if it violates NPOV. In this case, I don't think that the article did. It wouldn't be possible to be much more neutral based on the sources we can use. A few people have identified minor problems, but nothing that even comes close to necessitating deletion.
  • Also, this is DRV. This is supposed to be about process, not just about content. There is absolutely no doubt that process was not followed. If this article has such severe problens that deletion is the answer, it should have been listed at AfD - and remember, this article did suffer one AfD, which was an unambiguous keep. If this article is undeleted (i.e. restored to the last full version), it can of course go to AfD immediately.
  • But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not typically an argument given much credence there, nor should it be. Given the nature of this article, it is likely that many people on both sides are reacting based on their opinions on racial issues and the Duke rape case rather than on this person and article. That makes it even more important that process be followed to minimize bias and the appearance of bias. The way, the truth, and the light 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly you did not read Uncle G's comments above. It does violate WP:NPOV because it asserts that this is the only thing that has ever been significant to this person, hence WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies. With an astronaut, it is clearly the case that the spaceflights are the isngle most significant thing they are likely to do in their life, but when someone has done nothing but piss off some jocks, they do not deserve to have those jocks victimise them for the rest of their life by means of enforcing a "biography" that consists solely of the times external media mentioned the individual in connection with an event with which they were connected, however intimately. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirecting, nothing to write about the person (as opposed to the incident), no useful information is lost by having one instead of two articles about this subject. Kusma (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. Uncle G's comments are compelling. We've got way too many "biographies" that are slanted presentations of a single event. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uncle G's essay above sounds nice in discrediting sources which talk about a person only in relation to some larger issue, until one follows this argument to its logical conclusion: ignore sources which mention Abraham Lincoln only in relation to the larger issues of railsplitting, or politics, or slavery, or the American Civil War, or assassination. Why, there are hardly any sources left to use in writing about him. Or to a closer parallel to the present issue, a sports coach is only written about in relation to the success of his team. A police detective is only written about in relation to cases he works on, or perhaps to scandals, and there the article is really about the scandal, not the individual. This seem a sophistic way of discounting sources about the role of person x in large newsworthy issue y. Were it not for large newsworth topic y, wwe would likely not have heard of x, so we should not have an article about him. Also, one loses some respect for Wikipedia as a collaborative effort when someone says "you have to abide by my position because of policy WP:BLP but I refuse to read the policy because it must mean whatever I want it to mean, and my opinion counts for infinitely more than anyone elses." Edison 14:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely correct. - Unlearned hand 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, more like completely absurd. Plenty of people have written entire books on Lincoln's life- he's in a vastly different category in terms of the kinds of sources covering him. We let the sources be our guide. Friday (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an absurd point of view; there are biographies of Lincoln which cover the man in full. What biographies are there are? Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, exactly. Myra Hindley is a much better example: she has been covered extensively as a person, including whole biographies, so while no biography of her will exclude the moors murders, equally we know much more about her than just that. This is where the Mangum case falls flat: basically we know next to nothing about her other than in relation to the case. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're ruining your own argument, actually. We know plenty about her outside of relation to the case. The problem is that there's not much good to say. BLP is not a bludgeon to ensure that only happy flowery positive biographies get in Wikipedia, but rather a heavy-handed protection to make sure that articles reflect reality and aren't harmful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation IIRC, the two editors who started this whole heavy handed process of deleting the Crystal Gail Mangum article (and the appropriate image of her) are both Australian; the editor who quickly closed the review process is also Australian. Perhaps there is some bias involved here because the story was only a HUGE national story here in the U.S.A.; perhaps the Australian media paid little, if any, attention to this hoax. Duke53 | Talk 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - Very sourced article and BLP issue was not a reason to ignore consensus and decisive Keep AfD. --Oakshade 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, since this seems open again. The article presents a lot of negative facts because most of the relevant facts about her are negative, not because the article is biased. PS: I think the idea that BLP decisions may only be reviewed by Arbcom is ridiculous, and bears no resemblance to policy. Ken Arromdee 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that, from an editorial standpoint, this should be a redirect. However, a redirect is not a decision that an editor can make and protect against consensus. I disagree very strongly with the argument that Tony or David can simply cry BLP and unilaterally remove their actions from any normal review process. Although this article was not balanced, I do not think it qualifies as an "attack article" any more than the articles on Theodore Kaczynski or Terry Nichols are "attack articles". This was a person who was ultimately cast in very unfavorable terms with respect to the central reason she was "newsworthy". While the facts themselves must be balanced (and there is certainly reason to argue here that more favorable facts were omitted in this article), it should not be surprising that in the case of some living people, their article will be overwhelming negative because the reason they are in the encyclopedia at all is because they did something that was overwhelming negative. In this case, the correct action is to redirect, not protect the page and certainly not delete the page history, Let the normal editing process do its job. -- DS1953 talk 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BLP calls for the removal of unsourced negative material. Everything in this article is well-sourced. Telling the truth and being able to document it is a complete defense against BLP just as it is against libel. BLP only applies to unsourced negative material. The attempt to extend it is an attempt to end NOTCENSORED. DGG 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think notability and sourcing issues are the only problems — the deletion log states an admin deleted the article due to its status as a "coatrack article", meaning it has little coverage of the main subject and then deviates into a related topic. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect - per Uncle G. FCYTravis 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. She's not notable. The redirect should stay, but in and of herself she isn't actually notable, thus she shouldn't have an article. The lacrosse scandal page has 100% of the notable information; any page on her would be filled with non-notable junk, and as she isn't an important figure, there's no reason for her to have an article as of this time. Titanium Dragon 04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. There are some balance issues with the article as linked by FCYTravis, particularly in terms of word choices, but that is fixable (who will be willing to do so is another matter). The sourcing is overall very solid (this was, after all, covered extensively by most of the premier media outlets in the US), so I don't see how the major BLP concern comes into play. I will respond here to Uncle G's thoughtful and persuasive comments about how the biography form is a poor vessel into which many things on Wikipedia are poured. I have agreed with that sentiment for some time. I believe it happens for a reason, though, and if we are to push back against these factors we need some stronger guidelines about articles. (I would be opposed to writing these into BLP, though, as they should be at the guideline and not the policy level.) Thus, what we have here is really a dispute over editing style (article structure) and not truly one rising to the level of process. The factor that is most evident in encouraging this article structure is that a "person" is a discrete topic about which one can hang all sorts of miscellany without running afoul of synthesis charges. Individual mentions of a person that don't cross-correlate themselves except via the name are perfectly acceptable resources to use in a biographical article. If John Smith is a politician and also a painter, as long as you can verify that they're the same person you can write about both parts of his life. You don't need an extensive justification for writing about his paintings, such as an essay comparing his use of chiaroscuro with his positions on the national health plan legislation. Any other article structure, such as "Duke lacrosse scandal", is much trickier to navigate. Defining the scope of the scandal can take weeks of wrangling on the talk page. Mentioning illustrative biographical details that aren't sourced as "relevant" a la the chiaroscuro example can be very dicey, even if they're "useful" or "interesting", if no journalistic source has deemed their relevance. Even determining where to start with the narrative can be vexatious and subject to POV pitfalls. A biography is simpler, straightforward, and generally chronological. What could be easier? (Note that many of the same rationales apply to articles on neologisms, one reason we have so many of them.) Whereas with something like the Mark Foley scandal, it can be frustrating to even come up with an article title (e.g. is it a sex scandal if no physical sex took place?). If there's to be an initiative discouraging the biography structure, it shouldn't be applied here for the nonce, it should be discussed and agreed upon. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (protected) redirect per Uncle G. BLP involved or not, this is an editorial decision, and the article was an uncontrollable WP:POVFORK from the main Duke Controversy article (which contains all relevant details about her life), serving no real purpose and encynclopedic value. We are not tabloid press. And please, let all read the green text above. Duja► 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am convinced by Uncle G's reasoning and rationale. Leave it redirected. A separate article on a person whose sole claim to notability is related to the scandal when her role is covered in that article already, is a content fork. I must also say I feel sorry for the subject as well, and I think that the fault for the mess is mostly in the hands of the jurists who ought to be more professional. A big Wikipedia bio as the first hit on Google detailing her involvement is a huge burden to carry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/leave as protected redirect - hopeless trainwreck of an article being edited in bad faith. Nicely structured attack article/POV fork we're better off without. Moreschi Talk 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Connections Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted earlier today for being a spam article, however the article did not read as an advertisement, but an a description of what the school was. I believe some of the links were not neccessary, hwoever I feel deletion of the article was not warranted. Wildthing61476 01:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The article wasn't written particularly well, but it wasn't so much an advertisement that deletion was justified. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per revision to article. As the deleting admin, I still believe the article in its current state is advertising that fails to mention the subject's notability. That said, I just did a news article search on the company and it is obvious the subject is notable. The problem is that the current article doesn't show this notability. I'll support bringing back the article IF additional information, including references and criticism section, is added. --Alabamaboy 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: I just restored the article so these changes can be made. best, --Alabamaboy 13:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Additional closer's note: For the avoidance of doubt, no decision was made here on whether or not to protect the redirect. GRBerry 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Sourced, verifiable and free content not repeated elsewhere completely lost due to redirect. Note: the article underwent a second AfD in May, 2007; article contents were different to when first AfD conducted. G2bambino 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, redirect, protect Normally I'd be pointing out that redirections done right aren't a DRV issue. However a merge has taken place in the past (see the logs), so we need to preserve history under the GFDL. And history was deleted following AFD2. So a clear mistake has been made, and should be fixed. Redirect is the blazingly obvious consensus of the second AFD discussion. Normally I'd say that merging and redirecting is an editorial issue, subject to consensus on the target article's talk page. However, I see in the deleted history the beginnings of an edit war over where the redirection should go. So the redirect should be protected until such time as a consensus to change it is forthcoming. GRBerry 01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, redirect the edit history needs to be preserved, that is important, imo. Brian | (Talk) 01:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all the history (including that from the first AfD, keep redirect and protect. -N 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete the history, do not protect the redirect. Protection isn't warranted at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry guys, I didn't realise the merge had taken place previously - All revisions now undeleted and redirect in place. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - subsequent redirects after I closed the AfD were simply copy an paste moves of the orginal article with a slightly different name - that's why I originally deleted the whole page and simply restored the AfD redirect. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


22 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Love Not Riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This organisation has multiple press sources, and a number of notable figures supporting it, which were mentioned in the article. Certainly not A7 criteria. Darksun 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Notable figures endorsing something is not really an assertion of notability for the thing. Besides, these press sources weren't even cited, and the article was two sentences long. If the subject really is notable, then just write a new article using these press sources. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[49][50][51][52] Are some of the sources I've just found. --Darksun 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good. Now you can write a new article with them. Why would you need a stub that doesn't assert notability to do so? I mean, I don't have a strong objection to undeleting if there are sources, but there's not really a point. -Amarkov moo! 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Entrance_Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am requesting the article titled “Entrance Software” to be undeleted. I have checked the deletion log, and it appears that the article was deleted due to a proposed deletion by Naconkantari. I feel that the article had provided relevant and factual information that can benefit college students about the company, aiding them in making decisions when applying for summer internships as software engineers. There are many articles on similar software related companies, such as Microsoft, Accenture, and Amazon, providing invaluable information for those researching for future careers before entering the job market straight out of college. The article on Entrance Software provides similar information, and does not violate the Wikipedia content criteria. 205.196.183.229 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nat Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not clear as to why this article was deleted. There were numerous sources, and I can certainly track down some more, as well. 216.115.180.7 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a contested WP:PROD with the rationale "Doesn't meet WP:BIO i.e. no notability in the career. All roles are extraordinarly minor (i.e. cable access TV, regional theatre, off off broadway, role as an extra in a movie.) And while not a reason itself for deletion, it's possibly got POV conflicts and it has a promotional tone. i.e. heralded". If you disagree with that, we can undelete the article. --W.marsh 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW the WP:PROD guidelines weren't followed entirely in the deletion summary:
(For Admins): If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod.

Though it sounds like WP:BIO won't be met if the PROD is correct. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to undelete this as a belatedly contested prod, without prejudice to an AfD, but the deleting administrator should be asked first. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy undelete per WP:PROD: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. Taking this here to deletion review is ipso facto contesting the PROD; that the contesting is a bit late is just a technicality, and we don't give too much weight to technicalities. Herostratus 18:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Zionism and racism allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Delete, becausee the vast majority of the people either wanted this article deleted or merged per previous Afd. The result certianly wasn't keep. Sefringle 06:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am the closing admin. I did not count "votes" and AfD is not a vote. The Delete arguments were a good deal less cogent than the Keep arguments, is what it comes down to. "Delete - no way can a NPOV article ever be written here - so let's not try" is not a strong argument. "Delete. This article is ridiculous..." is not a strong argument. "Delete per nom" is not a strong independent argument. There were several "per nom"s , throwing a lot of stress onto the nomination. And what does the nomination say? "Clear POV fork, no sources. This page attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism, which is a clear anti-Israel POV. Also the entire page is origional research." It does not appear to be a POV fork as it has existed since the fall of 2005 and it is not specified what the fork is from. "...attempts to prove that zionism is a form of racism..." seems untrue; the article if anything tends toward explaining why Zionism is not racism. Lack of sourcing is not a deleteable offense when the subject is notable, which I think it surely is; no one is making the argument that the subject is so obscure or marginal that no one would likely look it up... The only argument that doesn't fall apart at once is the claim that it is original research. I found this to be not proven. Herostratus 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The votes for deletion was basicly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. // Liftarn
  • The article is a POVFORK of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 and should be merged. There is no need to duplicate the content: the allegation entered the mainstream with the UNGA Res 3379 and was revoked (even by the unreformed UN) by the UNGA Res 4686 and belongs in the history's dump, together with other old Soviet propaganda junk. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with merging, but why are we discussing a merge on the board for deletion review? >Radiant< 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep - Seems like many/most of the delete votes were by the same cast of characters trotting out the same non-arguments in other controversial articles they don't like, such as Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Tarc 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, closing statement seems entirely proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do version histories go back before August 2003? Looking at the two mentioned article's histories, this article is older (by 4 days), however the edit summaries of the earliest version available in the history tabs for each indicates that the earliest visible versions of both are reactions to some prior version somewhere that was not considered neutral. Figuring out where that article or article(s) were would depend on getting those involved back in 2003 to remember it. So we can't decide which article is a fork, if either. However, being a POV fork is only a tangential issue now, as DRV is not AFD round two. GRBerry 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Merge is not a version of delete, it is a version of keep. Merging remains a valid subject for discussion and consensus forming on the relevant article's talk pages. With many of those whose first choice was deletion also indicating that merging was acceptable, keep is clearly the consensus of that discussion. GRBerry 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit-conflicted Endorse closure. No opinion on the article, but I wouldn't have found a consensus (i.e., in our practice, a well-argued supermajority) to delete here, either. The keep result does not rule out a merger if consensus for it subsequently materialises. Sandstein 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) moved from the CyberPower discussion, as the content of the opinion and the diff clearly indicate that it is intended for this discussion. GRBerry 18:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Endorse closure There was certainly no consensus to merge, or to delete. It might conceivably have been closed it as "no consensus", but the closure as "keep" is also justified, and has the same result. DGG 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure: Sandstein really hit the nail on the head with this one. 24.2.128.44 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I might have closed as no consensus, but since the effect is the same, it really does not matter. Merging remains an option, but that needs to be discussed on the relevant talk page by people who know the subject well. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CyberPower PCs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleting admin deleted based on WP:CORP, but based on the state of the article at the time, not whether the subject actually met the criteria, and with gazillions of G-hits I suspect the subject would indeed meet the criteria. Votes are roughly evenly distributed, meaning no consensus seems to have been present. Morgan Wick 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. If you can demonstrate that it does meet the criteria, I might change my opinion, but we can't undelete things because it might be possible to create an article that is allowable. -Amarkov moo! 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (or if non-admins have a say, overturn closure(s) and continue AfD(s)): I wrote the following comment on Blnguyen's talk page:
I was wondering if you would consider taking a second look at some of your AfD closings from 16 May. I am not sure that some of them reflect community consensus. For CyberPower PCs, for instance, another administrator KrakatoaKatie relisted to get a further consensus--three further arguments were given, two for keeping and one against, I am not sure how this could have resulted in a consensus to delete. I think your argument [there] is a good one, but I think that arguments like this should happen in the AfD and not in the closing, where they can't be disputed by other users. Similarly, for Cec Cinder, two other admins felt that the discussion did not reflect consensus; after four more voices were added--two for and two against--you closed as "spam" based on a low alexa rank, which no voice had the opportunity to dispute. Finally, for Titus North, the only AfD I participated in (where I suggested Neutral, leaning delete), you stated "Does not pass the PROF or political guidelines; no reasons given as why this person is an unusual case. As pointed out, he was the second of two candidates, so he was the only outlet for dissent." No one argued that he passed PROF, so that seems uncontroversial, but whether the community felt that he passed the political guidelines had not been concluded--it seemed like a relisting to get further consensus was in order. Thanks for considering these ideas.

My comments don't have to do with the outcome -- I think that I would lean toward recommending deletion in all three cases -- but with the process. I don't believe that closing admins should express new arguments which have not been yet raised in the AfD in the closure comments--it gives others no voice to contest these statements. From what I've seen elsewhere, Blnguyen is a great admin and contributor, and it could be that I, with much less experience, have missed something. But I don't feel like voices (even those of Admins asking for further comments to find consensus) were listened to in these AfDs. I haven't looked earlier than May 4, but the fact that Blnguyen has only closed deletions (>10) with one redirect, at least gives the appearance that these closures are not considering a balance of opinions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion: "Meets WP:N and WP:V" doth not a keep rationale make. David Mestel(Talk) 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline opinion with strong disagreement with the opinion by David Mestel. Meeting content policies (WP:V, others) and notability guidelines (WP:N or WP:CORP) are excellent grounds for a keep opinion. The nomination however, was about this being spam. That requires evaluation of different policies, most significantly WP:NPOV. Frankly that is a terrible AFD; everyone seems to be talking past each other without even discussing the same issues. The one party that mentioned WP:CORP in the discussion prior to the close hasn't seen it since the merge with WP:ORG settled down, as the stock market criteria was removed back in February. I frankly can't figure out what the closing admin should have done nor whether what they did do was reasonable. I think the spam claims are wrong given the criticism section in the article, but that the article did not demonstrate notability clearly. I think I'd have closed as no consensus and then speedy deleted for failing to assert notability myself. GRBerry 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the number of comments was not large, it is very clear that there was no consensus to delete. It does not seem appropriate for a closing admin to ignore keep arguments and basically state that he is applying a "speedy delete" criteria to close the discussion as a "delete". -- DS1953 talk 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion didn't meet WP:CORP didn't satisfy WP:N. I agree with GRBerry and would likely have taken the same action.--Dakota 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep Cyberpower and its PCs are quickly found with a google search, including long reviews of their products [53], [54], [55] which certainly are reliable (IMO) and independent (IMO.) The article needed a good clean-up and some NPOV, but that's all. Cyberpower Inc is one of the few companies to make customised PCs which are reviewed in major PC magazines. (Conflict of interest: I "voted" "Keep" at original AfD.) Mmoneypenny 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Care.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

ValidArticle Rjongm 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Because? You need to provide a rationale as to why you believe that the deletion was improperly done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list The article was deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as spam. I think that is a very borderline call. A couple links ought to go, but the article as a whole does not require rewriting. I also believe notability is adequately demonstrated by these three links that were in the article (references 1-2 of 5 and external link 4 of 4) at the time of deletion. (I agree that the nomination here is not helpful.) GRBerry 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Opinion changed. Endorse deletion as per Sandtein's argument below; this doesn't yet have an adequate chance at surviving AFD. GRBerry 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that the article had been read. This was not profane, self promoting, or otherwise. The article is modeled after very valid predecessors. Care.com is a Web 2.0 service related to issues which are poorly covered in Wikipedia, specifically child care and elder care. I contest that the editors are experts in the area for which Care.com was deleted so readily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjongm (talk • contribs). I note that this users undeleted contributions all relate to Matrix Partners, the VC firm backing/partly owning this company. GRBerry 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes - I made edits to the Matrix Partners page as it contained sparse information. I believe a concerted effort is required to bring the Wikipedia information about venture capital private equity investors and their companies updated is required. Separately, Care.com is unlike most venture investments as it is led by a woman and serves women. As I said before, women are an underserved market on Wikipedia and in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjongm (talk • contribs)
  • Undelete and stub Having had a look, I do agree that this was a pretty borderline G11, but the article as written was pretty promotional. I think, however, that sufficient independent source material for an article does exist. (However, my argument to undelete is based only upon this. It is unequivocally not part of our mission to correct "underserving" of any "market".) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right. No need to make any broad statements here so I apologize. I do offer to rewrite or remove links to make more acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjongm (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I deleted the article upon request of some other editor, from the speedy deletion category. So I am no the only one thinking it fitted the criterium. Rjongm'a comments that I have not read it is unnecessery and unpolite. I did. And making a call that an article, by an editor that only edited within it's scope, of a 2 week old commercial site IS a CSD G12 is not far fetched at all. So I think it should stay deleted but, naturally, I do not oppose that it is undeleted and listed on AfD. And I acknowledge the author's nice gesture of warning me of this review. - Nabla 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC) OK - I thought that by the speed of deletion that the references had not been checked. Apologize for being wrong. My intention of writing an article about a newly launched internet company is not unlike what I have seen for Geni.com. User:Axlq made the initial WSD recommendation and User:Sandstein reversed that decision only several days after launch. There is reason to believe that Care.com is a significant web property not unlike Geni.com. Rjongm [reply]
Apologies accepted, off course. - Nabla 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless some rationale is provided. G11 articles by single purpose accounts are not often overturned. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Hi Brad, I noticed you also made the AfD tag on the Matrix Partners article. In the history, you should see that my SPA account is because I saw that Matrix was poorly reported on. It's interesting that you would recommend it for deletion since I did not even start that article. I understand you are upset that there is some out of control editorializing of Wikipedia, but do please take the time to review content as I pointed out to Nabla prior to deletion. There must be a wave of activity required of administrators. So I don't like to see inconsistency in Wikipedia, but unfortunately because the oversight is inconsistent, there are articles on companies or investors and then non-articles on equally or more important topics of interest. Precendent is an amazingly powerful force, so if you do indeed want to stamp out all articles on investors or start ups (even notable ones like Matrix Partners-they funded Apple for example, it is important to clear out the articles which currently violate your policies. That would go a long way to help your purpose, Brad. Please let me know. Thanks!Rjongm [reply]
  • Speedy close, no arguments given for undeletion. Corvus cornix 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#A7, no claim to notability per WP:CORP. It can have an article once it is more than a few weeks old and has some substantial editorial coverage. The sources cited are essentially press releases, or not reliable. The author, Rjongm, (who, I might add, asked me to comment here) also has some hallmarks of a conflict of interest situation. Sandstein 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree that the three links provided by User:GRBerry above are the strongest argument so far that the article should be kept. But, per WP:CRYSTAL, it's hard for us to create a reliable article when the web site is only just going into service. (None of the three links describes the writer of the article as actually using the site). This is my substantive reason for not wanting to overturn, the procedural one is that no error in the deletion process was described. Listing this article for a full AfD is a possibility (since what we are reviewing is a speedy) but nothing in the above gives much reason to believe it would survive AfD. EdJohnston 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2|AfD3)
See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Qian_Zhijun

Let's see if we can get through this without wheel warring, insulting eachother, or shutting this down without a proper discussion. If someone does instead choose to undelete and move to AfD, that's an unorthodox option, but the idea is simple: if we're not able to discuss this now, this will be heading to an RfC, which will ultimately end up at ArbCom. So let's have this run at it, come to a final conclusion, and maybe move on.

History of the article: First AfD resulted in a delete when it was all said and done. Some confusion with a relist, but no one appears to be saying the process of the first AfD was in error. The DRV from 13 May resulted in an overturning of that AfD on a few grounds, but that second AfD was aborted within an hour. Multiple DRVs concerning that deletion were shut down, and a third AfD was aborted within a few hours as well, most interestingly with a number of Wikipedians suggesting keeping the article before it was deleted and salted. An ArbCom case regarding this was declined as premature per lack of an RfC - I think we all want to avoid that if possible.

Pros: Subject is unquestionably notable, being the subject of multiple international news reports. Meets standards for inclusion. One source has called the subject one of the most famous faces in China.

Cons: WP:BLP concerns, mostly due to the fact that the subject's fame comes from his appearance, an appearance that gave him the nickname "Little Fatty."

Question of the day: Whether these BLP concerns apply to the point of deleting and salting with a subject this notable. Whether a person can be a victim of undue weight in an article when the subject himself partakes and self-promotes the reasons for his or her fame.

I say that the pros outweigh the cons, and that this should be undelete. Let's hear this out and move on - I won't push the issue further anytime soon if this doesn't go my way, assuming it gets its full hearing. A request, per discussions at the DRV talk page and at AN/I, is that the comments stay germane to why this article should be deleted/undeleted, and not glib "It's dead" or "We don't need this" comments that do nothing to advance consensus.

So let's try this, as opposed to the alternative. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, again. I agree with the original close of this article and do not see any problems with the closure that would warrant overturning. I agree with the closing comments on the second closure, and the third closure. DRV is not an AfD2 (or 5 or 7 or 42) so I'm basing this on the merits of the closure alone. Honestly, I do hope this is the last time I see this article mentioned for a while. Arkyan • (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what part do you agree with? That the BLP concerns are still strong enough, even given his notability and the subject's hand in promoting the very issue that the BLP concerns are based off of? Keep in mind, the original close of the article was overturned, so that's the last official close we have to work off of. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the assessment that consensus indicated the meme is notable, the kid is not. I see no procedural problems with the deletion of the article and support it. Arkyan • (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, merge, and redirect to List of Internet memes. I don't see that enough material is available for a full biography on the subject, but there's certainly enough source material that it merits mention. I see nothing in the deleted article's history that merits concerns relating to WP:BLP, all content was quite well sourced, and in much of that source material the article subject consented to be interviewed. This isn't a Brian Peppers situation, where the publicity is clearly and obviously unwanted and little sourcing is available. Subject is already mentioned on the meme list, the deleted material could certainly flesh out that entry. (If it is retained as a full article, it probably should be renamed to "Little Fatty" with the name as a redirect, the notability largely regards the meme, not the person. That could change in the future of course.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of miniature and terrain manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was deleted on May 5 with "content was: '[db-spam template] List of miniature and terrain manufacturers is an index of commercial companies that publish Miniature figure..." and again on May 13 for an expired prod, and has been proded again as of May 20. Given all the re-creating of the article I believe it would be good to at least have a recorded discussion of the reasons for the delete (I believe it has been created by a different user each time). And, I feel that the original deletion was in error. The article was a split-off of the Miniature wargaming page, as I recall the actual off-site links were removed, and it is akin to such pages as List of PLC manufacturers or List of scooter manufacturers. Rindis 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I followed the directions, what'd I break? --Rindis 20:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had mismatched [[ characters. I added two GRBerry 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Figured it was something like that. :( --Rindis 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been speedy deleted once, and PROD deleted once. Since the page has been recreated and we have this request here, I've restored those versions deleted via PROD. There remains an open question on the speedy deleted versions should be restored. I reserve the right to form an opinion on that subject. GRBerry 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as I'm the person who first created the page, thought I should chime in. I believe that I was acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Namely, I created a list using material that was originally in the Miniature wargaming article, so it's a list that relates to a notable subject. (You can check the history of "Miniature wargaming" and compare an old version with the (original) deleted list under question.) As far as I recall, I did delete any external links to other websites leaving only wikilinks (some blue and lots of red ones). Also, there seemed to be some consensus reached on the talk page there that this was an appropriate action to do. When the first page was deleted, I knew less about policy than I do now, so didn't really know how to properly disagree with the deletion request/proposal. Craw-daddy 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, spam. Corvus cornix 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I said above, you can see the original material that was removed to be inserted into the new article (not the one that currently exists!) at this diff. I removed the external links when I created the new page. I can't see how it's "spam" myself while many other similar lists still exist (and no, I'm not trying to argue that this list should exist because some other article exists, I'm trying to figure out the differences between such articles (like those Rindis cites) that would make one of them considered to be spam and another one not). I'm also interested in knowing what changes (if any) would make it not "spam". I ask in the interest of educating myself so that I can contribute positively in the future. Finally, I'll just comment that I thought I was following the "rules", or policy, namely the part that states "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." Now it's certainly true that there is no "Miniature and terrain manufacturing" article with that exact name, or a similar one, but as I said above, I thought it's a long list, containing relevant information on a notable topic that deserved it's own list. Craw-daddy 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscrimtae collection, etc. -- RHaworth 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sigh, deleted again, with no comment here from the admin that did it, and it didn't have a speedy tag, nor was listed AfD. Craw-daddy 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm less than happy with the response here. I originally stated that I was looking for a discussion. Both Craw-daddy and I are confused as to the reasons why this article article should be deleted. All there's been are two non-explanations. Other similar articles exist, do you think they too should be deleted (I don't care whether or not they are, just do you think they belong to a class of article that should not exist)? Do you think there is a fundamental difference? What/where is the difference between an discriminate and an indiscriminate collection of information and/or spam (i.e., can positive examples be given)? --Rindis 16:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Eugene Ewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article on James Eugene Ewing, founder of a controversial mail-order "religious" organization called St. Matthew's Churches, was suddenly deleted by Doc glasgow without any prior notice, including any mention of it on the article's talk page. I know Wikipedia has been very sensitive about articles of living persons lately, and WP:BLP was this admin's reason for deleting the article. This deletion was too hastily done, as I contend that the information in the article was based on verifiable reports. The links were to published newspaper articles, including information from the Better Business Bureau. Rather than suddenly deleting the article outright, I would rather ask that it either be renamed to St. Matthew's Churches so as to avoid the use of the name of the person in question; or put up for deletion as with any Wikipedia article.

Because the article was deleted with no prior process, I ask that it be restored temporarily, at least for the purpose of this discussion, so that users can see it and make up their minds. --Modemac 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should have an article on this guy... seems to meet WP:BIO [56], [57]. Can someone write a short, verifiable stub here? --W.marsh 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be pretty much a slam dunk that he meets WP:BIO and that we should have an article on him. However, given the nature of his activities, we need to be very careful to to word things neutrally and cite extremely well. In line citations are going to be needed here. I think the best path is to endorse deletion and encourage creation of a new article, but reasonable people could disagree with endorsing deletion, as the article has been sourced (in an old style) since its inception. GRBerry 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, stub, rewrite, endorse recreation. Doc's been good about being up-front about deletions like this, did you talk to him at all? Otherwise, yes, he meets standards, so roll it back to a neutral version and start over. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, can you suggest a specific version that you think meets standards? Because of the old style of sourcing, I wasn't able to quickly pick one that I was confident meets standards. There might be one, but I wasn't certain. (History is currently available under the usual template.) GRBerry 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created an article at St. Matthew's Churches which is totally verifiable (every paragraph referenced to the source). It might be a better idea to redirect this guy's article to the church article anyway, since not much seems to be known about him. --W.marsh 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very regrettable that GRBerry appears to have re-instated this 'article' without discussion with the deleting admin but on his own recognisance instead, as I am sure he would have been made more fully aware of the WP:BLP issues raised. To me looking at recent versions of the article it reads pretty much as an attack piece rather than having any intent to adhere to NPOV, with much of it full of WP-unworthy phrases such as "Critics of..." and scare quotes. I believe this should stay fully deleted and a redirect to the - more appropriate - church article should be used. --AlisonW 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that what actually happened was that I added {{TempUndelete}}, protected that, then restored history underneath. This is quite acceptable (although my edit summary was sub-optimal). Now that Doc has requested, I've redeleted the history. I also note that BLP requires that ALL versions of the article fail, so looking at recent versions only is not an adequate review of the article. GRBerry 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read above under history undeletion "Do not do this if the deleted version of the article contains copyright violations or defamatory material." It did. Your action is not acceptable - and your failure even to discuss it with me and inquire as to my reason for deletion (OTRS related) is also unacceptable. And this [58] (is 'Sub-optimal' a new euphemism for personal attack?) makes it clear that your action was coloured by some personal disagreement you have with my BLP views. Don't do it again, not even for Jeff.--Docg 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I redirected it to the church article, which no one seems to have a complaint about, can we just agree this is resolved for now? --W.marsh 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page should be restored and renamed Lists of radio stations. This is quite similar to lists such as Lists of people and Lists of television channels which have wide consensus for their existence, and with a renaming and some rewording of the opening paragraph this list would fulfill the criteria of WP:LIST as a navigation list. DHowell 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Closure is within reasonable administrative discretion for that debate. See WP:INN for a long winded explanation of why the presence of other, supposedly similar, articles is not signigicant. No process failures in AFD, no policy based reason to overturn given here. GRBerry 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right that I didn't give a policy-based reason to overturn, so here: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The only way this debate could have represented a consensus to delete was by a simple majority vote count. The delete arguments seemed to be based on factually inaccurate assumptions based on the article's title or its opening paragraph, rather than the content or purpose of the article (except for the existence of individual radio station mentions or spamlinks, which could have been dealt with by deleting those, rather than deleting the whole article). Some delete arguments claimed that it was duplicative of a category, but did not address the fact that the category organizes various lists alphabetically, with cities, countries, and continents all mixed together; while this article organized them geographically. Others seemed to beleve that the article was intended itself to be a comprehensive list of all radio stations, rather than a navigational list. No policy-based reason was given to delete the article, and a couple of comprehensive and non-rebutted arguments were given to keep it. This should have been closed as no consensus, or re-listed to get a better consensus.
Also, I am not simply arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; Lists of people is a featured list, and thus I would think would serve as a "role model" for such meta-lists. See also Appropriate topics for lists. There is no doubt there are a large number of notable radio stations, and no good reason this should not exist as a valid list repository in line with that guideline. DHowell 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Advanced Distributed Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was about a Department of Defense Sponsored Initiative to evolve the distributed online training arena. The ADL is funded by the DoD but works with many international organizations and the commercial world. The ADL is the DoD entity responsible for developing and managing the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). The deletion comments stated that the article violated copyrights. All of the content in this article was taken from publicly available information both on the ADL initiative Web site at https://www.adlnet.gov and from publications of the ADL. The copyright statement on the ADL Web site clearly grants permission to reuse information published by the ADL for informational purposes. A quick survey of other such DoD projects yielded many other articles of this type within Wikipedia. This article provided potentially valuable information to those interested in the work of the ADL. Jjmarks01 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, while the site in question's copyright policy [59] does state that material may be copied, it requires that any copied material display the following notice: "Copyright ©20xx Advanced Distributed Learning. All rights reserved." Since we do not allow all-rights-reserved material, nor do we allow copyright notices, the site's license is incompatible with ours. (Of course, that site may still be useful as a reference, for article material written in your own words.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Taylor Garron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In the previous AfD, there ended up being two in favor of keeping the article and two in favor of deletion. However, one of the two for keeping the article was a clear single-purpose account (see contribs), and the other person for keeping the article did not give any rationale of his own, only writing "Convinced by SaguarosRule." For my specific arguments for deletion, see the AfD. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure This was within reasonable administrative discretion. No consensus doesn't mean much; feel free to list for AFD again in a couple months if no further sourcing is found. I can envision arguments (that weren't actually made), that I would think merit a delete outcome. However, the AFD needs to be judged on the arguments actually made, so those arguments aren't relevant now. For future discussions, point out what research was done to find other sources. GRBerry 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No real consensus either way on this but it was closd well within reasonable expectations. As stated above, feel free to relist this after a reasonable amount of time has gone by without any improvement to the article, but there was certainly no fault in the process or grounds to overturn the closure. Arkyan • (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse With only those !votes after a full 5 days, either continuing the AfD or "no consensus" seems reasonable. DGG 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but encourage relisting, I don't think the closure was wrong or outside of reasonable discretion, but I do believe that further discussion of the matter could produce a better idea of consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notability - being a part of the National Wrestling Alliance is clearly notable. We have a offical website and have been noted on several websites including the NWA Official Home page, Pro Wrestling Between the Sheet, [60], [61], Wrestling Observer and a host of Wrestling Websites.JeffCapo 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Per process: valid AfD, no new evidence. Per policy: no, being part of something notable does not in turn confer notability, and the lack of independent reliable sources has not been addressed. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As closer, I'll acknowledge I was pushing the boundaries of admin discretion here given the headcount. But the delete arguments were clear and based in core policies, while the keep arguments asserted notability but failed to address the lack of sourcing. I will understand if this is overturned, but I think my decision was right. Trebor 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as above, keep side failed to show verifiability by finding some reliable sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The primary concern raised by the AfD was verifiability. There is nothing in any of the keep arguments suggesting that it is possible for the article subject to satisfy this core Wikipedia content policy. --Allen3 talk 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse Procedurelly, a relist wouldn't hurt, but given the arguments presented in the AfD delete looks like clearly the right option so it isn't necessary baring presentation of reliable sources. Eluchil404 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse guideline correctly stated, that having an article on the main organization does not imply having articles on the state branches.DGG 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per the administrators' deletion guidelines. These clearly state that verifiability, no original research, and neutrality cannot be overridden, even by consensus, and the verifiability policy pretty clearly states that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This topic apparently has no reliable, third-party sources, so Trebor correctly saw that we should not have an article on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone could give me what is considered a reliable source for pro wrestling, I did mention and link a couple in my opening statement, I would gladly add those. Thanks. JeffCapo 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You may want to have a look at the reliable source guidelines. In particular, such sources should be reputable, have a process of editorial control and fact-checking, and should cover the subject in detail. The two sites you list seem to be directory-type sites who list pretty well anyone, and I don't see that either one has a significant process of editorial control, and are effectively fansites. Also, you just link to the front pages of those sites, on which I don't see any coverage of the subject in question. If you can show that sources are available which do meet these criteria (or that some of the ones you list do, and are more than fansites), and link directly to in-depth coverage by such sources, you may well find that people will change their mind, but right now I just don't see it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse strongly, a relist is not necessary either. Wake up, the AFD format is not a vote. If someone wants to re-create a new article which provides non-trivial third party sources in like with WP:CORP and our attribution policies, go right ahead. Burntsauce 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:MadMax/PWI Years (edit | [[Talk:User:MadMax/PWI Years|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Several months ago I began working on a list based on the PWI 500, a listing of the top 500 professional wrestlers in North America as well as Japan and parts of Europe published by Pro Wrestling Illustrated. However, while it was originally intended for the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article, I moved them to my user space when informed they may constitute a copyright violation. I then converted the lists to served as a missing topics list for use by WikiProject Professional wrestling and I and other users worked extensivly to correct disambiguation links, double redirects, etc. While I was questioned a week ago by User:RobJ1981 in regards to its possible nomination for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, however from his last responce I assumed he had dropped the matter. However, today I found through my user page all the subpages had been deleted and I had neither been informed of its nomination or that they had been deleted. As I've previously stated, I have several missing topics lists ranging from military history to true crime based on books and magazines and as I've kept these lists on my user page as a reference, I don't understand how I've violated WP:USERPAGE. MadMax 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the following pages were also deleted:


These were tagged as copyright violations, just copies of published lists, and I deleted them as such. Userspace shouldn't matter here, copyvios are to be deleted regardless of namespace. Perhaps non-speedy copyvio deletion was more called for, here... but ultimately a copyvio is a copyvio. If people don't think these were, I will undelete. --W.marsh 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would respectfully point out, had I been informed there was an issue, I could have at least had the oppertunity to try and save my work. The lists were clearly identified as missing topics lists and, while I am aware of WP:USEFUL, they were extremely helpful in looking up PWI rankings though "what links here" feature instead of looking through all 17 issues for one individual and, as these lists were used for legitimate purposes relating to Wikipedia articles, I believe this would have merited at least discussing this issue (for example, would a similar unnumbered and rearrainged list containing the same list wrestlers be acceptable ?). If a copyright issue is taken with this specific list, am I to assume this applies to all the missing topics lists I've created ? MadMax 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I explained above, that discussion was based on incorporating the lists as an article into into the PWI 500 section of the main Pro Wrestling Illustrated article, not the actual lists themselves (and the issue was never brought up as a copyright issue when moved to my user page as a missing topics list). As later seen in a later discussion no objections were raised by project members of copyright issues and I was in fact encouraged in the discussion to fix the various errors and mispellings in those lists. I would also point out, in regards to a recent MFD nomination, the articles I've previously moved to my user space were found to be legitimately used on user page despite the opinion I had purposely moved them to avoid prop/afd discussions. If I've misunderstood One Night In Hackney's comments, I apologise however I would like to clarify that I moved these lists because they may be considered copyright issues as articles themselves not simply as lists and did not purposly move them to my user page to avoid their deletion. MadMax 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, attempting to divert the discussion in another direction will not change the fact that the lists were copyright violations, and that you had been told they were copyright violations, and I will not indulge you any further. One Night In Hackney303 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My intention was not to divert the discussion, however in my view, your previous comments suggest that I knew the lists themselves consituted a copyright violaton and that I purposly moved the list to avoid its deletion. A similar complaint was raised in a recent MFD nomination concerning my other user pages. In said discussion, the participating editors believed I had acted in good faith and disagreed with the concern that I had been in anyway dishonest or deceitful. Your above comments, and I again apologise if I've misinterpreted them, imply differently. From the discussion you pointed out, I was told they may have been copyright issues when I had originally created them as part of the main Pro Wrestling Illustrated article not when I moved them to my user page. Whether or not the lists are by themselves copyright violations, they were being legitimatly used as missing topics lists for professional wrestling related articles and served a number of useful purposes. I'm not arguing to restore them in their former form and, in fact, I would be more then willing to discuss an alternative so that they would not be a copyright issue. MadMax 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, copyvios are not permitted anywhere, including in userspace. I also find the "not notified" argument rather weak when the content was moved to userspace upon being notified that they violate copyright. In addition to this, notification of a deletion nomination is a courtesy, not a mandate, while the copyright policies are non-negotiable requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have stated previously that I had orginally created the PWI lists for the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article and was told they may constitute copyright infringment as an article, not as a wanted list. If you'll note the discussion I provided after they had been converted to missing topics lists, at no time did any editor object or point out even on uiserspace they would be considered a copyright violation. As I and several other editors have spent significant amount of time converting the lists to missing topic lists for use by WP:PW, I don't see why the issue couldn't be discussed beforehand. Had I or any other editor who had worked on them had been informed, there would have been a chance to contest the speedy deletion and at least save the significant changes made if not work out a compromise to resolve the copyright issue. I'm not using this as an argument, I'm simply pointing out neither I or anyone else to contest the speedy deletion or even had a chance to save their work. MadMax 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Dear_Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

Band is clearly notable. They have released an LP (Act II: The Meaning of and all things regarding Ms. Leading) and EP (Act I: The Lake South, the River North)on a major indie label, Triple Crown Records. It contains former Receiving End of Sirens member Casey Crescenzo; TREOS is considered a notable band. They were listed in Alternative Press's 100 bands you need to know in 2007; they have been given superb reviews by AbsoultePunk.net, one of the most reputable indie rock websites on the internet. They have toured with Saves the Day, As Tall as Lions, and Say anything, all notable bands. Read more about why it is notable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jds10912 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion per second AFD. No new information. You need to prove those claims with reliable sources. --Coredesat 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, no significant new information. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The record label that houses both this band and the band with the supposed famous member that is required per WP:MUSIC#6 is part of the East West family of record labels, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group (WP:MUSIC#5). Alternative Press is a notable music magazine, so there's clearly reliable sources. The information may not be new, but it was mostly ignored by the people who built the concensus. Reasons ranged from "I haven't heard of them" to "I don't believe they're notable" when the guideline says otherwise. The comment of the closing admin is particularly telling. They said "your arguments were in the right direction but since they failed to convince anyone in the community, I have to interpret consensus here as for deletion". I will endorse undeletion until those points or properly addressed. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the non-trivial independent sources from which this article is supposed to be drawn? Guy (Help!) 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You do know that this article has actually existed for months (2 days after the last DRV failed) at The Dear Hunter (band) and it is has been prominently linked from The Deer Hunter for weeks. I would have brought it over to AFD, but couldn't be fucked. - hahnchen 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, lawyering over notability sub-guidelines aside, all article subjects require significant independent sourcing. I don't find any indication that such sourcing exists. Willing to consider changing my mind if directed to such sources, and such sources do indeed provide in-depth information on the subject, but I haven't seen that happen thus far. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a biography at All Music Guide as mentioned above. - hahnchen 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do lots of bands that don't meet our notabilty criteria. AMG basically covers everyone who has ever had a mainstream US distributor, and occasionally a few others. We're not AMG, and we don't need or want to list every band they do. Xtifr tälk 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that, it's that AMG have actually reviewed their album. Not just giving it a star rating, but actually wrote a review. And whereas AMG do cover a lot of bands that don't meet our notability criteria, for those bands, they don't actually write a biography and instead just list their albums. This is not just a trivial AMG blank page. - hahnchen 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can tell, the presence of a review at AMG simply means that someone who writes for AMG found the topic personally interesting enough to write about. Like any review from a semi-reliable source, it may help establish notability, but I absolutely do not believe that it single-handedly demonstrates notability. Xtifr tälk 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMG is a reliable source and used in FAs. The AMG is a professional publication, that a writer found it personally interesting and the editor published it online is just like every other single publication online, it's not like a review of your mate's garage band will get published. Incidentally, the AMG biography/review was not online during the last AFD. - hahnchen 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AMG is not a particularly reliable source; they have a well-deserved reputation for a lack of fact-checking and error correction. And they have, as I said, a much lower threshold for inclusion than Wikipedia. That said, it doesn't really sound like we're disagreeing. A review at AMG is a factor that may count towards notability, but does not, in and of itself, establish notability. It is "just like every other single publication online". Xtifr tälk
  • Unfortunate endorse, because there still aren't sources being presented concretely. They must exist, though, because this isn't some little known band in the grand scheme of things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Neither the presence of an AMG article nor one album on a notable lable establishes notability. There has not been any new information since the AfD. When or if they release another album from a notable label, feel free to create the article and see if it holds up to another AfD, but right now, it fails. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that DRV is not AFD2, and so this should in theory be about process and not the merits, but as the topic has centered around sourcing: Aversion review - Glide Magazine review - Mammoth Press interview - MusicDish article. I am not certain about the reliability of these sources; I didn't look too closely except to ensure they didn't seem like blogs, but this was also the result of only a few minutes' searching. Likely, more is out there. Serpent's Choice 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please read http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_product_submissions.html. Especially the part that says "AMG will add any product submissions we receive to the database as long as they are commercially available in their country of release". They are not discriminatory in their listings.
    • Comment - And please read the section below that, the relevant one. It is not just a listing, but a biography and album review, and being that AMG don't just take user submissions for reviews, they "prioritize coverage based on factors such as current popularity, historical or artistic importance, and the needs of our data licensee". So pretty much like every professional publication then. They are discriminatory in their coverage. This band has definitely grown in stature since its first AFD, and has garnered more reviews such as at AbsolutePunk, yet editors are claiming that nothing has changed since the last DRV/AFD. This DRV should have been closed, and an AFD opened on The Dear Hunter (band), but instead that article, which probably looked nothing like the original was speedily deleted because of process process process process. - hahnchen 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I checked the deleted version of the article, and it contained several thorough (not capsule) reviews and an interview with the band. What more is needed? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were the ones I found in the deleted article:

Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreate article: Notable, now passes WP:MUSIC released two albums on a notable indie label Triple Crown Records, contains a former member of notable band The Receiving End Of Sirens. Simple as that in my view. -Halo 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adminstrative note I closed this DRV as "mooted by creation of new article." My closure was reverted and the new article was deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do think the new sources, especially with a review at AMG (the lack of which was a specific complaint at the last AfD), might be enough to pass WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure about using one album and one EP to meet the two-album requirement, but I think that with the new sources, this one might be right on the edge, so what I'd like to suggest is that the old version be moved to userspace, where interested parties can work on it, and then the new-and-improved version can be brought for review. That's usually, in my experience, a much more successful approach. Xtifr tälk 06:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I put this article up for deletion review last month but it seems that I didn't make my reason clear enough.

This article existed and fully complied with Wikipedia policy for over a year until policy changed to require multiple sources. At the time of the change this article only had one known published source, in the Belgian newspaper the De Morgen, and as such was deleted. You need to be able to read Dutch and be a member of the website to see the online version of the article here but there is a photo of the printed version here. The De Morgen has a daily circulation of over 50,000 copies as well as being online.

Recently a second newspaper article has been published (the online version is here) meaning that this article now fully complies with all Wikipedia policies. The notability of The Game was not in question (please read the old AfDs). Most importantly this article now has multiple sources, the prior lack of which was the only reason for deletion.

As such this article should be recreated. None of the "Endorse deletion" votes in last month's DRV were supported by Wikipedia policy. Many claimed that because the second source is a college newspaper it is somehow not valid. I can find nothing supporting this in either WP:V or WP:Reliable sources.

If you are going to vote for "Endorse deletion" in this DRV please quote Wikipedia policy that supports it.

Thanks. Kernow 09:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't imagine this will be open long, but I'll offer my endorse deletion response, all the same. WP:RS says that "The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another." In short, it is the opinion of the DRV contributors that a college newspaper in Nebraska is not in a position to be "trustworthy" or "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" regarding a supposedly world-wide game and social meme. That's largely the same problem associated with the De Morgen "article". It reads more like a letter to the editor or an editorial-page one-off than the product of professional journalism. It does not convey trust or authority on the issue. Furthermore, because Wikipedia's editors have been made aware of an organized external campaign to influence the encyclopedia regarding this article, the application of standards will be held to a higher bar. The pages discussing these issues are here and here. Finally, the agressive attempts to return this to DRV (or add it into the disambiguation page) do not endear editors to the concept; Wikipedia is not necessarily obligated to include every topic that de facto meets the inclusion policies. Serpent's Choice 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand why you don't trust the sources if you are unaware of all the evidence brought up in previous AfD discussions that support them. For example, 50,000+ players on Facebook [62], over 150,000 unique hits on LoseTheGame.com. As for the "organized external campaign", this should in no way influence whether or not this article should exist. Anyone could start such a campaign about any article, it doesn't invalidate the existence of the article. Finally, my returning this to DRV is not meant to be aggressive, I am following what I believe to be the correct procedure. I am simply trying to get all my points across directly and clearly. I genuinely apologise if you find this aggressive. Kernow 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This DRV was just deleted by User:Doc glasgow saying "been there, done that - now learn to take NO for an answer". I was under the impression that DRVs need to be closed by an administrator, not completely deleted. Kernow 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This list was listed as a PROD on May 11 for the reason of "A list of almost entirely red-links". It was deleted on May 17. I believe that this was a mistake. I quite simply dropped the ball and did not see the PRODing of the article on my watchlist. If I had I would have contested the PRODing. This list was part of a series of lists for properties on the NRHP, divided by state, and in some cases, by county. (See List of National Register of Historic Places entries for the top level list.) This was the only county list that was deleted of all of the county lists for Arizona, which leaves as erious hole in our coverage. It is my belief that any article on any property on NRHP would easily survive AfD. This list, then, is list that is most useful, for the present, as a development list, as per WP:LIST and thus should not have been deleted. An additional note, I screwed up process and undeleted this and brought it to AfD. When it was pointed out that this was the wrong thing to do, I re-deleted it and brought it here. Dsmdgold 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak undelete I'm the person who pointed out that he acted in error in using his Admin power to undelete an article that he was personally involved with. (I wouldn't have minded an admin undoing a bad deletion, but the problem was that it was an article he worked on previously.) But I felt the list was worth keeping---just that the AfD process wasn't the proper channel to re-list it.Balloonman 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Prod deletions must be overturned with any objections, so why would undeleting it be te wrong thing to do? -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose the argument would be that, if only for transparency's sake, the individual retroactively contesting the PROD ought not to be the same individual who actually undeletes and that the former ought to act as any non-admin contesting a deletion (viz., he ought to ask the deleting admin to undelete or ought to come to DRV for speedy undeletion); I imagine one might also suggest that where an admin undeletes a PROD sua sponte, the original PRODder is less likely to discover undeletion (in other instances, a notation of retroactive contesting would be made here or on an undeleting admin's talk). Of course, I don't find those concerns to be at all persuasive, but I can understand why one might. In any case, undeletion is obviously counseled here. Joe 06:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete - AFD was closed as "no consensus" but the closing admin should have discounted the various "keep" !votes that were predicated on such non-arguments as the anonymous WP:ILIKEIT !vote, the WP:USEFUL !vote and the "if you delete this you'll have to delete everything like it" !vote (and those who cited it) that cited two additional song lists that were, in fact, deleted in the course of this AFD. None of the keep arguments refuted the WP:NOT violation asserted in the nomination. Otto4711 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using loaded words like "spin" is not civil. Last I heard, part of an administrator's job is to evaluate the quality of arguments on both sides, not just count votes. Can you point out which of the keep votes advanced legitimate arguments? Otto4711 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse overturn & Delete - The keep votes were all fan-oriented responses that failed to address meaningful wikipedia policy as to why the article should be kept. Discard these and the call to delete should have passed. Tarc 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Tarc above. Deor 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete. At no point was it suggested why the topic "songs featured on the US version of The Office" is encyclopaedic, therefore the list is by definition indiscriminate; keep !votes were indeed variations on WP:ILIKEIT. This belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, nothing said here that wasn't brought up during the afd. The closing admins explanation shows that he read the discussion and came to a conclusion which is entirely reasonable. - Bobet 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete. AFD is not a vote count, spurious arguments should be discounted. >Radiant< 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse you could just as easily mischaracterize many (not all, but many) of the delete votes in the discussion as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the other hand, the people who argued that "the music is an integral part of the show" are making a direct rebuttal of the stated reason for deletion, that it was a repository of loosely associated topics. W.marsh accurately assessed that there was no consensus. --JayHenry 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus closure On the arguments actually made, no consensus is within reasonable administrative discretion. I think there is probably a WP:V argument to make, but as the closing admin specifically noted, nobody made that argument. And the AFD closure has to be evaluated on the arguments actually made, not hypothetical arguments that equally hypothetically have a valid answer, and we can't know until there is a discussion about them. GRBerry 19:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...let me see if I understand your argument here. If an admin finds an AFD to close for an article that clearly and unambiguously violates Wikipedia policy A, the admin can't delete the article if the nomination is based on Wikipedia policy B and no one happens to mention A? That seems utterly nonsensical. The notion that admins' hands are tied in the fashion you suggest is just bizarre. Otto4711 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I really thought this violated WP:NOT, I would have deleted. But as I said in the close, that wasn't really clearly shown. People argued against this being "a directory of loosely-associated topics", people argued for it. But I didn't find either side made particularly strong arguments, it was hardly "clearly and unambiguously" proven. --W.marsh 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. WP:V only requires deletion when an article is unverifiable, rather than currently unverified. Significantly more evidence is required to show that something is unverfifiable, because it might be verifiable but not currently verifiable. I think there is probably a WP:V argument to make that would compel deletion, but I also think that making it would require a lot of effort. And as is discussed at User:Mangojuice/Slave, we don't require admins to spend that much effort to close a discussion. I don't think the article clearly and unambiguously fails WP:V, I merely suspect that it does, but admit both that I don't know it does and that I wouldn't spend the time required to determine that on a discussion that avoided the topic. GRBerry 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Let's Get Dirty (I Can't Get in da Club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Breathe, Stretch, Shake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Have a Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Put Em in Their Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'll Sue Ya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's All about the Pentiums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's Not a Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thug By Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Want a New Duck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nature Trail to Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One in a Million (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Need a Soldier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Save some "Weird Al" Yankovic songs, the list above are all Billboard-charting singles by well-known musical artists (Aaliyah, Mobb Deep, etc) speedy deleted by Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Even if songs could be speedy deleted for notability (they can't), they certainly don't fall into that category. A request for them to be undeleted at his talk page has been soundly ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Image:Mert_Özel_.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This picture is taken by me and I hold the rights to it. I do not want this picture to be published in wikipedia at this time. Berk Sirman Berkbs 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was uploaded by User:Amormio, if you are that user then log in as that user and make this request. (H) 21:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or are you saying that the uploader did not hold the rights to the image and you do? (H) 21:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of poking around I realize the image is a copyright violation and have removed it from Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. (H) 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image was improperly orphaned and deleted as unused fair use image. Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators. Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to contest the deletion. Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test. Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error. Eqdoktor 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the statement by Eqdoktor, the image was correctly orphaned and listed for 7 days for deletion. The image in question was in contravention of Unacceptable Use, Section 8 of our Non Free Content policy "# An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph" and was deleted correctly in accordance with Speedy Deletion criteria CSD-I5 and CSD-I7 (take your pick, it could have been deleted under either). The image should not have been uploaded to Wikipedia and indeed, a free photograph was found which would have rendered this image surplus to requirements if it's use had been sanctioned by policy anyway (which of course, it isn't). The uploader simply refuses to understand that this photograph should not be used in any Wikipedia articles and that discussion cannot overrule foundation policy and local non free image policy regarding the use of this image, despite spending a substantial amount of time trying to explain why this image was deleted. I also refuse to undelete the image in order to tag it for deletion again, this time informing this user,just for it to be deleted again in 7 days as it has to be. Administrators have better things to do than defend ourselves from this sort of over zealous process wonkery. Nick 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted - as a staunch supporter of appropriate fair use, I fully support taking inappropriate fair use out and having it shot. Foundation policy is pretty clear on this. Procedural grounds won't do here, IMO - you need to detail why the image actually doesn't violate Foundation policy - David Gerard 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the problem? The image was used under fair use. Our non-free content policies only allow that if the image can't be replaced. The image has been replaced by this one, which is a perfectly fine image of her. There's nothing that could save the other image short of fox suddenly releasing the copyright under a new license. All procedures were followed and notification wouldn't have made any difference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the hurry to sweep it under the rug?: "Over zealous process wonkery" as opposed to willful disregard to proper deletion procedures and complete disregard of consensus building - two official policies ignored by the admin? I am sorry but this is a classic case of "two wrongs not making a right". As stated on the header above, WP:DRV is about process, not about content (goatse pics notwithstanding /grin). I believe given a chance at debate/discussion in a WP:IFD review - I can make a good case for the image. The merits of the image need to be debated/discussed in the proper forum of the WP:IFD page NOT swept under the rug in such a rushed manner. As it is, in this particular forum - it has been already pre-judged as unusable. Nevertheless, I am dismayed and disappointed a Wikipedia admin is allowed to "pick and choose" whatever policy/rules to apply based on his bias. If the image is restored and promptly deleted in 7 days (which I contend will hopefully not happen) - what is the harm? Rule of Law in Wikipedia Consensus is reached, I have been showed the error of my ways and a few million electrons get burnt out. If an admin missed pushing out a vital FA article, I will apologize profusely but I think thats a better outcome than arbitrary and capricious actions of overzealous administrators. I'm just asking for a chance to be heard, discuss and debate the fair use issue in its proper forum - the image appears to have been speedily deleted to avoid just such a discussion. --Eqdoktor 20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

After the last DRV closed TODAY as restore article since the last AFD was open for only 45 minutes, the newest AFD was re-opened for a mere 12 hours before it was closed and locked. I am re-listing this for the same reason as the previous DRV, the discussion was open for insufficient time to allow a full consensus to be reached. See also related ANI report Nardman1 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WMLZ-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Previously deleted and protected from recreation by User:David.Monniaux, I gained permission to recreate the article in a way that it would not cause the same problems originally brought to m:OTRS (at least, in my understanding). It has since been speedy deleted by User:Cryptic, citing the original complaint to m:OTRS (though, as stated, it no longer caused said issue) and citing A7:nngroup, despite the fact that the station is licensed by the FCC, making it notable JPG-GR 04:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being covered in nontrivial sources makes it notable. We're not just a station catalogue. Being licensed by the FCC makes sources more likely to exist, but this is only a low power station, and whether anything exists is dubious. A7 at this point is probably the wrong way to go about it, but it won't (or at least shouldn't) survive AfD without any sources besides station directories. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to the notability guidelines which say FCC licensed means it is automatically considered notable. Most notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, which also nicely helps meet out verifiability standards. --pgk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I'm aware of one. I guess I went ahead and assumed that if the FCC licenses a station, that makes it notable in and of itself. JPG-GR 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no issue with that... but I'm no expert on that school. Far from it... JPG-GR 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, for completeness sake, I'm gonna give it a try. JPG-GR 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford Senior High School JPG-GR 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pgk: I'm aware of at least two reliable sources that attempt to list every single licensed primary station in the U.S., so I don't think this would be a particularly useful criterion (although I don't think either of them cover LPFMs). Dr. Bruce Elving's FM Atlas, 20th ed., does list this station, although he doesn't have anything in particular to say about it. If this one has independent programming (as might be established from a Web site showing its program schedule or a school Web page describing how it is used in the school's academic program), I'd consider it sufficiently notable. After all, Wiki is not paper. The station does exist, and WP is not hurt by having this article, so long as it does not become a target for edit wars among the students at the school. 121a0012 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria will usually involve multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, directories/lists etc. don't cut it. WP:HARMLESS isn't a good reason to keep an article if it doesn't meet our standards, pictures of my cats are harmless they have no place here. --pgk 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yorkshire Derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Though no consensus was reasonable on the balance of the discussion, the article, that was totally unsourced, should have been deleted on policy grounds as failing WP:RS and WP:V. Lacking any criteria for inclusion, it is also indiscriminate information and potentially unlimited with any two teams in Yorkshire, in any sport, qualifying for inclusion. I asked the closing admin on 13 May to reconsider but there has been no reply. Overturn and delete. BlueValour 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete, it was pointed out that the article was unverified and the keep side failed to demonstrate verifiability by finding some reliable sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not endorse closure, but I'm leaning toward keep and expand with sources. A quick Google search indicates the term all over the place, but I have absolutely no knowledge of footy whatsoever, so I think we should be aware that this may actually be able to be a properly sourced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist this was a hard one to close. Although WP:A/WP:V was mentioned, it wasn't hashed out to the point of clearly showing a verifiable article couldn't exist here. If people want this article to stay they should cite published sources showing more people than just Wikipedia editors call these events "Yorkshire Derby". And if these are merely alternate terms maybe this should be a dab page. but these are all things DRV isn't really suited to determining. --W.marsh 15:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist seeking attributable sources specific to this point (among the hundreds of hits Google gives for "Yorkshire Derby"+football [63] ). I agree with W.marsh on all points. There are many fans of the sport on this language's Wikipedia and we need them to make clear whether this topic is too local-interest-only (under WP:LOCAL) or too indiscriminate ("no criteria for inclusion" was asserted above) to be verifiable through reliable sources. Barno 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete if no reliable sources are brought here or added to the article in the next five days (before this DRV closes). If these reliable sources do not appear, the subject does not meet WP:V, and the article should be deleted. --Coredesat 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Was no concensus on AFD, have now found and added 3 sources to show that the article can be expanded with verifiable sources. Davewild 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is all a rather nebulous concept but I don't think that this is the point. You can fill the page with a list of matches that are described, in passing, as 'a Yorkshire derby' since this is a generally used colloquial term for any match between Yorkshire teams (and you could do the same for all the UK counties). As I understand it the article is based on the assumption that there is a formal concept called The Yorkshire Derby which there isn't. TerriersFan 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My adding sources was to answer the point that the AFD discussion should be overturned because it did not meet WP:RS and WP:V. With sources an article can be written about this very widely used term. As these sources show[64] [65] the term is used by many reputable sources and has a clearly defined limit - Yorkshire! As a widely used concept, sourced and with a defined limit there is no reason to delete. Davewild 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as per my arguments on the original AfD. While the concept of a "Yorkshire Derby" exists, it refers to any match between two teams in Yorkshire, unlike, for example, the Manchester Derby which is between two specific teams and not other Manchester teams (e.g. Bolton v Rochdale wouldn't be "the Manchester derby". As such, the only stable states for this article are either a one-line dicdef or a sprawling list of every possible permutation of Yorkshire's eight football teams (plus possibly every rugby, rugby league and cricket team), neither of which would be appropriate content — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the keep argument that this can be shaped into a better article is acceptable, see not reason to overturn no consensus result. Tim! 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete. Actually qualifies for speedy deletion since it contains nothing which is not inherently obvious from the title, but the article also abjectly fails to explain in what way a Yorkshire derby is distinct from the generic usage of the word derby in sports. The reason it fails to do this is, of course, that it isn't. Variations on "keep even though it is unsourced and indiscriminate" should have been discounted; a good number of the keeps explicitly acknowledged that it is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there may be a basis for an article here, this isn't it. It has just barely enough text to not qualify for CSD A3. Overturn & delete. >Radiant< 08:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus closure or relist No consensus is within reasonable administrative discretion for that debate. As others before me have pointed out, the WP:V issue was raised, but was not adequately addressed to provide a compelling result. So sooner or later, we have to face that issue. I don't really care when, but I do note that AFD is the proper forum for it, not here. I think this just happens to be two words that frequently appear in sequence (meaning "a derby in Yorkshire"), and the WP:NEO guideline is the basis on which it should be shot down. But I don't see in this AFD any evidence that people looked for sources on the term and failed to find them, so no compelling WP:V case was made in the AFD. GRBerry 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - this remains indiscriminate information. Even 'Yorkshire' is undefined. Does it include just the former counties of North, South and West Yorkshire which would exclude the football teams Middlesbrough and Hull City or the long defunct traditional county that would include those? And of course the list of sports and clubs is unlimited. For example I can source a passing reference to Sheffield Hallam Civica against Harrogate as a 'Yorkshire derby' in Men's Hockey here but so what? I don't see the point in a relist since it will not solve the organic problems with the article. TerriersFan 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:North American NF-Board football teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This category was deleted on March 6th. According to the deletion log, it was deleted per User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, but I can't find a reason why it was listed there and why it qualified for deletion. It contained at least one article, Greenland national football team. None of the other subcategories of Category:NF-Board football teams was deleted. AecisBrievenbus 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reason for it to be deleted, so I'm going to restore it as a probable mistake. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Closing admin's notes: DRV is here to review the process of deletion, not the article in question. This article was sent to afd the second time by DRV - as such that Afd should have been allowed to remain open for significantly more time than 45 minutes. One out of process deletion (as determined by DRV) is not fixed by doing it again - and I think thought people should have learnt something from the Daniel Brandt wheel war. IAR is a great rule, it allows you you bypass bureaucracy in the light of pure common sense. But closing a contentious debate you are involved in is NOT in the spirit of IAR - or for that matter the deletion policy. Lastly, there are no BLP issues, per several of the people who participated in this discussion - we are just reporting what someone else has said (referenced to its source) not insulting the man ourselves. ViridaeTalk 02:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed at AfD after being on here with a fairly contentious discussion which was closed with the decision to undeleted and list of AfD. The afd was then closed as a delete less than one hour after it was opened, this completely ignoring the decision reached here (I'm not sure I can call it a true consensus, given the degree of contention). IMO this was completely inappropriate. A discussion here resulted in a decision to list on AfD in an attempt to achieve consensus, and the discussion was reclosed without there being enough time for even those who were known to be interested to express a view, much less for consensus to emerge. I am appalled. I call for this to be overturned and not relisted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination). DES (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn as before, policy and procedure have both been completely ignored, without well-founded reasons. The contentiousness of the DRV means there's significant dispute on this issue, and the fact that the AFD was closed less than an hour after it opened means most opinions were supressed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgrace - that the very admins who participated in the first debate keep trying to close this one. Overturn - does not qualify for speedy deletion. Shame on you. The Evil Spartan 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn Closer made false statements in his close, and did not consider the compelling case for a keep result. Why didn't he consider it? I don't know for sure, but the early close prevented it from being made. GRBerry 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that I have previously outlined valid arguments for keeping the article that the closer avoided acknowledging. The list, which is possibly incomplete, as I only looked at the original DRV, is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (second nomination)#Closer's notes are false. GRBerry 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop this. (1) it's silly. (2) it's disgusting. (3) that article is dead. --Tony Sidaway
    • I'm glad to see such strong, policy based reasons provided. i'm glad also that IAR is being used so carefully wioth such respect for the probable consensus. I would be tempted to wheel-war by this, but I'm not going to. Why do those opposed to this feel so strongly that giving it a single clean AfD discussion, lasting the full time, with a closer who closes according to the consensus that develops, is unacceptable. DES (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Per above and POINTy closures. Matthew 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close DRV as invalid or endorse deletion This is the second DRV in one day which is clearly against common sense. If you insist on going through with this, then endorse the deletion of this article which is a shame for the Wikipedia. It fails all our notability guidelines. --Mbimmler 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the second nomination, a consensus of experienced editors considered this article non-notable. A new discussion will not change this. And overturn without re-listing is just a blatant joke. --Mbimmler 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The closure of the first DRV (which closed today), required the article to be undeleted and run through AFD again. The second DRV's close was not valid or appropriate. There has been more than enough evidence presented that this subject actually meets both WP:N and WP:BIO, if people would read the prior discussions. GRBerry 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this nonsense. This 'article' is unfit for the encyclopedia and we have now had 3 admins delete it per AfD and this is the third DRV. The closer of the last AfD got it right - and I refuse to rehearse the arguments for deletion again. It dies - get over it. Stop the process wonking.--Docg 17:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm all about WP:IAR, but from what I can tell: we have a previous DRV which brought it to consensus to a new AFD. But that AFD was closed within less than an hour by an admin involved in the discussion under the frivolous reason that the previous discussions already had time (not to mention that the DRV overturn clearly showed that there was no consensus yet). Then this last DRV was closed within minutes of being opened by an admin deeply involved in the issue. This isn't process-wonkery: it's trying to get a fair discussion and having it stop being closed by people who are too closely attached to the article. The Evil Spartan 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, or re-opened by the same! (Pot meet Kettle.) Look you've lost me with the process and sequence. The article is about a fat chinese kid who's head was superimposed onto celebrity bodies - that has nothing to do with an encyclopedia - and no amount off wonking will change that.--Docg 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously, this article should have been speedied and salted the moment it reared its ugly head. This endless fillibustering will not save it. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're not attached to the article. On the contrary, we rather want to get rid of it, as it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As the closer of the second AfD has pointed out, there was even more time for discussion than normal. No arguments have been presented which found the support of a majority of editors. If an article is twice deleted after discussion, you should just live with it. This is not about "The xth DRV didn't correspond with the yth AfD", this is just about the plain question "Is this article of any value to an encyclopedia" and the answer is "No, it should be speedy-deleted per CSD:G10" --Mbimmler 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Honestly, he's "famous" for being fat. Does anybody not see why we should stop this pointless bickering about process?--§hanel 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This whole situation is probably all my fault. I made strong arguments for deletion in the original AfD, based on the effect this article might have on the living person who is its subject. This is an area of BLP policy to which I am concerned that insufficient attention is frequently given and is an extremely serious concern to me (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad). The original closing admin, Daniel.Bryant, indicated that these arguments were pretty much the basis for his original close as delete. Then someone who'd been tied up in RL until after the AfD closed came by Daniel's talkpage with some colorable (though not I think ultimately persuasive) counter-arguments, and I suggested that it would make sense to discuss them in the context of AfD rather than DRV. From that point on, hilarity ensued. Frankly, if I'd known that all this procedural morass and bickering was going to ensue, I would have just said to the commenter "tough stuff, you missed the deadline, you lost your chance, go away." I suppose I will have to bear that in mind for next time. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete the damn thing: what a waste of time and energy by all parties. How about improving the real content of this encyclopedia instead. Danny 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we can't trust admins to follow proper procedure when dealing with this dispute, I shudder to think what they'd do with something important. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's somewhat the point that they are making, though: This isn't important; and all of this ping-pong back and forth between AFD and DRV is diverting our energies from the things that are, that they would like to spend their time on dealing with. Uncle G 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, speedy close, trout-slap those responsible for this wilful and obdurate process wonkery in the face of all reason and sense. Procedure my arse. The close was perfectly proper, the second close was equally proper, and bringing it here was an act of crass stupidity which has had its predictable result. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, speedy close. "If at first you don't suceed, try, try again" is *not* something that should be taking place here. Suggesting a good trout-slapping for the offenders who seem to think it is is quite correct. This is an *encyclopaedia* folks, not a collection of trash. --AlisonW 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and close this damn thing. Shanel and Guy have already said all that is necessary. --Srikeit 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as before; this subject meets all of our criteria for inclusion. It should also be pretty obvious that contentious Afd's can not be closed within one hour, especially if only one side has managed to get in the new debate. Prolog 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, speedy close, previous closes perfectly valid, calling something an "Internet meme" does not mean you magically get to ignore WP:BLP. Slow news day articles all about exactly the same thing with the hyperbole that inevitably comes with justifying the reporting of non-news cannot be taken seriously as a good basis for an encyclopaedia article and do not justify ignoring our responsibility to article subjects. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever happened to civility in debates, folks? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Perfectly valid article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm indifferent to whether Wikipedia has an article on Qian Zhihun, but this has really gotten quite ridiculous. Endorse deletion so we can get back to doing the things that actually matter around here. Really, he's some fat Chinese kid ffs. – Steel 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I don't believe that valid deletion procedure was followed in either case. He is definitely notable according to BOTH WP:BIO and WP:WEB, being the primary subject of multiple articles from valid chinese news sources, such as China Daily. I don't see how the citation of WP:BLP applies here, as this information is verifiable and already present. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Speedy close. Per Shanel, JzG, Steel, et al. Cary Bass demandez 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Close this. I'm getting bored with expressing opinions on this subject. As Bainer's excellent close pointed out, the topic has now had lengthy discussion in several forums - as such suggestion that debate has been stifled is nonsense. Both weight of argument and weight of numbers favour deletion. The fact that layer upon layer of process is being created to continually reconsider this is regretable. We are better than having an article about a kid "famous" for being victimised for being fat, and we are better than this endless bickering. WjBscribe 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd love if we can put this myth to rest - weight of argument does not favor deletion at all. Those in favor of retaining the article can point to how this article meets every relevant policy and guideline it falls under. Those in favor of deletion have not presented much in the way of a solid argument - they allege a BLP issue that doesn't exist due to the subject's willingness in participating (see the Numa Numa guy for a relevant analogy), and, well, that's it. There's no logical argument being presented to actually delete this article - "it's bollocks and must die" and "we don't need this" aren't arguments for deletion. Even now, people are looking to speedy close this review because they're sick of talking about it, even after failing to present a coherent argument when given the opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am new to this debate (having not participated in either of the AFDs), but I would like to echo jeff's comments above and state that many of the arguments to maintain the deletion make me very nervous, as they cite things like "boredom" and "silliness" rather than actual policy. Given the fact that there are stories on this subject from reputable news sources, we need better reasons than those to omit this subject from inclusion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST possible overturn. Have we learned NOTHING from having 13 deletion debates on Daniel Brandt? Process is important, people. The point of having debates on things like this is to find consensus, to understand how the community interprets its own policies, and to bring the issue to closure. This is not, as bainer put it in his closure, a request for "process for process' sake". Those arguing on the losing side of a debate deserve a certain degree of respect: they deserve that their argument is considered by the community, they deserve the chance to be heard, and they deserve a fair, impartial closure so that they can understand in the end that they lost, not because of some arbitrary decision, but because the community did not agree with them - once that point is arrived at, we have closure and we can move on. Mangojuicetalk 18:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; you can't close a contentious AFD in one hour, and there actually are legitimate, mainstream news sources for this person. Sure, the phenomenon is cruel, but so was some of the exploitation surrounding Joseph Merrick. We document what is notable, we don't decide what should or shouldn't be. We're not making fun of the kid; we're reporting what was said in reliable sources about how other people did. *** Crotalus *** 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is the bad tendency of editors to factor every subject as a biography of some person. Like the incident with Michael Sneed, an article about this subject shouldn't be pretending to be a biography of a person. The idea that this is a biography of Qian Zhijun's life and works is laughable. As the article itself said, this person's experience is one example of what the actual subjects are, which, upon reading the sources cited beyond their attention-grabbing introductions, appear to be obesity in China and e'gao. At the very best, therefore, it should be presented as but one example of the latter subject. (Singling out this one person as a poster boy for obesity in China is definitely wrong, note.)

      One irony leaps right at us here: Night Gyr asks what we do with things that are important. Answering that point with "we" meaning "all editors" rather than meaning just administrators, it appears, from looking at the redlinks at obesity in China and e'gao, that we what we do is not actually write articles on them at all, spending all our energies instead on declaring people to be "internet memes" and writing articles that pretend to be their biographies. Uncle G 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Rather ironically, after this DRV was speedy closed earlier, I started writing an article on E'gao. It's currently stored on my PC at work, but I can maybe VPN in over the weekend and get something up. It'll be little more than a stub about a neologism, though, since I can only find two distinct reliable sources so far. --DeLarge 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent. Have a look below. I found three articles dealing with the subject. I strongly suspect that there are more. Uncle G 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I noticed what you wrote after I posted. There are indeed more, since my sources were China Daily and Xinhua.net.[66][67] Also, the term is apparently a derivative of kuso, which is an article. Maybe end up with a merge/redirect? We'll see... --DeLarge 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Have a look at the second and fourth sentences of kuso. It seems best to just redirect e'gao there and add a new kuso#e'gao section therein on e'gao and the Chinese government's attempts to stamp it out. That way readers benefit from a complete background, and kuso benefits from some much-needed sources. ☺ I'm glad that you found it to be a startling oasis, incidentally. Uncle G 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process requires this be kept dead - it's a blatant violation of WP:BLP, which is not up for being superseded by whoever shows up for a DRV - David Gerard 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, even many of those in favor of keeping the article would prefer to see changes made to take the focus off the kid himself, since the kid himself is not the most important thing to talk about here. However, the vehemence and total disregard for policy of those who want to delete the article has left it with no chance to improve. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, speedy close as process-wonkery at its worst. --Carnildo 20:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, speedy close, BLP supercedes DRV. Corvus cornix 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • where was the BLP issue settled? Unaddressed objections have been raised to the simple claim. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Making fun of a fat kid is a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Star Wars kid? Gary Brolsma? It's not a BLP violation to say he was made fun of for being fat. We're not doing the mockery ourselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well-written and well-sourced articles about notable persons are not. Prolog 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you realize that this was not a BLP violation, as a) the article was not "making fun of a fat kid," and b) said "fat kid" is entirely complicit with the distribution of his image at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that anyone is arguing that this article should exist to "make fun of him", but rather that he is notable by virtue of being the primary subject of articles in major, verifiable news sources. BLP states that articles on living persons should be held to the highest levels of scrutiny when it comes to verifiability, NPOV, and all other content-governing wikipedia policies. I don't think anyone is arguing against it, but rather that the mere existence of an article on him does not violate BLP. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And who has claimed to have read every edit in the history and determined that every edit is a violation. Remember, WP:BLP only authorizes deletion when there is no acceptable edit to revert to. "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." (Emphasis added.) There are plenty of sourced, non-controversial edits in the history, so WP:BLP does not authorize a deletion. GRBerry 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion is my opinion on this matter. Process is important, yes, but blindly abiding by process with no thought to the state of the encyclopedia is the core of ignore all rules. Seeing this dragged back and forth and back again is inane. Arkyan • (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I don't endorse the process, but good grief, at some point, we need to decide that we want to be an encyclopedia and quit having stuff like this. --BigDT 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was an initial AfD. There were several irregularities, and at least three closes: an initial close, which was undone/relisted by the closing admin; a subsequent close that cut off the relisting after a quite short time while discussion was still active, and at least arguably did not agree with the then consensus of the discussion; a completely improper revert of that close by an editor who had previously expressed strong views in the discussion; and a revert of that revert, incidentally removing subsequent comments placed in good faith by editors who were neither closers nor reverters. This AfD was then brought here to DRV. There was a long and contentious discussion, and I would be hard pressed to say that any true consensus emerged. The weight of numbers, and in my (quite possibly biased) view the wight of valid arguments were on the side of overturning and relisting on AfD, and the DRV discussion was closed to that effect. The 2nd AfD was duly opened. It was then closed within less than one hour on the ground that the first afd (with all its problems) had offered all the discussion needed, and that the early views on the new AfD were largely for deletion (which they were). Obviously there was no meaningful opportunity for new discussion, and raising and responding to policy based arguments by those known to be interested in this matter, nd others who might be interested. This closure can be sustained only on the view that the previous DRV discussion and its closure were irrelevant, and that the serious arguments raised by those previously favoring keep (extensive well sourced media coverage; participation by the subject indicating that BLP concerns are not present, etc) need not be addressed, merely dismissed. I strongly oppose this view. If re-listings can be closed by anyone who doesn't feel that re listing is a good idea, what is the point of having and closing DRV discussions at all? And why is this closure (ignoring the DRV result) any better than reverting a closure one disagrees with? And why are those opposed to the relisting and the article itself so strongly opposed to obtaining as clean an AfD result as possible? Would allowing the auricle to remain live for 5 additional days pending a normal AfD term have caused the skies to fall? DES (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Speedy close this waste of time. Or hell, waste more time by undeleting, then watch me speedy it as patent nonsense, unsourced, nn. Heck, I might just do it. This is a joke. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is safe to say that many people are opining based on misinformation. GRBerry 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:π, people. There is dispute as to whether he is includable or not, and speedy deletions only create more drama, when the theoretical purpose is to reduce said drama. Abeg92contribs 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly of us to believe that Wikipedia process is more important than immortalising the unwilling humiliation of a human being. How could we be so foolish? Guy (Help!) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the trouble started I grabbed a copy of the wikicode from the final version of the article and stored it locally, and I've written a revised draft from it which I'll create on my userpage at User:DeLarge/Little Fatty. It's cut some content out including all personal details (the kid's name, weight, and occupation), and I've shifted the focus from the boy to the meme as best I could. The second paragraph is still "about the boy" insofar as it includes the fact that he wasn't originally a willing participant, and also therefore includes his reaction to discovering it, but I reckon those are an encyclopedic part of the meme and don't tread on BLP's toes.
I know this might raise the hackles of some people who feel that no matter how much media attention they get memes aren't worthy of coverage, but clearly that view isn't universally held (including by the BBC, Reuters, The Times, etc). I say that as a tertiary source we're OK to cover the ones the big news outlets do. Is that such an issue? I also know that this is a DRV and we should be discussing process and not content, but really, this is turning into Wikipalestine here, and I'm offering this in a (vain?) effort to find a ceasefire that might gain some kind of consensus.
PS I'd like an overturn if no-one's interested in my compromise... --DeLarge 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, this is exactly what I had in mind. If everyone could calm down and let the process run, there'd be time to calmly rewrite the article in a way that would address any concerns and still document a notable phenomenon. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
"Z" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

not notable Gerhard1 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:drmmt – Deletion endorsed without prejudice to a new template of the same name explaining why some users feel that removing warning templates is often not appropriate. Please be certain the new template, if anyone has any desire to create it, is balanced. – Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Drmmt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|TfD)

This was speedy deleted by Radiant! because it "misrepresents policy" (see here). However, this was referring to {{drmmt3}}, and not {{drmmt}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* bv for this unending edit war*cough*) - and as if WP:TEMPLAR didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{trivia}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{NPOV}} without even explaining why. --The Evil Spartan 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion - don't agree with nom, if a newbie removes a template without an edit summary, you can use a template explaining edit summaries. If editors start to revert war over a template they can be cautioned for going upto 3RR. This warning isn't required. Addhoc 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleter, because templates should not misrepresent policy. Because this template is designed similar to other warning templates, it implies that removing maintenance templates is grounds for blocking. Aside from that, novice users will not understand such a warning and advanced users will likely not appreciate being warned by template, so in either case writing a message manually would be better. >Radiant< 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you think it implies blocking semes a bit silly - drmmt3 might have done so, but drmmt? And, for that matter, if the design implies something that others don't, then it can be changed, which I would be glad to do should this template be undeleted, and someone should point out the design problems. And the argument that novice users won't understand it - clearly not grounds for speedy. The Evil Spartan 13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at TfD This is not the place to set WP policy on the use of templates. Nor is this set by individuals acting via speedy. There is a procedure for this, and it should be followed. Speedy is for unquestionably valid deletions. Radiant has found a definite problem, but the problem can probably be solved by editing the template. DGG 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this template do? - it is a red-link at the moment, so the majority of users cannot usefully contribute to this discussion. Carcharoth 10:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Doc, this isn't a discussion on the merits of the template, it's a discussion on the merits of the deletion. If you don't think a removal is appropriate, discuss it doesn't fall under any speedy deletion criteria. The Evil Spartan 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uninterested in process. I do not believe the encyclopedia benefits from restoring this template, so I say we should not.--Docg 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so this is both ignoring process and WP:IDONTLIKEIT - nevermind that something should be deleted without community consensus - if you don't like it, it should go. I see. The Evil Spartan 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Template:Tpv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm not sure why this page was deleted by Resurgent insurgent in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see [68]. And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept.

(note: the original template may also have been located at Template:tpv1, but I think that was a redirect. However, I can't tell without administrator rights: only by looking at the deletion logs) The Evil Spartan 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and redirect. {{Tpv}} was moved to {{Tpv0}}. This template should redirect there for whoever is used to the old template name. Redirects are cheap and I see no reason to keep this deleted unless there's a pressing need to use this page for some other template. - Mgm|(talk) 07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you are mistaken. TPV was moved to TPV0 in order to make way to make TPV, which is equivalent to TPV1. I'm appealing the rather silly deletion of TPV1 when ignoring TPV0, TPV2, TPV3, and TPV4. It most certainly doesn't qualify as g6, non-controversial, as my very contesting it proves it's controversial. The Evil Spartan 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|2nd AfD)

Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by User:Daniel.Bryant, and then User:Drini (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by User:Thebainer as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Fur (edit | [[Talk:Template:Fur|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)

The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by User:JzG on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD if at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is not what was deleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why did you take a useful template and replace it with this nonsense? Please write proper fair-use rationales for your images. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template was a redirect to another template. Jeff hijacked it to create a supposed fair-use rationale which did not actually include the fair-use rationale, and referenced a single retailer. Jeff's version was syntactically equivalent to "this was scalped form Amazon so it's obviously fine". But it isn't. And even if it was, we would not, I hope, have a template referencing a single retailer. Plus some of the uses were decidedly dubious, such as posters. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the uses was a poster, which I fixed. Second, I didn't "hijack" anything, as the redirect was not being used on anything other than two archived talk pages. Third, it referenced a single retailer that provides images that are good for fair use. Which is where these come from. Fourth, note that we're now endorsing the speedy of a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template because someone doesn't like it. That's problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All online retailers provide images that are good for fair use, and very often the same or similar images are also available from the publishers' websites, which is obviously better as it does not endorse a particular vendor. And yes, you're right, some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like it because boilerplate fair use templates that don't include the fair use rationale and also endorse a single retailer don't seem to be that good an idea. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No particular vendor is being "endorsed" by accurately stating where an image comes from. That's what people want to know, right? And it's not a "boilerplate" fair use, as this isn't a boilerplate and it includes an actual rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is it named FUR if it applies to only one retailer? And if it's a timesaver for you, why not keep something in your userspace and subst it as needed? Transcluded templates are subject to being changed out from under you. No comment on whether deleting was the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can I do that? I didn't think I could transclude out of my userspace (I don't work with templates often). If so, then I'll simply do that, but I'll need the text of it to do so, and for the template to be restored temporarily so I can make the fix, since the redirect has broken about 100 image pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The template was fine in acknowledging the source and why the effect on their rights was minimal - low quality etc. but it wasn't a full fair use rationale. In particular, it lacked the "why this image is necessary in this article" component. Its not enough just to show than an image cannot be replaced and that the effect on the copyright owner has been reduced, a fair use rationale must assert why the article requires the pictures in each case. WjBscribe 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Settlements in Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD|DRV|Joint CfD)

Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. WP:V demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". -- Cat chi? 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave alone Obvious categorization criteria, despite lack of clear boundaries: the issue shouldn't be the category, but whether individual members belong and/or what geographic areas are covered, which are not issues for this forum. I'm sensing a wee bit of political axe-grinding here. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is not a "political axe-grinding". Any categorization with this is an endorsement of Kurdistans official borders with source being wikipedia editors such as User:Diyarbakir, User:Diyako and etc. There isn't a single other example of this kind of categorization as demonstrated in 2007 March 15 link. -- Cat chi? 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A reverse variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, then? --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough This Kurdistan thing has gone too far. Rather than all the interminable deletion discussons - I suggest you stary a general RfC on the issue - have a debate get a general consensus, and then abide by it. Me, I don't care.--Docg 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried two general rfcs (one kinda ongoing with me being the only participant), 2 mediation cases and countless other discussion attempts. All of which was ignored. No one even cared to comment for two months on that well advertised discussion for instance. I have even taken it to arbitration committee which they declined to even hear the case. RfCs and etc is simply not working. There isn't a process I haven't used. Kurdistan thing has gone too far indeed. I have tried my best to find a solution without escalating the matter. Point me to a process I haven't used and I'll take it. -- Cat chi? 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--Docg 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. -- Cat chi? 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria - No, it's an explanation as to why out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was completely uncontroversial and non-problematic I am sure people would be more than willing to comment on this. Ask User:AGK, the mediator of the failed mediation discussion, why it failed. -- Cat chi? 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a widely accepted and verifiable definition of the area's boundaries does not exist, we should not be categorizing places as being there. By categorizing, say, specific cities as part of Kurdistan, we are endorsing certain definitions at the expense of others. I have not seen an uncontroversial definition of the area (I'm not terribly familiar with the Kurdistan issue, though). We do need to find some kind of solution to this dispute. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - no issue for DRV has been raised, nominator is simply repeating their substantive argument, not raising any procedural issue or even asking for an overturn.A Musing 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not cast a vote on any poll I initiate typically. I merely state an argument. Review the argument and comment on it please. Do not discard it out of the blue. I was asked to post this deletion review. Votestacking was the case on the past vote. Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) for example is a shining example, god knows how many others were sockpuppets and etc. User:Soapyyy for instance is particularly suspicious. It was closed as a "No Consensus" and procedualy deletion review is the next step. -- Cat chi? 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


17 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alex Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Article may have been short and in poor condition, but the subject was clearly notable. He has fronted several signed bands. I accept the article was in a bad condition, but I let it stand as I was hoping for others to have a go at it. To delete without warning was bad form - an AFD would have been justified. Only look at the "What links here" and the linked pages to realise that this guy is notable, albeit with a poorly-written stub article. It needed work on it, yes; but deletion? No
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Movement to Impeach Liberals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Administratvie procedures were not followed. I put a hangon tag on then it was gone. Similar pages are allowed to exist on Wikipedia, such as Movement to Impeach George Bush and Movement to impeach cheney, and Global citizens movement. I was not even given enough time to finish writing the article. Ymous 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? How does that invalidate the fact that the movement exists? Explain. How does a left wing movement stay, yet a right wing movement does not? Explain the double standard. Ymous 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the situation was reversed, a completely unsourced, unverifiable, POV, and original researched article to impeach Bush would be deleted just as speedily. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no basis for inclusion. The article failed in a way that any other article would fail if written in such a way, no matter the subject. DarkAudit 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. I am the source. I have verified it. And if Movement to Impeach George Bush has no POV problems, then why does Movement to Impeach Liberals ? Can you NOT answer that one single question? Or doesyour bias run too deep?
MORE evidence: The admin says this:
Movement to Impeach Liberals has been deleted per CSD A7. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a political battleground, but rather an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And in your own rules about Non-Criteria deletion, you say this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_deletion#Non-criteria

"Reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" are not part of the speedy deletion criteria. However, these reasons can be given at AfD nominations."Italic text

McLellan was not right to delete my article for the reasons he gave. The proof is right there. Ymous 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This might be one of the rare cases where the article not only does not assert notability, but even manages to establish non-notability. A7-super-double-plus. The rest is just trolling. ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Eh process normally is a good idea but unless what DGG quotes above ceases to be true, there's utterly no chance this would survive an AFD. Rules lawyering to force an AFD doesn't benefit the project here... just deleting the unencyclopedic article does. --W.marsh 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete. No chance whatsoever this would survive an AfD; whether process was technically followed or not, Angus did the right thing. Multiple policies would support him; notability, reliable sources, and WP:POINT is also an issue. Mike Christie (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Foul Mouth Shirts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This issue was never given a chance for discussion, and I feel it would be just to allow me a chance to plead my case. While I will not go so far as to say that this claim for deletion is outrageous, I will say that it is unneccessary and perhaps a bit unfair. The statement of my reference to the 1300 website references being solely based upon a statement made on the company's Myspace page is false, because those numbers are based upon information retrieved from Google.com. Therefore, the nature of Google.com makes this statement unbiased and based upon fact. I based the creation of this page on T-Shirt Hell's Wikipedia entry, and I feel it gives the same significant fact and figures that the entry for T-Shirt Hell supplies to viewers. I am a fan of this site and a consumer, and I felt that it was appropriate to put an entry to the Foulmouthshirts.com business onto Wikipedia. I did not believe that it was in the wrong, and I think that since it is a burgeoning business tha it should have an inclusive entry here on Wikipedia. There needs to be things such as this entry here on the encyclopedic forum because there are simply no other places on the net such as this where people can learn the history of places like Foulmouthshirts.com or T-Shirt Hell, because of the offensive nature of these businesses. I did my research and I found sources to supplement my entry when it was required of me. I know that the article is a stub article, but I was hoping there would be others out there who would know more about the subject matter than myself who could add onto it. That is what Wikipedia is for, is it not? A conglomeration of knowledge and ideas that a community can pool together for a complete record of fact, right? If T-Shirt hell is big enough to warrent a place here on Wikipedia merely on the fact of their size and sales record, than I truly believe that FoulMouthShirts should be included as well. If it is not included now, than it will certainly have the size and sales record to equal T-Shirt Hell eventually and will be included at that later date, so why not merit it's existance here on Wikipedia now? I'm fairly certain of these claims after the research I've done based on web-based t-shirt businesses for a college course. Please consider this deletion request carefully, because I really do not feel it is warrented. It would be a waste of the time I've put into writing it for an unwarrented reason. Thank you. Cannon 18:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn. Speedy was unwarranted, since N was being asserted, the article wasn't hopelessly spammy, and it was ref'd,--there were 3 references in the text, though not in the usual format.. Any COI requires careful looking, but there was not anything unfixably wrong in this case. I think it's not wrong to re-create after a speedy, but bringing it here does have the merit of getting it resolved more formally & avoiding another possibly unjustified speedy. All contested speedies with any merit should be allowed to go to AfD if protested (that ones with real merit are of course a small percentage). DGG 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural overturn, yeah it asserted notability, although I'd have to say that I tried to find any of the mentioned articles and nothing turns up -- there's no mention of the company online from rollingstone, time out chicago, or any of the other sources I checked. I can't find any sources other than the company's own website on google or lexis-nexis, and this is not a topic where they'd be hard to find if they existed. So yeah, it claimed some small measure of notability, but the claim seems unsubstantiated. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:SNOW. From the cache, it appears that the article tried like hell to assert notability but was spectacularly unsuccessful. Mentions in media and (low) Google hit numbers. There is no way this could pass AfD, so why clog up an already overburdened list? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No credible assertion of notability. Mentions <> coverage, and they have about the same number of inbound links as my vanity site last time I checked the count (which I rarely do). The desperate attempts to avoid WP:CSD#A7 pushed it into WP:CSD#G11, as well. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • IM+ – Deletion endorsed. Google searches are not sources. Iff sufficient reliable sources provide non-trivial coverage of this program, recreate the article in user space and seek consensus to recreate the article. – Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
IM+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Second deletion was made by mistake Dear review team, I am turning to you for there was a consensus to delete the original article about IM+. The article was posted by another editor and might have appeared as spam. Before I started composing another article about the same application, IM+, I was aware that the previous one was deleted by AfD User:Mailer_diablo . But I was not sure if I should go ahead and write a new one or debate the deletion of the original. I am a newbie. IM+ is considered to be a useful application for users who use instant messengers on the PC. It allows anyone to stay connected with friends and family and even co-workers when away from the computer. I believe any notable and worth-mentioning information should be available on Wikipedia. There are quite a few feedbacks about the application on the web. The information I posted in the article was obtained after an interview with one of the representative from the company. It is plainly the history of the product. Strictly encyclopedic material.

I have already discussed the issue with User_talk:JonHarder, User:Mailer_diablo and User_talk:Kinu.

Please find JonHarder’s comments below.

Shortly before you created the IM+ article, there was a concensus among editors that the topic did not merit inclusion in WIkipedia, as seen in this discussion. The editing patterns on the IM+ -related articles are typical of a conflict of interest, which is strongly discouraged and a factor in its deletion. Once an article is deleted through this process, attempts to recreate an article on the same topic are generally quickly removed without further discussion. That is what happened with your contribution. The deletion review process is the route to reversing the decision. In this case, it would be important to show significant new information has come to light since the deletion. Creating new articles about software is one of the most challenging ways to start editing Wikipedia because it can be difficult to adequately establish notability (see the proposed software guidelines) and to find the reliable, third-party sources required for independent verification of the material. One thing that might be helpful is to start editing a variety of existing articles, which will give you more experience with how Wikipedia works. ✤ JonHarder talk 12:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Would you please reconsider the deletion? Leanalove 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove[reply]

it's always worth taking another look at the article. Personally, I don';t think it was hopeless.DGG 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are Jeff Raymond and I claim my five pounds :o) Guy (Help!) 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many days do I have to wait for the verdict? I do realize that many skeptics would be alarmed to see several brand new users trying to post the article with the same name on Wiki. How likely is it for two people living side by side and not knowing/seeing each other, go to a little private school in another country and become friends. That actually happened with me. It may look weird...but I would like for you to review the article and let me know if it can be relisted. Most of the information was obtained from the website and an interview with the company. I hope for your understanding. Please review the article again Leanalove 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove.[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources is demonstrated to show notability which would justify overturning the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. Please check IM+ in Google trands or type it in Googlesearch field. You will notice that as of this afternoon there were 1,470,000 links. I noticed that ebuddy, another great application is listed in wikipedia. In Google there are less links 625,000 for it. This is just some interesting information in case you are doubting whether or not an article about IM+ should be in Wikipedia. I can certainly redo the article to include the information that is publicly available with all sources cited. Or do you recommend posting a short article about IM+, similar to Agile Messenger or Mig33? if I redo it, where should I post? Leanalove 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Leanalove[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Starslip Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD| AfD 2)

One of the raft of webcomics deleted/redirected following the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards deletion. Notability was demonstrated in the original article by it's winning "Outstanding Science Fiction Comic", and multiple other nominations, however this was not considered in the AfD due to Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards having been deleted as 'not notable'. Considering that this was overturned, the AfD result is questionable. Should at least be run through AfD a second time. Barberio 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I added the link to the second AfD. As the second resulted in a redirect (which is, thankfully, unprotected), that's simply an editorial decision, not one for here. I support it not being a redirect, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Echo Chernik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

author not the same as subject. Hello, I am the artist Echo Chernik, the subject of a recent article. I am a well established, contributing commercial award winning artist. I received an email a few days ago that there was an article on Wikipedia about my work. Apparently, someone logged in using my name as a login, created the article, and was disputed because they chose the subject of the article as their login. I'm here to testify that I did not write the article - I use the login echox or echoxartist whenever possible, and none other. The article, I believe, is well founded (although slightly inaccurate in points - I dare not change any points though - instead, I sent a request to Elipongo for the one important point to change). Content-wise and reference wise it is also on par with being comparable to other contemporary artists who have the same number or significantly less references. Please feel free to email me or post with questions about my identity. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by echox (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse Restoration- Not because the artist is asking, but I believe that it is well sourced. If the article is restored, please remove sources such as myspace.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Firstly thank you for the very reasonably phrased request for review. There appeared to be two main concerns with the article - notability and sources. Notability can be resolved with details of the awards that you have recieved. Would you mind listing these and any links you can find to them. Secondly, and this is a major issue, any information in an article must be Verifiable. Can you offer any secondary sources that can help us do this? The AFD was closed with only limited involvement so arguably consensus is not firmly established. Subject to the nature of the awards and the sources, I'm initially inclined to suggest relisting or restoration. Nudge me on my talk page if I don't get back to reviewing this once you have responded. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Lets see what I can do to help resolve the issues. Thank you for being so clear on what you require! Let's start with Notability.... Details of the awards (feel free to edit - I'm not sure what format or details work - but here's the facts):

- Hype Girl (Gear Girl) - GOLD AWARD | Illustration Category - Portfolios.com 2006 Awards Show. This piece *also* was awarded HP's Best in Show [69] Scroll down to the Hype Girl Piece - or back out to see the main Awards Page. Here's a description of the competition:

The Portfolios.com Award Show is an international awards competition that recognizes outstanding work in the communications field. Entries are judged by industry professionals who look for companies and individuals whose talent exceeds a high standard of excellence and whose work serves as a benchmark for the industry.

- Hype Girl (Nascar Girl) - GOLD AWARD | Pin-Up - Aphrodisia II [70] The official listing on Aristata Publishing's website. ((Also published in Aphrodisia II hardcopy - let me know if you need the ISBN or a photo of the trophy)).

- Hype Girl (Gear Girl) - GOLD AWARD | Best in Region - the Create Awards 2006 [71] This piece was also chosen from all the winners to be featured on the cover of the awards issue (Nov/Dec 2006).

I'm also on the Invitational list to the Pixel show this June, in Lake Oswego, OR. I was chosen to be one of twelve best digital artists invited to exhibit and hold a demo in their digital only show.

Let me know if there is any other information that I can provide to help you out. There were several articles - one in Create Magazine, another one that was posted last month (I actually received a message on myspace with a request to link to it - after it was published...so it was not an interview - I didn't even know about it until after!) [72] Let me know if this is the type of information that you're seeking! Thank you! echo

(see Talk:Echo Chernik)

Verifiable - I'm sorry...i'm not sure what I'm supposed to be posting for this part. Can you help point me in the right direction? What sort of things count towards this? I'm not sure where the information originally came from - it's mostly accurate, so I'm sure it came from interviews, press releases or artist statements (i release those all the time as part of promotion), and sometimes people put their own spin on them or re-hash it for a review. I come across things written about my art now and again...most of it is okay (those that aren't, I send a note to the publisher). Are you looking for things written that I didn't know about until afterwards? Can you clarify what I can provide to help? Im not sure what we're looking for... Thanks! echo

    • Restore At least one of the awards is a professionally judged national award for published work so notability is established. What we need to work towards is finding independant multiple sources to verify any information included. Rather than stubbify why don't we restore this in my userspace and I can move it into mainspace once I have sorted that out. I can work with the subject to iron out any flaws before we do this and this will avoid any COI issued. Can a kind admin restore the thing in my user space and I can start? The only question is whether I need to bring it back to DRV once I'm done or just be bold?? Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I'm a bit sceptical about some those awards - they do not seem to be the kind where critics get together and decide what has merit, they seem to be the sort where you submit your own work. But the Google results do look significant. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The award shows cited are industry awards (for working professionals), and receive 5000-10000 entries. They're not works created for fun, but for industry use. I can post up more information on each, if you prefer. I receive solicitations for award shows - but these aren't PhotoshopUserAwards.com or such where anyone can enter. They are published pros only, with a large range of work submitted each year. Let me know if you need information about them?

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Photon Belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have been researching this for about a week now and have found many more sources that make this notable, in my opinion. See User:Eep²/The Photon Belt for my progress thus far. The admin who deleted it, User:Sandstein, has restored the article at my request so I may compare it to my version. I asked for input from other contributors to the original article but only one has contributed biased comments, which I have been researching/disputing accordingly. However, I feel there is now enough credible, reliable sources for this article to be restored. -Eep² 08:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense" is not WP:NPOV. Yes, it's pseudoscience but it has SOME basis in science. I don't know German, and haven't read a translated version of Hesse's book to see what, if any, his references are. This may simply be a case of "lost in translation" that got warped and twisted. I have contacted Harrington about the Native American prophecy, and have been researching it myself, but haven't had much luck yet; this idea could be VERY old... -Eep² (Talk) 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautiously allow this, as long as we can be certain that the article remains clear that no reputable cosmologist actually accepts this twaddle. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very neutral of you calling it "twaddle" (another word for "nonsense", incidentally), Jz... -Eep² (Talk) 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually understand what neutral point of view means? Differing view points are given coverage weighted by their prevelance. If the predominant point of view is that this is nonsense, then the article is quite welcome to say that. --pgk 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that is a completely neutral way of describing a theory founded on a number of premises all of which are known to be complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not neutral because I have seen sources (like LaViolette)[73] that specifically dispute the photon belt but recognizes its societal affect related to his own work. However, he never mentions Paul Otto Hesse who supposedly came up with the idea in 1949--30 years before LaViolette claims to have posted his "galactic superwave" theory. I'm still awaiting a reply from Harrington regarding his Native American prophesy, so this idea could be much older if it can be verified. Unfortunately, I don't know much about Native American mythology/prophesy and haven't had much luck researching this particular prophesy thus far (only an hour or so spent, however). But just outright claling this "nonsense", "bollocks", "twaddle", and other biased terms is NOT neutral. LaViollete calls it "absurd" and "ludicrous" but he's done the research--have you? I have to an extent and yet I am not calling it negatively (or positively)--I am simply providing facts. A decent translation of Hesse's book would help to decipher this further--and what references he gives, if any... I don't have a problem labelling it as pseudoscience and fringe science, but anything more negatively biased is against WP:NPOV and must be cited by reliable sources (not just some random message forum posting who thinks it's "bollocks", "twaddle"--or Wikipedia "consensus" thinks it's "nonsense"). However, even LaViollete's criticism needs sources; it may be common knowledge to him and perhaps other scientists, but not to non-scientists/laypeople. -Eep² (Talk|Contribs) 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Societal effect is irrelevant, reliable independent sources indicate that the idea is twaddle. It asserts, and is contingent on, a model of galactic structure which is contradicted by mainstream scholarship, including the idea that the solar system orbits Pleiades, which it doesn't, it asserts and is contingent on the existence of a photon belt, which is contradicted by the laws of physics as understood and lacks any basis in peer-reviewed science, it asserts and is contingent on that belt being of a truly remarkable size, yet ignores the fact that no cosmologist has observed it. In other words, it is complete bollocks. It has not been published as a theory in any mainstream cosmology journals. It is scientifically ignorable bollocks. But is is believed by a significant number of people, despite the total lack of credible supporting evidence, so it is notable bollocks. WP:SPADE. We have dealt before with situations where a theory has been propounded, but the scientific community has simply discounted it. If it has not been published in reputable journals, despite having achieved a certain prominence, it is fair to say that science discounts it. Like Time Cube. Bollocks, but notable bollocks. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for all of these criticisms would be appreciated, even if they are "laws of physics", is "scientifically ignorable", and where it has been discounted by so-called reputable scientists (which, if they have ignored it, might be difficult). ;) -Eep² (Talk|Contribs) 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was goign form the article. If you say those criticisms are not published and that there are absolutely no mainstream critiques of the theory, then it is obviously discounted by the mainstream and complete bollocks. It's a heck of a catch, that catch-22. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Non-acknowledgement is not discountment. -Eερ² (T|C) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Sorin Cerin – Deletion Endorsed - Comments that did not focus on policy from recently registered editors set aside, there is only one editor who believes overturning is appropriate. The existance of an article on another wikipedia is not a default-to-keep statement. As such, the procedural correctness of the initial AFD is verified. If a new, sourced article can be created, please feel free to do so in your user space and then seek consenus for it's inclusion as an article. – Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sorin Cerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV|AfD2)

User:Mukadderat and User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh deleted and protect the page to be restored because nonverifiable notability after the page have been restored by User:Trialsanderrors Now the notability of Sorin Cerin is verifiable http://sorincerin.lx.ro/SorinCerin_Coaxialismul_English.htm , where the book review of "The coaxialism" was made by a researcher of Romanian Academy. Coaxialismul was published in 2007 and deletion have been in 25 December 2006.Sorin Cerin is an important romanian philosopher with many books.He is the author of a new vision in philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircias (talk • contribs)

  • do not overturn The source cited says "This book represents an audacious contribution to contemporary philosophy"-- that nobody else has noticed it in print, and that's what's needed for an article. DGG 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is many other articles in print about Cerin.The book have been published in April 2007 and AfD2 been in December 2006.Do you have degree in philosophy?The article was printed in Romanian Revue of Philosophy.I respect all decisions but I make an appeal to reason.Why should to be deleted Cerin?Just because the webpage does nothing alleviate the neutrality problems?Which neutrality?RespectfullyMircias 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD2 An effusive review on the subject's webpage does nothing to alleviate the neutrality problems with this article, i.e. it doesn't show that anyone other than a partisan minority wants to have an article on Cerin, nor does it demonstrate that his new vision in philosophy has garnered notable attention. ~ trialsanderrors 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There seems to be an article well-written in Romanian Wikipedia, so I assume it has its merit to be kept. WooyiTalk to me? 00:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm professor of philosophy in a university located in Bucharest and not a wikipedian until today,because is first time when write here.Is awful and absurd to not restore and overturn the article about Cerin,who is an important romanian philosopher.Why for romanian wikipedia is good and for en.wiki not?Any envious vagrant can take a secret username and to write here,so the revange begin.I don't know who is the names who doesn't agree Cerin, but I know who is Sorin Cerin.DPhilro 12:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnRomanian Academy is the most important cultural and scientifical institution from Romania and not a fancy club or pub.In December when I ask to be keept Cerin was in vain.Maybe now somebody here me.This was the reason because my work with en.wiki was stop.In en.wiki is a lot of people so called philosopher without works,or significant works like Cerin.L.Marchis 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD2, no evident problem with process and no new evidence presented. As noted, subject is a determined self-promoter, there does not appear to be any proper claim to notability which does not trace back to that self-promotion. Note that the Romanian Wikipedia has an article, which may or may not also be vanispamcruftisement, but the sources cited are predominantly in Romanian - a problem for verification in the English Wikipedia - and I can't find any significant neutral coverage of this individual. Note also that the requester has no edits whatosever other than to this request. Accusations of "cowards" and "cliques" are not terribly persuasive, and the existence of a book review is not quite the same thing as multiple non-trivial independent sources. The 115 unique Google hits for this individual is around the same number of hits I get. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievable.If is not cliquism is very serious!I'm doctor and suggest you to find a very good doctor,psychiatrist because Romanian Academy doesn't make self promotion,and all from above talk about the new book of Cerin,"The Coaxialism" who been launched in April 2007 and AfD2 was in December 2006.If you ask Endorse AfD 2 please tell me what links find you between bicycles and philosphy?New evidence?New evidence is the Book Review of Romanian Academy from April 2007 again and again this Book Review have been released after 5 months when AfD2 been related.I hope in honest peoples not only in cowards or in cliquismL.Marchis 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without the ability to read Romanian, the Romanian sources linked at the Romanian article don't help. I note that none of the English language sources there are reliable sources by standards here. Consensus was quite clear in AFD2. We need independent and reliable sources to have a case, and the nomination does not offer any that meet those criteria. So I endorse deletion, and suggest that any attempt at a new version be done strictly in accordance with the recomendations at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and RestoreI am romanian and have the ability to read in my language.The romanian site with Sorin Cerin is very serious and have a lot of reliable sources about Cerin.Romanian Academy and Romanian Revue of Philosophy is most important publication of philosophy from Romania.If you need we can sent to you a scan image with revue,or date,number,tom,etc,of publication.Sorin Cerin was a marginal writer before "The Coaxialism".I beleive in a possible self-promotion in english,but the state of affairs is change,and Cerin is an important romanian philosopher now.The old article in english must to be completely restored to show what represent Cerin in philosophy and not about other sources of notability which Cerin don't have.Indeed,AfD2 was before to be recognize Cerin.Marianas 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RestoreDelete all article and then re-write in accordance to what means Cerin now.He is important only like philosopher and nothing else.The author of Book Review is reliable.Search on Google and see.She wrote hundred of articles about philosophy.AfD2 was right because in that point in time (December 2006)Cerin doesn't represent anything,possible only self-promotion.Marcuvas 08:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnWhy delete article and re-write?AfD2 was right? Who sign in AfD2?I tell you.First is a salesman from Bucharest who try to change entire romanian history together with Irina.Second boy is a mobile phone dealer and MP3 salesman who ask about money from people who wish to have a site here.Another one is a school student who don't know where is Romania located.The whole kit who decide in AfD2 if this philosopher can remain or not in en.wiki.This people are more reliable like Romanian Academy in the eyes of a BS in mathematics from MIT?Romanian site about Cerin is very serious.Go to inform there.Secretloan 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Omnitopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe there is an easy solution to issues raised in discussion Andywo 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note: I have moved this from Content Review above.

First, let me copy/paste from the resolution: "The result was delete. Comment on lengthy discussion: the two independent references may possibly cover the concept, but the do not cover the term (simply because they predate this neologism). Therefore I am sorry to conclude that the discussion didn't sway the opinion of the majority of voters. `'mikka 01:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

mikka recently added to content review above (I'm copy/pasting with no alteration):

    • Below is the complete list of references from the article in question. "Wood A." is user:Andywo. I fail to understand the alleged error. The article lacked any secondary sources, i.e., 100% OR of Woood A. `'mikka 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wood, A. (2005). "What happens [in Vegas]": Performing the post-tourist flâneur in "New York" and "Paris". Text and Performance Quarterly, 25(4), 315-333. ([74])
    • Wood, A. (2005). "The best surprise is no surprise': Architecture, imagery, and omnitopia among American mom and pop motels. Space and Culture, 8(4), 399-415. ([75])
    • Wood, A. & Todd, A.M. (2005). "Are we there yet?": Searching for Springfield and the Simpsons' rhetoric of omnitopia. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(3), 207-222. ([76])
    • Wood, A. (2003). A rhetoric of ubiquity: Terminal space as omnitopia. Communication Theory, 13(3), 324-344. ([77])
    • Augé, Marc. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London, Verso Books, 1995.
    • Robert Venturi, D. Scott Brown, and S. Izenour, Learning from Las Vegas, MIT Press, Boston, Mass., 1972.

--

Here's the error in a nutshell. The deletion discussion reveals that the addition of two secondary sources, which exist right now, would resolve the problem. This edit would take all of a few moments. However, rather than address the merits of that solution, an administrator summarily eliminated the entry.

Here are the details...

First, please review the discussion on this case [[78]]. Reviewing it, you'll note plentiful references to two essays that are clearly not written by Wood [me], that have appeared following the four peer reviewed journals. Here's a copy/paste from the discussion:

"Omnitopia research has also been cited in another journal from another discipline, representing an engagement with the topic as a serious idea [79]. It has also been cited in a master's thesis [80], appearing on more than ten pages of that work and reflecting emerging knowledge that has passed its own rigorous peer review."

I also proposed:

"If the only issue is that these two non-Wood citations of omnitopia -- Mark B. Salter's (University of Ottawa) International Political Sociology essay and Richard Scot Barnett's (North Carolina State University) master's thesis -- need to be integrated into the entry, I have no problem with either (1) doing so myself, (2) inviting another person to do so, or (3) awaiting that revision with no action done by me."

There was some discussion about whether citing a master's thesis would be appropriate, but there was agreement about the validity of the Salter piece. Indeed, a person who led the debate changed his opinion, stating:

"I think notability has been satisfied on this page (though not in the article as it stands); there are four published articles focused on Omnitopia and at least one other independent, non-trivial, published source. (I don't know if Master's theses count as published sources for Wikipedia. Someone should check.) I think the article should be kept with input from the new source or sources. Jordansc 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

After Jordansc changed his vote to "keep" I reiterated:

"I suppose a useful next step is to revise the omnitopia entry to include that independent non-trivial published source. As I've mentioned, I'm happy to do so. But if the group prefers, I'd be just as happy for someone else to take on that edit."

Thereafter I waited for some response. No one else said anything, leaving me to presume the Wiki-policy that silence equals consent [81]. However, mikka simply eliminated the entry. I read his rationale and found virtually no engagement with the substantive issues raised in the discussion.

I request reconsideration. Andywo 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Pretty much as the deletion it appears to be a neologism coined by the author (hence most of the sources are his own work), the two independent sources apparently (I haven't read them) don't make use of the term. All they do is confirm the basic concept exists, wikipedia is not the place to reinforce new terminology at best this could be moved to a different title for coverage of the underlying concept. --pgk 07:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues, pgk: Until you *read* the two non-Wood sources, how do you feel qualified to evaluate their handling of the term? More importantly, all this talk about "independent sources" is sidestepping Wiki-policy, presuming omnitopia to be OR.
Here is a copy/paste from Wikipedia's statement on OR: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion."
As I stated in the original discussion, a reasonable inference from that policy is that publication in peer-reviewed journals constitutes a warrant for Wikipedia to report about the work. Omnitopia research has been published in four separate peer-reviewed journals, representing two distinct disciplines. These journals have editorial boards that represent the contemporary state of their respective fields; they are clearly *independent* of their authors. The pieces have been evaluated by anonymous experts in the field prior to publication. And they endured "merciless editing" (as per Wiki-parlance) of more than a drive-by quality.
Any participant of this discussion who has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal would know that.
But let me say it again, just in case I'm being unclear: Anonymous peer review means that published research represents more than the author's opinion.
The entry cited those pieces, making them available to any reader who takes the time to peruse them and evaluate whether the material is verifiable. Omnitopia research has also been cited in another journal from another discipline, representing an engagement with the topic as a serious idea [82]. It has also been cited in a master's thesis [83], appearing on more than ten pages of that work and reflecting emerging knowledge that has passed its own rigorous peer review. If that doesn't reflect a "part of accepted knowledge," I don't know what does. Andywo 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Mikka generally gets it right and the closure clearly falls within the closing admin's discretion. Neologism by definition don't justify inclusion unless there are multiple third party contemporary references. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to sound snippy but "Mikka generally gets it right" and the previous "I haven't read them" leads me to the conclusion that stated policy, evidence, and reasoning do not count for much in this forum. Read your response carefully and notice that you failed to address the substantive issue raised by my response to pgk or mikka: anonymous peer review [[84]] ensures that published research represents more than the author's opinion.
Is this how consensus is established in Wikipedia? If so, don't be surprised that this site is increasingly abandoned by editors with professional expertise. Andywo 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, believe there is an easy solution, and it is to endorse deletion of this vanity article. It's not a neologism, its a protologism, and Wikipedia is being abused in an attempt to popularise it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is no doubt. Following Wiki-policy and demonstrating an ability to follow the details of debate are not valued in this forum. It is clear that administrators need not possess anything more than an internet connection and some spare time to conduct drive-by editing. I presume I don't have a vote in this forum, but I recommend that this debate be closed and the entry be deleted. I'm available through back-channels but I have no more time for this silliness. Andywo 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PGNx Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2|DRV|AfD3)

Original Request

  • I want to add the following article: [85] (if there is a better way to show the original article please let me know)
    • Website notability has been proven with Spider-Man 3 controversy an Gamasutra article
  • Notability concerns:
    • Review archive: nearly 1,300 reviews, 33rd largest (all print and online sources), 21st largest (active online) [86]
    • Gamasutra article where content from website is compared to content from GameSpot: [87]
    • Articles where it is primary subject: Joystiq [88]; BBPS [89]; Videolamer [90]
    • Mentioned in high-profile websites: Penny-Arcade (who also devoted 7 minutes of its podcast to the website) [91]
    • Reviews syndication on: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Gamerankings, GameStats and Gametab
    • WEB #3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster
* PGNx Media's content is distributed by Rotten Tomatoes, which is well known, owned by IGN Entertainment (whereas PGNx Media is owned by PGNx Media, Inc) and qualifies as an online publisher --> three requirements for WEB #3
  • Deletion process concern
  • Note: This deletion review proposal has been linked to on the talk pages of the closing administrator, those who participated in the latest articles for deletion discussion, as well as those who participated in the article's talk page.

Arielguzman 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note by closing admin Arielguzman (talk · contribs) is in all likelihood a sockpuppet of Infomanager (talk · contribs) (RFCU) and therefore afffiliated with PGNx Media. The prior DRV and the AfD3 were marred by sockpuppetry, so the AfD 3 was cancelled. I have no problems if an unaffiliated editor in good standing writes an article that alleviates the problems brought up in the prior AfD, but as Mikkalai posted on my talk page: "Massive longtime sockpuppetting with commercial purposes is a grave violation. It is not, like, teenagers trying to bend rules of adults. This person must bear full responsibility for his acts. The article must stay deleted until independent request." ~ trialsanderrors 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final note: Editors, please feel free to use my talk page as a starting point for this article. trials seems to be okay with the subject matter so long as an established editor writes the article. Go ahead and make it your own, though, since I would really like to see this article published in some form. Arielguzman 05:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion Being picked up by sites which indiscriminately collect reviews is trivial and not notable. That aside, should the sockpuppetry case be confirmed (is the copy at Arielguzman a duplicate of PGNx Media?) then this should be closed as quickly as possible as disruption. Phony Saint 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can include Gamasutra with "sites which indiscrimately collect reviews."[92] Further, as the PGnx article is but one of three that I've essentially rewritten in the past week I don't see why it would be a cause for concern. In any case, no the article is taken from here[93] which I believe was the same article found on Wikipedia before it was deleted (though I have essentially rewritten the notability segment) Arielguzman 05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah it's a modified duplicate. Also, I'm not "ok" with the subject matter, I have no opinion on the subject matter. I have an opinion concerning spammers who use lies and deception to push their commercial content onto Wikipedia, and it's not a positive one. ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I don't see much evidence of support for this other than sockpuppets. At the very least we should wait a while to let the dust settle. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I would be more receptive if this had been a ground-up rewrite by an independent third-party editor, but the current effort to resurrect this article reminds me too much of the previous attempts to abuse the AFD and DRV processes. Once bitten, twice shy. --Alan Au 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion recommend investigation of user who brought this to DRV. Clearly a sockpuppet by edits, behaviour, knowledge of wikipedia procedures, etc.--Crossmr 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely no evidence of sockpuppetry other than an interest in an article that previously had sockpuppets. Is there a rule that wikipedia procedure is so complicated that is is impossible to understand in a week? Arielguzman 23:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your edits show a particular obsession with this topic, almost immediately attempting to undelete it, this is an amazing edit for your 4th edit [94]. This text doesn't appear in any google cache, so I'm sure the resemblance to the deleted article is purely coincidence. especially since it includes images that were deleted months ago [95]. Immediate fixation on a deleted article known for many sockpuppets, pulling up text which doesn't seem to be cached, it only leads one place.--Crossmr 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The old article, made in Jan 2007, can be found here: [[96]. I feel like you're making unsubstantiated assumptions you begin making statements like "show ____" and "_____ known for many sockpuppets." And that is all. I've no interest in getting into an edit war with you. I will continue to work on this article with people who haven't already made up their minds to delete it. Arielguzman 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Close, but no cigar. The version you immediately posted was properly linked and included images deleted months ago. That version doesn't. There is no way you dug around and found the exact names of images that were deleted months ago, in fact that would be a likely impossible task unless you were an admin who could see the old version and find out what the old deleted image names were. While the about us article was likely a cut and paste from here cleaned up to use their images, your addition wasn't a cut and paste back, as well it included the previous table. The only way you mimic that is by having a copy from having previously worked on it and saving it when it before it was removed.--Crossmr 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't help that one of the original sockpuppets was named Guzman too. Really, we expect a bit more creativity here. ~ trialsanderrors 05:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you serious? You do realize that Guzman is one of the most common hispanic last names, right? This is similar to saying "Oh yea, one of the last sockpuppets had the last name Smith... they MUST be related." Arielguzman 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Quite serious. I've already pointed out you created content that you couldn't possibly have access to if you just showed up at wikipedia when your account was created. Given the fixation on an article know for sockpuppets, the fact that you have material that isn't cached anywhere, and the similarity in names to a previous sockpuppet its quite obvious.--Crossmr 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Given your fixation on me, and given trials', and given the similarities between the two names (both have 2 Ss), I guess you two are both sockpuppets. Its quite obvious. In any case, please see my comment below.Arielguzman 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What makes it obvious is your creation of long deleted and non-cached content. Had it been recreated as an exact mirror of the article you claim it came from, that might have passed and been non-obvious. But since you chose to recreate the article from the deleted copy which isn't available anywhere, including links you couldn't possibly have known about if you were a genuine new user, then it makes the puppetry obvious. The copy you created only comes from someone who saved the previous source of the article--Crossmr 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion: Normally, if this was an AfD I'd probably vote keep or weak keep given the sources presented (I don't have the anti-blog bias that most other editors; Joystiq is an example of a multi-contributor blog that's quite well regarded in the industry). However, the infiltration of sock-puppets of the article's creator in the previous discussion really destroys any of my sympathy. I'm an inclusionist by nature, but these discussions need to be kept totally above-board. I'm not against seeing this article return at some point in the future, but I'd suggest to the article's creator that it really needs to establish some sources that nobody will question. Tarinth 12:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am no longer interested in having this article restored. I will be working on a completely new article under the supervision of Wikipedia editors who weren't previously involved in the deletion of the article. Thank you. Arielguzman 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Just Tah Let U Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Single by famous rapper Eazy-E, charted on three separate charts during its 1995 release in the United States alone, speedy deleted completely out of process by User:Mel Etitis. badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, completely pointless trying to apply Articles-7 to songs by obviously notable artists unless there's so little content it meets Articles-1/3 - which this doesn't (although after we remove the link of dubious copyright status, which must be done when/if it's undeleted, it's close). Redirecting may be preferable but that's outside DRV's remit. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. Singles by notable musicians are generally considered notable, so being an Eazy-E single is a claim of notability in itself. Blatantly invalid A7. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hampton Catlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are only two votes in the AfD. The proper course of action would have been to relist it. dcandeto 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunate endorse unless you can provide some sources. It seems like the issue was a lack of those, which are important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If there are only two votes in an AfD, there is not a clear consensus. The AfD should have been relisted, not closed. Also, the claim of a conflict of interest in the AfD (namely, that he was editing the article about him) is demonstrably false. dcandeto 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's pretty clear, really. There's no such thing as a quorum here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no consensus in the AfD, either. (If you need more evidence that it was done hastily, note that the other two articles mentioned in it still exist and have AfD notices on them.) dcandeto 00:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wasn't particularly hasty. There was a full week to add sources. If you have new evidence, or any reason for undeletion that wasn't considered originally, then provide that. Otherwise 3-0 (counting the nom) seems plenty clear when the lack of sourcing isn't in dispute. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your saying otherwise doesn't change the fact that that's not true. For a low-traffic article with two votes, de facto protocol was clearly breached by not relisting. Consensus was not reached. dcandeto 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • To clarify: I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, just that the deletion was done improperly. I'm just saying that the AfD was closed as if there was a consensus when there was not. The admin who closed it didn't even read the whole AfD—and didn't delete any article except for Hampton Catlin. There was no discussion on either of the other two articles, which were summarily deleted without discussion. As it stands now, the other two articles weren't deleted via the AfD, and as such could be recreated at any time; they would not fall under CSD, either. dcandeto 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. How many people participate in an AfD is irrelevant if there is no coverage in reliable sources. If anyone else had come along and participated, either they would have said 'delete', or they would have said 'keep' but been discounted for handwaving if they didn't provide any evidence of notability, or they would have been able to provide such evidence, in which case, bring it up here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The other two articles included in the AfD (Howdtheyvote and Haml) weren't deleted, and are still sitting there with AfD notices on their pages. Someone should take care of those. WarpstarRider 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article was deleted per consensus on the basis of no WP:RS, which looking at the last version seems appropriate. This deletion review has not provided any information indicating otherwise. --Kinu t/c 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This article falls under speedy deletion A7 criteria (non-notable person).--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote, it is a discusison. The minimum participation for an AFD is 1 nominator + 1 closing admin, provided it ran at least 5 days. This ran 7 days. No new information presented in this nomination, so no reason to overturn. GRBerry 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the number of people participating in a discussion is irrelevant; the issue is the strength of the arguments. There was complete agreement, with no dissent, that this is not notable and there were insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:V. The fact that people didn't bother to pile on and repeat those same arguments over and over is good, and has no bearing on the outcome. The fact that nobody disagreed is what's important, and how we can judge this to be a consensus. If you want this undeleted, address the concerns that were raised, rather than trying to find procedural excuses to ignore policy. Xtifr tälk 04:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Whyville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was wrongfully deleted. Not much more to say. USADude 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
André Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was kept by the closing admin despite the AfD having only 3 contributions from long-term editors (2 !votes to delete, 1 to keep) with two other editors (one anon, one single-purpose account) also involved (~15 edits between them, all to either Andre Walker or closely related pages). Seemingly the closing admin mistakenly thought that the individual was a presenter on the BBC (he's actually a sometime presenter on QVC, the shopping channel, as clearly stated in his article) and thus a major celebrity. He is not. My main thesis is that the debate should have been relisted to engender further debate; I'm not sure how consensus (or lack of it) can be accurately gauged on the basis of a 2:1 majority from 3 editors Badgerpatrol 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please in the future use the exact article title in question in template parameters. `'mikka 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments of the closing admin (me) are in Talk:André Walker. As for the number of editors, I would like to mention that by wikipedia rules it was 4, not 3. I could have wanted to disregard user:Boboba if they were a significant contributor to the article. They may as well could have been, as an anon contributor. But this would further invalidate your argument about small number of contributions. Also, it is no a "single-purpose account"; it is a "single-topic account", even disregarding the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts as long as they don't disrupt wikipedia. `'mikka 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't quite follow you...can you explain your first statement more clearly about including or discounting !votes? The arguments on the AfD ("Has hosted and appeared on shows of notable media broadcasters"; "media appearances as a presenter" (on QVC and his local student TV station...) bear no relation whatsoever to anything to be found on WP:BIO. This is a guideline...but surely it's a guideline that's meant to be followed unless there is some pressing reason not to? If the AfD was decided on the quality of the arguments rather than the number of contributors taking each side (regardless of whether accounts were single purpose (in this case, promoting the Walker family) or not), then I think the outcome should have been fairly clear. AfD is not a majority vote. Although as noted below it will be a simple matter to re-list the article in the near future when it will presumably get wasted, it is a little bit frustrating when policy, guidelines and process are ignored in this way- which happens all to often on Wikipedia. I can't help but think that the fact that the closing admin erroneously believed that this individual was a presenter on the BBC significantly affected his thinking- this is not stated in the article and I do not understand where he got the notion from. In fact, he's an occasional presenter on QVC. This article has been created either by the subject themselves or a very close associate, and exists for no other reason than to promote Andre Walker's mediocre career. It is an affront to Wikipedia and shouldn't be here. Anyway, no biggie- see you again in a month! ;-) Badgerpatrol 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave this article on just to upset Badgerpatrol, this is a BIG chip. In fact I'm considering writing an informative piece about Andre Walker's gran for good measure. 20:38 18/05/07
What's the big deal? Wait a month and relist it. No one's going to hurt you for relisting a no-consensus closed article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I'm quite sure no-one would hurt you if you decided to be less patronising. I'm well aware of how AfD works and the procedure for re-listing articles. Badgerpatrol 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with above. Unless there's a good reason to believe that further discussion would have created a clear consensus, there's no pressing reason to overturn a no consensus result. -Amarkov moo! 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. Might even win an election. DGG 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Captain Waters/band/room (edit | [[Talk:User:Captain Waters/band/room|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

I needed the text in this page, but it was deleted before I could do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genes6 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need it because of personal reasons. But I agree you send me it by email. If you can, I'd also want to receive all the pages under User:Captain Waters/band. Thank you. P/S: There is an edit where the page was blanked. Send the text as he was before, please. Genesis | Please sell England by the pound*** | on 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category:Neutral Good Wikipedians was deleted as part of a set Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/April_2007#April_27. I created a new category under the same name. It was deleted (CSD G4: Recreation of Deleted Material). Neither the CSD G4 deletion nor the original reason for deletion apply to the new category because, unlike the deleted categories, the new category is not meant to pay homage to Dungeons and Dragons. The re-created category described a wikipedia philosophy, particularly applicable for users who contribute in project space, and to be a useful to user communication as the number of users increases. This reason for re-creation is unlikely to be seen to apply most of the other several categories deleted SmokeyJoe 07:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.


Daniel DiCriscio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

administrator agressively changed article and tried to delete it many times before deleting the entire article along with user page, other spellings of same name, and blocked the recreation of this article. We believe this was vandalism and for personal reasons because Mr. DiCriscio is currently involved in a celebrity feud on many celebrity internet sites and this act was a form of retaliation. It is obvious this is the case being that the article was written in Feb. 2007 without problems and even when we did begin getting questions and harrassment on the article, we changed many things to comply with them and made the article as neutral as possible. This article had more reliable sources than anyone else in Mr. DiCriscio's field, including "The Washington Post", "New York Daily News", "New York Post", "The News Journal", etc. It was too obvious that while we were working on the article, it was being taken down and all our work was quickly deleted right when we put a protection on the article from vandallism. 12.9.32.226 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, afd if necessary. The article was a bit excessively promotional in tone, but what appears to have happened is an edit war over the addition of numerous unfree promotional photos to the article, followed by a speedy deletion without cause by Zscout370. It was recreated and deleted first as a blank page, because the recreating user didn't put any content into it, and then as an A7 biography, which obviously didn't apply with numerous cited media references. It was bad, it was overly promotional, but it was not a legitimate speedy deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the history so that anyone who wants can go see what happened. Note that the blanking to a semi-protection tag was a recreation of the page, not a blanking by the creator. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why I made it bye-bye was due to some self promotion issues; it was deleted once before, having the same content, for failing to meet our inclusion criteria for biographies. I also reviewed this with User:Danny, who excised the article of photos due to lack of a PD release. Honestly, I am not sure if he is noting having an article, but if it can be cut down to a stub that isn't spammy or a BLP nightmare; fine by me. Also, as for the protections of the article the IP was discussing, they added the tags but any protections were not done (except for me salting the damn thing). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this deletion. Vanispamcruftisement concerns seem well-founded, and there are fewer than 200 unique Google hits for the name, with the subject's MySpace top of the heap, which does not indicate significance in the present celerbity-obsessed media climate, so although the assertion of notability is made (indeed made hyperbolically), it is implausible. If he really did coin the term "celebrity iumage consultant" and "bring back" the makeover (which as far as I can tell never went away) then you would expect massively more google hits than this. Such coverage as was cited in earlier versions of the article is trivial, rarely rising above the level of namechecks. Vanity content from single-purpose accounts who edit war over any attempt to neutralise it - precisely the kind of "content" we don't need. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't AFD, and the article didn't meet speedy criteria. Plus, google is a shitty measure of notability. Sure, you may not like the celebrity gossip, but not all of the press coverage is trivial, and a quick search turned up some recent spat with Bobby Trendy, as well as numerous interviews with him as an expert by everyone from Catherine Crier[98] to Sasha Baron Cohen (as Bruno)[99]. That he's getting namechecked doesn't mean that's the only coverage out there, and the proper solution is to at least entertain the possibility of finding better sources. It seems like he's gotten a lot of coverage on TV and other sources that don't turn up in google. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, did not meet any speedy deletion criterion whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD - sufficient notability asserted for this not to be a speedy. TerriersFan 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. that's about as spamvertisining as you can get, and talk about peacock terms! But unfortunately, it doesn't meet speedy criteria, so overturn and immediatley list at AfD, where it will surely wind up deleted unless there are reliable sources provided. Corvus cornix 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD Whatever thsi is, it isn't a valid speedy. Whether it will survive AfD, perhaps in a cleaned up form, is hard to say. DES (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Easy Reader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted (I am unclear if this was intended to be a WP:SPEEDY deletion or an uncontested WP:PROD) for being about a "local newspaper" and a "plausible ad". I believe this article should be restored, as it is about a notable local weekly newspaper in the South Bay area of Los Angeles. It has a circulation of 57,000 and is listed at the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies[100]. It was also known in the 1980s for its in-depth coverage of the McMartin preschool trial. I am not affiliated with this paper in any way, and I will improve the article if it needs improving. DHowell 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wicked Lasers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Previous DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 10

Was marked as spam and speed deleted despite the fact that proof of notability was provided on the talk page. The company is a major player in the field of commercial lasers and is reffered to quite often when high powered handheld lasers are mentioned. I just created the page because I had come to wikipedia to learn more about the company but to my surprise it did not have an article about it. Energman 15:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does not seem to be spam in the usual sense - indeed it hardly seems to be an articel about a company at all. Notability may be an issue, but IMO that should be addressed via AfD rather than a speedy deletion. Overturn and List on AfD. DES (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly support overturning and AfD if necessary; some of the article is a mishmash of http://www.wickedlasers.com/, such as the "light your cigarette" or "laser hobbyists, enthusiasts, ..." lines. Initial versions of the article are clean but assert no notability and have no sources, but that might be fixed with links here. Phony Saint 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it amusing that you think it "does not seem to be spam in the usual sense." To me, the version I saw when I added the db-spam template on April 22 appears to be a textbook example of what a (very carefully constructed) Wikipedia spam article looks like, especially in its attempt to disguise itself as a neologism, "wicked lasers". It is among the nicest examples of corporate spam I've come across here, but nevertheless, the article as it stood on April 22 was pure spam and advertising for this company, which is not notable to the point of inclusion in any encyclopedia (Google hits are not the final arbiter). I've worked in a lab full of low- and high-powered lasers for most of the past 12 years, and this company is not a notable laser supplier for any scientific or commercial purpose, i.e. they are certainly not "a major player in the field of commercial lasers". For example, I've never seen them in Laser Focus World, which is the main industry magazine for commercial lasers and photonics. They are just one of many (usually Chinese) companies supplying the very lucrative, high-power laser-pointers-for-teens market. Are we going to allow every laser pointer company to post a detailed, well-illustrated advertisement on Wikipedia (as GreenGarnet (talk · contribs) has done here)? I hope not. If this company is in fact a market leader in that market, and therefore marginally worthy of an article, then that article would look nothing like the current (i.e. April 22) version. So nothing is lost by keeping this deleted, while overturning the speedy deletion would imply that it was not proper. However, the article fit WP:CSD#G11 exactly as of that date, and so speedy deletion appears to have been appropriate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I understand not spam in the usual sense to mean that there is substantial non-spam content, and so there is. "Freak" is a good description. Some of it could even be kept as a subject article, though the title might need changing, as there is no evidence that "wicked lasers" is the generic. Obviously its not relevant as industrial lasers, but this is an entertainment laser. Worth a discussion on AfD, not here. Have they been asked for GFDL release for the images? I do not see that the present state is irrelevant. If better content is created, it merits restoration. I think we encourage that. DGG 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but revert to this version before GreenGarnet replaced the article with spam. As already noted, the name GreenGarnet (see Nd:YAG laser) and their uploads suggests that they have a strong WP:COI. -- RHaworth 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the version I wrote originally --Energman 08:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'm comfortable with overturning and going back to an earlier version, even though I still think the company is only marginally worthy (at best) of inclusion in any encyclopedia. However, I think the edits by Drmmr943 (talk · contribs) were of very poor quality, so we should go back to the version of 22:47, 29 March 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs | block) m (Date/fix maintenance tags) just prior to that. This seems to be the last clean version from which to build a reasonable article. Also, now that everyone commenting here has that article on their watchlist (hopefully), we can quickly revert any attempts to re-introduce spam. And Energman, since you are the main proponent of this article, I would suggest that adding a references section with several sources in it would be a good idea immediately following the conclusion of this DRV, to further de-emphasize the ext link to the company's website which stands as the only "source" in the 29 March 2007 version. --Seattle Skier (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, revert to last non-spammy version, and list. While I think spam is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems, and am generally in favor of stamping it out with extreme prejudice, WP:CSD#G11 is for pages which "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". If there's a non-spammy version in the history, G11 obviously doesn't apply. That said, several editors have expressed (and I share) concern about the notability of the company. One of the reasons for limiting our content to notable topics is that non-notable topics don't get watched carefully, and quickly become havens for spam and/or libel. So listing this at AfD to decide if it's worth keeping this (and risking the re-spammification) is obviously the right thing to do. Xtifr tälk 21:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_16-31&oldid=1108885192"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy